Getting Qurban meat for the needy everywhere

KUALA LUMPUR: For most Malaysians – unless they are vegetarian – meat is a common fare in their daily meals but in some parts of the world, however, meat is a rare delicacy. And hunger is an everyday affair.

This is especially true in war-torn countries or those recovering from natural disasters, said Muhammad Kamarulazizi, fund-raising and marketing manager for Muslim Aid Malaysia Humanitarian Founda­tion.

Since 2004, Muslim Aid has organised a food aid programme, Qurban for Life, to coincide with the Aidiladha celebrations every year.

He said most of the time in Malaysia, the meat was simply distributed to people in the community, and for various reasons, many just dump it in their freezer and waste it or let it go bad.

“In our Qurban for Life programme, the meat is canned so that it lasts longer and we distribute them to those who really need the food,” he adds.

Last year, Muslim Aid delivered RM1.37mil worth of Qurban meat to the poor and needy in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Ghana, Indonesia, Iraq, Palestine and Kenya among others. Some meat was also donated to the Malaysian poor, including the aged and disabled.

This year, Muslim Aid plans to send Qurban meat to famine victims in Somalia, the earthquake victims in Padang and some of the local flood victims.

There are three types of Qurban donations under Muslim Aid’s Qurban for Life programme ... full Qurban for a goat or sheep (RM350), half Qurban (RM200) or Food Aid Gift (RM100).

The canned meat, which can be kept for three years, is certified halal by Jakim and the slaughtering is monitored by MAA representatives from Malaysia, Australia and Singapore.

Muslim Aid Malaysia is part of British-based international relief and development agency Muslim Aid Asia founded by Yusuf Islam in 1985, as a response to the famine in Africa.

It has already received some RM280,000 of Qurban donations for this year’s Aidiladha celebration which falls on Friday.

For details, visit www.qurbanforlife.com

Origin of all sin

By NIK ROSKIMAN ABDUL SAMAD
Fellow, IKIM

The purpose of our presence in this world is not simply to enjoy its pleasures, but to fashion it for worshipping God.

We often hear people say “money is not everything, but everything needs money.” However, it is hard to deny that we are in a materialistic world.

Naturally, in this type of world, religion has almost no significant role to play in guiding our daily actions.

It looks as if all religious or virtuous values passed on by our forefathers based on the noble traditions of the East or the West appear to be too antiquated to be practised in this modern age — an age of pursuing one’s self-interest.

Profit-maximising and wealth accumulation supercede everything else. All this seems to be the sole motive of almost every 21st-century man.

When wealth is the prime objective of one’s life in this world, then all would eventually be of little importance and perhaps in vain.

Truth, justice and honesty could now be compromised and “traded” at a very cheap price between the parties concerned.

Virtuous values will sooner or later erode before the great tide of man’s avarice, while evils might then eventually be “justifiable” and possibly exalted, provided that they come coated with worldly gains and rewards.

At the end of the day, sin and corruption are widely spread and set to be an epidemic like the A(H1N1) disease!

It is clear that corruption sprouts from man’s avarice and greed for pleasures of various forms: money, wealth, power, prestige, and others.

How truly is the Holy Prophet’s saying when he utters: “Love of this world is the origin of all sin” (Bayhaqi, Shu’ab al-iman).

But a word of caution here though; the world in itself is not blameworthy, but man’s extreme greed of the world and putting the world as one’s sole objective in life is that which is forbidden in Islam.

Man is created not to worship the world, and neither is he created to accumulate as much wealth as possible.

Rather, a man’s role is to worship God alone (al-Dzariyyat 51:56), while this world is supposed to be subservient to him in exercising his duties to worship God.

However, if man is heedless of the reality of the world and his approach towards it, then surely the wrath of God and the Prophet would befall him. In this connection, the Prophet warns the slave dinar and the dirham (Bukhari, Tirmidhi).

A Muslim must also realise that this world is merely a transit phase for him in his voyage towards God.

His eternal life and perfect bliss would come only after his death, and not in this world.

He is hence encouraged to lead his worldly life as though he is travelling for a long voyage, as mentioned in one of the Prophetic traditions: “Be in the world as though were a stranger or a wayfarer” (Bukhari).

In commenting on this hadith, the great Muslim jurist Imam Nawawi (d. 676 /1278) says: “Do not become attached to this world and take it up as a long-time residence. Instead, live in it as does a stranger or traveller in a foreign place.”

Love of the world can come in various forms. Craving to accumulate wealth as much as possible is surely one of the main ones.

Others can include the greed for power to rule, seeking prestige and noble status, deep affection towards luxury items, and so on. All corruption in this world in reality is ultimately traceable to man’s avarice.

If man is unable to control his craving for the world, then he would be willing to do anything, not only breaking the laws of the land but even at the expense of defying God’s prohibitions and commandments.

Having said all this, it does not mean that Islam is anti-progressive or condones extreme forms of asceticism.

It is not the question of wealth itself that matters, but rather it is our attitude towards it.

Wealth, when in the hands of godly and pious people, poses no problem whatsoever to them or to the Ummah, as the Prophetic hadith puts it: “no harm of wealth in the hands of pious people.”

Today, due to the influence of Western secular ideas and cultures, Muslims also tend to have a wrong perception of their mission in this world and of the purpose of their existence.

The world of the Hereafter was gradually removed from the Muslims’ mindsets and hearts and they became too obsessed with worldly pleasures.

Their love for the world increases unimaginably, unlike pious people in the first few generations of Islam.

The Muslims of today have forgotten the covenant (mithaq) that they had taken before Almighty God in their spiritual world before they were born.

Due to that forgetfulness, man is called “insan” in Arabic, which means “he who forgets.”

As said, man is sent to this world to worship God alone.

Worshipping is not in its restricted and ritualistic sense of performing activities like counting one’s rosary alone as misunderstood by some deviant groups, but also includes maintaining the world and governing it with justice and right cause in the manner enshrined by the commandments of God.

Man, however, has mostly been swayed and “dissolved” in the pleasures of the world, indulging himself in accumulating wealth without limit, seeking high status and rank, and so on at the expense of God’s commandments and prohibitions.

How many times do we see a person living beyond his income, driving a luxury car and living in a posh area?

And then it is revealed that he had been taking bribes, involved in all kinds of corruption.

Likewise cases involving abuses of power, mismanagement of public funds, money politics and so on, all originating in one and the same root cause: avarice.

To handle the problem of corruption anywhere, the issue must begin from elevating the spiritual quality of our workforce to the highest standards possible, preferably to the level of Ihsan (excellence).

It is inadequate for an organisation to concentrate only on improving management techniques, or to upgrade the organisational skills of their staff when their spiritual aspect is left impure.

Man, as the vital component of any organisation, should first be made to realise his real purpose of existence in this temporal world.

He should be exposed to the correct understanding of the Islamic worldview, and he is ultimately accountable before the Mighty Majesty on the Day of Judgment for all actions he had committed during his temporal life.

For one who attains this station would not only be an excellent staff or a loyal citizen, but also more importantly a good man (insan kamil).

This is ultimately the real purpose of education, which is not merely to make one a good citizen as erroneously believed by the West and others among Muslim educationists, but to make a person a good person.

When a man is a good man, he is also at the same time a good citizen.

The good man then has no need for rules and regulations to govern him to be honest, trustworthy, hardworking, diligent and so on, for he knows that his real “chief executive officer” (CEO) or chairman is not the person sitting on the top floor of his company, but He is The One and Alone, though Unseen, who watches him at every moment.

This “CEO” will surely bring forth every action that the man has done in this world, good or evil, for judgment and accountability in the Next World of al-Akhirah – to the extent that not even the minutest part of his action would be left uncounted, whether punished or rewarded.

- THE STAR

Confusion harmful to Muslims

By DR MOHD SANI BADRON (IKIM)

True understanding of the Quran cannot be possessed by the one with neither intellectual nor spiritual prerequisites, let alone the one who is impudent and insolent of religion.

Confusion and error in knowledge of Islam, as a religion and a civilization, are more harmful to Muslims than mere ignorance.

The mind which is ignorant is simply in a state of privation of knowledge.

Being ignorant in the simple sense of lacking in knowledge means one does not pretend to know. Here, one neither knows nor fancies that one knows religious truths.

In other words, an acknowledged ignorance refers to one’s explicit recognition that one does not know the matter at issue – in this case knowledge of Islam and Islamic worldview.

While to seek knowledge is a religious obligation, acknowledging ignorance is often the indispensable step in the one who is sincerely seeking knowledge.

Indeed, it is easier to teach a person who is aware of his ignorance than a person in error, who is unaware of, or refuses to recognise, that his understanding of the matter is warped.

This is because although the latter is in error about a certain matter, he does not acknowledge his ignorance of it. Satisfied with his condition, the confused person thinks and claims he knows, whereas in reality he does not know and only has a clouded mind.

He is thus unwilling to learn the truth as he thinks himself the equal of those who truly know. He resists the teacher, and glories in being blind to the truth.

How is he going to be cured of ignorance if he does not want to remedy it?

Intellectual arrogance and obstinacy stem from confusion and error in knowledge, leading to the tendency to challenge, belittle, and reject legitimate views of knowledgeable experts on Islam, its worldview, history, traditional culture, literature and language, which give identity to, and consolidate, the Muslim community.

Combined with a false presumption, error in knowledge manifests not just the mind’s failure to know but also its fallibility, misconception, misjudgment and excesses.

This is what we call “learned confusion”, where stubbornness and stupidity are twins.

The mind’s efforts in seeking true knowledge face various epistemological stumbling blocks. Since these pitfalls function as the causes of confusion, we must be really clear of those sources of error, which must be avoided for us to steer clear of error and confusion.

As Dr Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas remarked when analysing Muslim Dilemma, we must first come to grips with the rules for the proper adab or conduct of seeking knowledge of religious truths, of Islam and its worldview, not only as a religion, but also as a civilization.

No true knowledge can be instilled without the aforementioned precondition. Consider the following example.

The Quran is the Fountain of all true knowledge. Nevertheless, it cannot even be touched save through the prescribed adab of ritual purity (al-Waqi‘ah, 56: 79).

This alludes to the fact that true understanding of the Quran or Knowledge cannot be possessed by the one with neither intellectual nor spiritual prerequisites, let alone the one who is impudent and insolent of religion.

Hence, as there is a beneficial aspect of the Quran for the believer that will increase his faith, there is also its harmful aspect for the one who studies it with insincerity of purpose. That will add atrocity to their evil (al-Baqarah, 2: 26).

Beneficial aspects of the Quran is for the reader who has respect for the All-Merciful, learning with a heart turned in devotion to Him (qalb munib), lending ear with a conscious mind, with an intention to submit to the truth and goodness.

In other words, the Quranic message is for one who has the heart to understand or ears to hear with.

As has been cautioned, “it is not the eyes that are blind, but blind are the hearts within the breast” (Qaf, 50: 33, 37; al-Hajj, 22: 46).

While the Quran always rightly guides all humankind, its reader’s spiritual and intellectual receptivity to its guidance, or the lack of such receptivity, leads to sound or faulty understanding, respectively.

Meanwhile, one’s level of profundity is dependent upon how prepared one is as far as the training, discipline and development of the following are concerned: powers of reasoning; capacities of sense experience; as well as progress of inner self in the course of faith and practical devotion to God’s clearly defined system of Revealed Law.

Just as seeking knowledge is obligatory, it is also a duty incumbent upon Muslims to have a proper attitude towards a legitimate authority or knowledgeable expert.

By “a proper attitude”, we mean having humility in accepting knowledge-based views on Islam and its vision of reality and truth.

By “legitimate authority”, we are referring to those who are knowledgeable according to the criterion of keen intelligence, profound insight, intellectual integrity, and virtue.

This includes the past erudite scholars of Islam, from whom we inherit volumes of original analyses and interpretations of Islam and its worldview, which function to open our minds and equip us for the future.

Reason and understanding

By Dr Mohd Zaidi Ismail,
Senior Fellow/Director,
Centre for Science and Technoloty, IKIM

Thinking is the mental act of putting what one has already known into meaningful order to arrive at what one is still ignorant of.

We have explained before that in any true epistemic act as conceived of in the religious, intellectual and scientific tradition of Islam, one cannot start from either what is unclear or what one is ignorant of, hoping to grasp what is clear and understandable (see, among others, Ikim Views of Jan 29, July 22 and Sept 23, 2008).

As such, knowing as a mental act has often been formulated as the progress of one’s mind from what has already been known to what is still unknown.

Such a formula is meant to be a general principle that guides any act or activity deserving of being regarded as knowledge oriented, be it one’s act of reading, defining, clarifying, thinking, and so on.

We have also explained how thinking, being an integral cognitive component in knowledge and science, is guided and regulated by that epistemic principle.

To recapitulate, thinking has been described in ‘ilm al-mantiq – the discipline of logic in the Islamic religious, intellectual and scientific tradition – as the mental act of putting what one has already known into meaningful order in order to arrive at what one is still ignorant of.

In spite of the fact that thinking is an essential cognitive component in knowledge and science, it cannot be realised without ideas, notions and concepts.

Ideas or concepts are therefore the rudiments of thinking.

As such, more basic but yet so integral to thinking is one’s grasp of ideas, notions and concepts.

Nevertheless, as the human mind primarily thinks by means of words or linguistic symbols, ideas or concepts being the essential constituents of thinking are primarily expressed by and couched in words or terms as well.

Hence, at that basic epistemic level, one cannot do without the proper act of clarifying a term or word and thereby truly knowing an idea or a concept, an act that is referred to as definition.

Yet, in attempts at a correct or valid definition, one again finds the same epistemic formula applying thereto as a guiding principle.

To define something correctly, one has to meet certain conditions or requirements.

Some such conditions turn out to be the ramifications of the above principle.

One of them requires that the definiens (that is, words or terms which are used to define a particular word or term) must be more clear than the definiendum (the word or term being defined).

We may want to refer to this condition as The Rule of Clarity.

To illustrate this, suppose that one is asked to explain what “reason” actually is to an audience comprising primarily novices and the general public.

In explaining, one says: “It is an important noetic power concerned with analysis and discursive thinking.”

The above explanation however, unless further clarified, contains such words as “noetic” and “discursive” which, to the layman, are no more enlightening than what was originally being defined, namely, reason.

In fact, we may well assume that reason itself is better understood by such an audience than all those words purportedly intended to define it.

Such an explanation, in other words, simply does not make “reason” any more lucid.

Another condition, which we may want to regard as The Rule of Non-Circularity, demands that the definiendum not be present in the definition itself.

In other words, the definiendum must not in any way turn out to be any of the definiens.

For instance, suppose that one is asked about what knowledge essentially is and in answering, one says: “It is that which renders a person who has the potentiality to know an actual knower.”

Such an answer, unfortunately, does not really explain what knowledge is because, clearly, the term one seeks to make plain appears itself, in a slightly different form, in one’s very explanation – namely, in the words “know” and “knower.”

Therefore, in using the same terms to define a word, the explanation is circular and thus purely redundant.

Upon scrutiny, however, one may well conclude that this latter rule is a detailed elucidation of the former.

By virtue of the fact that the definien is required to be more clear than the definiendum, it cannot therefore be just as ambiguous, let alone more ambiguous than that it seeks to clarify.

As such, the definiendum being present in the definition, which is nothing more than a set of definiens, renders the definition no better than the thing one is ignorant of initially.

In short, one’s not meeting any, or both, of the aforementioned conditions pertaining to the valid definition of words and terms, is tantamount to one’s violating the above epistemic principle, thereby depriving one of true knowledge.

Therefore, attempts at clarity in thoughts and ideas, which are even more pressing amid competing slogans and enticing rhetoric, which at present seems to have fully occupied our intellectual space, require that the foregoing epistemic principle not only be afforded its paramount role again, but also to be abided.

Knowledge is what benefits

By DR MOHD SANI BADRON
IKIM

A group of Muslim jurists once got together, and because they could not think of anything better to do, they proceeded to talk of trivial matters.

One of them asked: “During a funeral procession, should one walk on the right side of the coffin or on the left?”. Immediately, the group became confused and was divided by differences of opinion.

Some argued that one should walk on the right side, while others maintained that one should walk on the left.

Each group believed its argument was better than the other’s. Unable to solve their problem, they went to Mulla Nasreddin and asked for his fatwa.

Nasreddin listened to each group carefully and then said: “It does not matter on which side of the coffin you are, just as long as you are not inside!”. A legendary satirical Sufi figure, Nasreddin in this anecdote gets his message across in a manner of profound simplicity.

Simply put, Muslims should be on guard against idle conjecture.

Indeed, wasting time in vain controversies is rebuked by Allah in the Qur’an (al-Kahf, 18: 22, 26).

It is “in vain” to argue over religious truths with no authority based on true knowledge (Ghafir, 40: 56).

Allah commands in the Qur’an not to imitate quarrelsome people who love mischievous controversies. Barren controversies waged concerning religion reflects a false conception of knowledge.

On the one extreme, there are those secularists who assume that science, which is only relative to the phenomenological, is the only authentic knowledge, including the philosophy derived from it.

On the other extreme, there are those who restrict knowledge (al-‘ilm) only to the domain of jurisprudence (ahkam fiqhiyyah).

Such attitudes cause an inability to define real issues and inability to isolate real problems from false ones.

If real problems are not identified in the first place, certainly there will be no hope of finding the right solutions.

It is a characteristic of the feeble minded and shallow to enjoy endless controversy — polemics of insignificant issues, polemics of unnecessary legalistic details, and scholastic hair-splitting trivialities.

Muslims must be wise enough to distinguish between peripheral and marginal issues and major ones that directly concern humanity and the knowledge concerning the purpose of life and ultimate destiny.

It is a pseudo problem to emphasise differences between the various madhahib (Islamic legal schools). It is also false to emphasise trivialities within those legal schools and to argue obstinately for adherence to them.

Hurling accusations of irreligiousness against the other will not solve anything.

It is also erroneous to attempt an ignorant interpretation of Quranic verses whose meanings are obscure (ayat mutashabihat), for example on the question of fate and predestination (qada’ and qadr).

Rather, Muslims must emphasise the main business of religion, which emphasises authority of knowledge against conjecture; and education with moral purpose and spiritual significance (al-ta’dib).

Throughout history, the foregoing was emphasised by sincere scholars and scholars of keen intelligence and profound insight.

Scholars who had intellectual integrity and honoured the trust of right spiritual leadership, classified the various sciences in relation to their priorities and placed each one according to its correct order of priority.

This ensured integrated knowledge, of which there is always equilibrium between two types of knowledge; knowledge of the world as well as knowledge of reality, truth and values.

Imam al-Shafi‘i (d. 204/820) once remarked: “Knowledge has a dual nature: concerning bodily matters, and concerning religious affairs” (“Al-‘ilm ‘ilman: ‘ilmul abdan wa ‘ilmul adyan”).

Al-Shafi‘i’s remark conveys the true conception of knowledge as it faithfully reflects human nature itself.

The worldview of Islam defines mankind as one possessed of a sublime ruh or spiritual subtlety created by Allah (al-Hijr, 15: 29).

Composed of body and soul, at once physical being and spirit; out of these two, there is constituted a third entity called man (al-Mu’minun, 23: 12-14).

Al-Shafi‘i further remarked: “Knowledge is not what is memorised, but only what benefits (humanity).”

Integrative knowledge is a means of attaining humanity’s good, wherein the physical aspect must be integrated in a profound and inseparable way to the spiritual and intellectual aspects.

As one’s knowledge with all its branches must extend its fruits in the form of one’s useful and helpful actions in the best interests of one’s soul and society, the Prophet Mohamed took refuge in Allah from knowledge which does not benefit (narrated by Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr and Ibn Majah).

Inter-faith understanding a powerful force for change

By SUZALIE MOHAMAD,
Fellow, Centre of Syariah, Law and Political Science, IKIM

Globalisation is considered by many to be the way forward, but it should not to be made a vehicle to impose the cultural values of one country over another.

In the light of the present political and economic scenarios, a step forward towards fostering a better relationship between Europe and Asia through the bridging of differences between the two continents needs to be initiated.

By virtue of Asia becoming an emerging market of the world, a better understanding of its cultures is vital for a more meaningful and fruitful cultural and economic association in the future.

In The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Samuel P. Huntington asserted three important issues that divided the West and other societies:

> the West seeks to maintain its military superiority of weapons;

> it promotes western political values and institutions by pressing other societies to adopt human rights and democracy along western lines; and,

> it seeks to protect the cultural, social and ethnic integrity of Western societies.

We believe Asia and Europe need to embark on mutual understanding, to work on smart partnerships, which are not based on dominance and prejudices.

Before we proceed, the term “unity in diversity” itself needs to be defined.

In my humble opinion, “unity in diversity” should be defined as “the ability to live and interact peacefully and harmoniously without any prior presumptions and prejudices about people of different cultural and religious backgrounds”.

The principle of unity in diversity, should be understood in a wider perspective to include inter-related issues of global peace and socio-economic equality.

To a certain extent, the socio-economic development of a country is hampered by the absence of peace and political stability. Human capital, energy and financial resources are diverted to unproductive purposes.

We must agree that we cannot expect people to understand “unity in diversity” if they live in an environment of conflict, and if they are hungry.

Therefore, it is pertinent that the prolonged conflict between Israel and Palestine, in Kashmir, and in the rest of the troubled areas in the world must be stopped immediately.

Political will and non-partisan support with regard to the issues surrounding these conflict areas are necessary to bring peace.

As the world moves towards a global society, the less-developed nations should not be forgotten. They must be guided to participate in mainstream development.

It is the responsibility of all to ensure that the populations of these countries are given the opportunity to free themselves from poverty. Only through the eradication of the socio-economic conditions in these countries can problems like terrorism be solved.

In the 21st century, globalisation is considered by many to be the way forward, to foster fairer cross-border trades.

Despite the advantages, many countries, especially those less developed, are concerned with the potential adverse effects of globalisation on their local cultures and values.

It is important to emphasise that globalisation should not to be made a vehicle to impose the cultural values of one country over another.

Diversity in culture allows diversity in the ways people do things. The rest of the world, especially the more-developed nations, must avoid forcing others to adopt their system of government and should not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries.

Global peace can also be pursued through inter-faith understanding and tolerance. Along this line, two issues need to be addressed.

One, religions must be understood without prior prejudice. Two, religions cannot and must not be associated with injustice, tyranny and oppression.

Interfaith understanding and tolerance may be achieved through several ways.

Firstly, through education, which – at the primary, secondary and tertiary levels – must be effectively constructed to propagate the values promoted by religion. The education system must also provide an environment and the opportunity for children of different cultural and religious backgrounds, from early ages, to interact and communicate with each other.

There is also a need to regulate and standardise religious schools. There should be no separation between religion and state. The terms “secular” and “secularism” do not exist in Islam.

Secondly, through interfaith dialogue, which should be used to effectively promote religious values.

Thirdly, through a greater role from the media, which is vital in bridging cultural differences between Asia and Europe. Negative and sensationalised reports are damaging efforts to promote cultural and religious understanding and tolerance.

Fourthly, through settlement programmes. These may be used to integrate multi-cultural and multi-religious societies. Other countries can learn from the experiences of Malaysia in this regard.

I believe the real objective of human beings on this earth is to promote justice. This condition can only be achieved if there is a will and sincere effort towards creating a more peaceful world.

Silence not the women

By ZAINAH ANWAR

Whenever I give talks on Islam and women’s rights in any part of the world, I am often asked the familiar question from Islamists in the audience: “What right do you have to speak on Islam? You are not an expert. When you are sick, you go to a doctor. When you have questions about Islam, you go to the ulama. He is the expert,” they say triumphantly, as if to end the debate.

Depending on the audience and the mood, sometimes I answer the question flippantly, most times seriously.

My flippant answer is, well, if I don’t like that doctor’s opinion or treatment, I go to another doctor. And if the doctor prescribes me the wrong treatment, I could sue him for malpractice and get him deregistered.

But I can’t do that with an ulama. If I challenge him and his prescription to my complaints of injustice and ill-treatment, I could be accused of going against God, against Islam, against Syariah. I could even be declared an apostate, my name denounced in mosque sermons and have rabid-looking men gather after Friday prayers with placards demanding my detention under the ISA.

But my serious answer is this: When Islam is used as a source of law and public policy, then everyone has the right to talk about the subject. Public law, public policy must by necessity be opened to public debate, and pass the test of public reason.

If I am discriminated against, treated unjustly, fined, jailed, sentenced to death, or have my hands and feet cut off in the name of Islam, then of course I will speak out and protect my rights and my interests. Those who do not want anyone but the ulama to speak on Islam must realise that the only way to preserve the religion from public scrutiny is to take it out of the public sphere and keep it private between the believer and God.

But when you proclaim that Islam is a way of life, Islam is the solution, Islam has all the answers, you cannot then tell everyone who disagrees with you to shut up because only you will provide the answers. That is tantamount to totalitarian rule.

Women’s groups demanding for equality and justice in Islam are not questioning the religion as revealed by God, but questioning the decision by those in authority, be it religious, political, or social, who adopt a position that discriminates against women, and then proclaim that their position is the one true Islam.

This is so obviously not so. If there is only one true understanding of Islam, then why are there different schools of law and theology in the Islamic tradition? Why are there many different laws governing marriage, polygamy, divorce, custody, guardianship, inheritance, and financial rights in the Muslim world, sometimes even within one school of law, nay, even within one country?

In Malaysia alone, we have 14 separate jurisdictions governing Islamic matters, each state jealously guarding its power to interpret and legislate on these subjects.

In one renowned polygamy case, a man who was denied permission to marry a second wife by the Syariah Appeal Committee of Selangor, because he had not fulfilled all four conditions to justify his application, went to Terengganu to marry the woman because that state did not require him to fulfil any conditions under the law.

Was the Terengganu law less Islamic than the Selangor law? Was the Terengganu judge who granted permission going against God’s law, or the Selangor panel of three judges who refused permission?

Which is the right Islam? How is this to be decided? Is it really God’s law that we are talking about or the law of the state, constructed and enforced by human beings, marred by human imperfections?

In my talks, I sometimes share with the audience the story of Ali ibn Abi Talib, the fourth Rightly Guided Caliph. The Khawarij who were once Ali’s supporters rebelled against him when Ali decided to negotiate for peace with Mu’awiya who had waged civil war against Ali’s rule. The Khawarij believed that the Caliphate rightly belonged to Ali, the Prophet’s cousin and son-in-law. They claimed this was a God-given law and there was nothing to negotiate. Ali’s action was denounced as a violation of God’s will as Ali had accepted human judgment, instead of God’s law. They called Ali a traitor to God and eventually assassinated him.

While this story is usually cited as an example of Muslim fanaticism, a more instructive lesson is on the role of human agency in interpreting the divine word. In dealing with the rebellion among the Khawarij, it was reported that Ali called for a gathering and brought out a large copy of the Quran. He touched the Quran, commanding it to speak and inform the people of God’s law. There was only silence, for the Quran indeed did not speak, could not speak unless of course there was human intervention.

It is human beings who read God’s revealed message and interpret its meaning.

Thus the product of that human engagement with the divine text is not divine law, but human-constructed law.

Within the context of a democratic nation state such as Malaysia, can this process of law-making be the sole preserve of the ulama? Within the context of the changing realities of our lives today from the time the classical texts were written, shouldn’t the law-making process be conducted in democratic engagement, especially with those who are affected by these laws and policies?

Just as the classical jurists were guided by the social and political realities of their age when they interpreted the Quran and Sunnah, so should our modern-day religious and political authorities.

In the 21st century, there cannot be justice without equality. It is as simple as that.

The reason women’s voices are the loudest in the demands for change is because we no longer find it tolerable to live a life defined and controlled by others who do not live our realities. We could use the same logic as that used by the Islamists, by saying that men have no business telling us how we should live our lives because they have never experienced life as a woman.

But that is of course not a constructive approach in our search for solutions to the injustices and discrimination against women committed in the name of Islam. We want a respectful and productive engagement so that the justice, mercy and compassion of Islam become core values in our process of law-making and law-enforcement and in our daily lives.

Why is that so difficult to understand?

The Prophet on ‘tadbir’ and ‘tadabbur’

By Dr MOHD ZAIDI ISMAIL
IKIM

Government officers particularly should aspire and strive to reflect on their work or “governance” in respect of their actions and behaviour.

We have had four occasions before to expound the meaning of tadbir as the proper Arabic term for any act or process that may generally be referred to as administration, management, or governance (see IKIM Views of Oct 28 and Dec 23, 2008, and May 5 and May 26, 2009).

It has been made very clear in all of our foregoing discussions that tadbir, as well as its cognate term tadabbur, signifies, among other things, the mental act of probing into the consequence(s) of an affair so that a praiseworthy result may be worked out and thus obtained.

We have also mentioned earlier that tadbir is an extension and the embodiment of the freedom of choice in Islam, referred to as ikhtiyar (“ikhtiar” in romanised Malay), and ought to be based solely on what is good (khayr).

A man went to meet the Prophet Mohamed for a lasting piece of advice. The Prophet said to him, “If you happen to want something, reflect (tadabbar) then upon its consequence (‘aqibatahu); if its outcome is good (khayr), perform it. Otherwise, stop doing it” – as narrated by ‘Ubadah ibn al-Samit.

Such is the essential meaning of tadbir which renders ethics and morality inherent.

It is indeed expected of a person truly possessed of reason to base his acts on a close examination into the possible outcomes of his actions, carefully discriminating between good and bad, right and wrong, true and false, and then wholeheartedly choosing the good while avoiding the bad.

The act of trying to attain praiseworthy results by abstaining from what is blameworthy truly constitutes the practical side of tadbir which, as cited before, also means “the act of putting matters into effect in accordance with the knowledge of what will follow in the end.”

In addition, one’s act of abstaining from that which is prohibited and that which is evil is part and parcel of piety.

If a man perseveres in correct behaviour by abstaining from that which is forbidden, such a tendency will eventually be natural to him such that it becomes his habit or character – his second, or acquired, nature, as the scholars of ethics would say.

This, in truth, goes to the making of good character which commands respect and is what nobility really is.

In Sunan ibn Majah, an established collection of the Prophetic Traditions, the Prophet was reported to have declared:

“There is no equivalent of reason (‘aql) as purposive reflection (al-tadbir), no piety (wara‘) as abstinence (al-kaff), and no nobility (hasaba) like good character (husn al-khuluq).”

That he combines all those three elements – reason, piety and nobility – in a single saying is already good grounds for us to hold that purposive reflection, abstinence, and good character are mutually related, and each functions to shed more light on the others.

In fact, al-Ghazzali, the most eminent Muslim scholar of the 11th-12th century, in a special book dedicated to explicating knowledge and intellect in his famous Ihya’ ‘Ulum al-Din, considered human intelligence which has arrived at such a mental station, as being couched in the aforementioned Prophetic Tradition, to be one which has attained intellectual maturity.

It is therefore imperative that all those involved in the act or process of tadbir, particularly government officers referred to in Malay as pegawai tadbir or anggota pentadbiran, aspire and strive to reflect on the term essentially in their actions and behaviour.

Otherwise, they are simply not fit to be called pegawai tadbir.

Muslim whoever stays quiet saves himself

By SUZALIE MOHAMAD
IKIM

There is a hadith which states that “part of someone being a good Muslim is his leaving alone that which does not concern him”.

It is beneficial to avoid meddling into things or affairs that are of no concern to us. It is impossible for a person to entertain all things at once.

Prioritising matters according to their importance helps us manage our time and teaches patience.

Imam Ibn Al-Arabi, a Maliki jurist, said that “a person is not able to take care of all the necessary matters, why would he or she then get involved in unnecessary matters that are of no real concern”.

This indicates that the ability to prioritise matters of concern is recommended. We need only deal in matters that have real importance and leave the unnecessary behind.

Meanwhile, Imam Shafi’e once said: “If 100 scholars came to argue with me, I would immediately win against them; but if one ignorant person came against me, I would lose.

“The reason for this is that whatever evidence I give as proof, he would say ‘No, it is not true’. So how am I going to convince him?”

We should keep silent if certain affairs are not in our domain of concern.

We may ask ourselves, what are the things a true believer should be concerned with? Answers may vary, but in general we may summarise them as follows.

Firstly, fulfilling one’s obligations (wajib) prescribed by religion.

This includes avoiding things which are taboo according to our religious tradition.

Secondly, to perform as much as we can of the recommended or preferable acts (mandub) that will contribute to self wellbeing and that of society.

Thirdly, to avoid that which is forbidden (haram) and to avoid as much as we can of the makruh (those that are disliked) in order to avoid actions which are useless to us and may harm others.

Apart from specific concerns for individual obligations (fard-a’yn), community-wide collective obligations (fard-kifayah) must also not be neglected, and should also be matters of concern to us.

Everyone with his or her own profession and expertise has a role to contribute towards the betterment of the community.

Enjoining good and discouraging evil, and self accountability in all that we do are also matters of concern to us.

If these notions are continuously put into practice, we should have a peaceful society which puts moral and civic affairs as its highest achievement.

The main obstacles ... all of us are jealous of each other; all of us have pride.

Everyone is proud of what he knows, so he tries to make himself look like the one who knows everything as opposed to others.

Then there is no cooperation, and that is why we find separation.

If everyone were to come to each other, to help each other, then one will find more power. Two, three, four hands are better than one. Therefore, one’s ego must be controlled.

The act of suspicion in some cases is a sin, while backbiting is clearly a sin.

There is a specific verse in the Quran (al-

hujurat 19:12) that warns us not to spy on each other and not to speak evil of another behind his or her back.

The habit of backbiting damages friendships and creates animosity. Hence, it must be avoided.

It is important to note that listening to slander is as bad as the slander itself.

It is better to walk away from such individuals.

Slander violates Allah and humanity simultaneously.

Hence, it is necessary to ask for forgiveness from the victim first, since Allah will not forgive until the victim forgives.

When committing slander, a person does not think about how the other person would feel if he knew what was said about him; he does not think about how he would feel if the situation were reversed.

We enjoy slander but hate to be slandered. The Hadith which means “None of you truly believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself” is an important reminder to us with regard to the habit of slander, gossiping and backbiting.

To save oneself from this sin, one should act upon those Hadiths.

One Hadith states: “Whoever stays quiet saves himself.”

In another Hadith, the Prophet said: “The tongue is what will cause people to be flung face down into hell.”

Therefore, we must be very mindful of our thoughts and language before we speak because a wrong word can send us to hell.

Religion is supposed to teach good manners; how to be at peace, how to love creation; not to be proud of oneself but to be humble with all human beings.

It has become imperative for all religious believers to take a self-critical and introspective look at their traditions and systems of belief.

The main focus of such introspective and self-critical examination is to ask ourselves: Does the tradition, with its inherited system of beliefs and convictions, contribute to the commission of our weaknesses?

The public voice of Sisters in Islam

Some 20 years ago, several Muslim women took offence at the injustice to women being perpetrated in the then-new Islamic Family Law.

Together they founded Sisters in Islam(SIS), which today is a civil society organisation registered under the name SIS Forum Malaysia. The group’s mission is “to promote the development of Islam that upholds the principles of justice, equality, freedom and dignity within a democratic nation state”.

From the word go, SIS decided to take the bull by the horns, so to speak, and challenge the Islamic establishment on its own terms.

It chose consciously and conscientiously to work within the Islamic framework, knowing full well that a beneficent (rahman) and merciful (rahim) God could not but be just. It is this unshakeable faith in a loving God that spurred the group to begin its endeavour by returning to the primary sources of Islamic law, namely, the holy Qur’an, and the hadith or traditions of the Prophet Muhammad.

Led by theologian Dr Amina Wadud, who was then teaching at the International Islamic University in Kuala Lumpur, the eight founding members – all professional women – delved into the holy text and produced their first two seminal Q&A booklets, on gender equality and domestic violence in Islam.

The launch of these booklets in July 1991 was SIS’ formal introduction to the Malaysian public.

Today, the booklets, as well as other new titles, have been translated into several languages (from English and Bahasa Malaysia) and are used in organisations in many Muslim countries as a tool to raise gender awareness.

In August 1990, the group made its public position clear vis-a-vis Muslim women’s rights. In a letter to the editor published in four Malaysian dailies, it challenged the conservative understanding of polygamy as a God-given right to Muslim men. With this, Sisters in Islam established its name and created its public voice and persona.

SIS’ initial research into the texts – as well as new scholarship in the past 15 years that has unearthed a wealth of diversity within Muslim opinion – shows that a woman’s struggle to lead a life of equal worth and dignity to men is clearly located within Islamic teachings.

It has enabled the group to take the unequivocal position that men and women are equal in Islam; that a Muslim man does not have the right to beat his wife; that polygamy is not an inherent right in Islam but a contract permitted only in the most exceptional circumstances; that one male witness does not equal two female witnesses, and a great deal more.

Research has formed the basis of SIS’ arguments for reform of laws, policies, and statements made in the name of Islam that discriminate against women and violate the ethical teachings of Islam. It has also engaged directly with the government in advocacy work; SIS has submitted several memoranda to the government on issues such as Islamic Family Law, the Shari’ah Criminal Offences Act, moral policing and domestic violence.

That the group’s work has impacted positively in Malaysia is evident in the support from women senators and the public for its 2005/2006 campaign against the government’s amendments to the Islamic Family Laws, which would further discriminate against women.

The amendments included giving men more grounds to divorce their wives, greater freedom to enter into polygamous marriages, and more power to freeze their wives’ assets in order to claim a share of the matrimonial property following a polygamous marriage or divorce.

The success of SIS’s campaign forced the government to order a review of the proposed amendments.

The group involves itself directly with the public through its legal services and public education activities. Here women empower themselves by knowing their rights.

Currently, another undertaking is in the pipeline. Building on a pilot survey in 2005, SIS’ nationwide polygamy research aims to provide a deeper understanding of the way polygamy affects families.

Through questionnaire interviews of husbands, first wives, second wives, and children above 18 from the first or subsequent marriage, SIS hopes to draw out the details of social relationships between polygamous family members, their emotional well-being and financial situation, as well as the legal protection provided for by the authorities.

It is not surprising, therefore, that in just two decades, SIS’ influence has grown globally. While content to advocate for gender equality and justice domestically, an international presence means an ever widening target for the group.

Its radical approach to effect change through a religious framework has grabbed the attention of the outside world. This proved to be SIS’ main contribution to the empowerment of Muslim women and made for its credibility as a serious civil society actor and an agent of change.

The scope of SIS’ work grew further as it adopted the best practices of successful campaigns for reform of laws that discriminate against women carried out by women’s groups in Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia.

Working within a holistic framework that argues for reform from multiple perspectives, these groups put forward positive progressive practices and examples for reform.

Islamic arguments grounded in the realities of modern day life within a democratic background are powerful arguments to lobby for change. And thus a new stage emerges in the struggle for justice and equality as SIS expands its activism at regional and international levels.

In its push for an international movement for equality and justice in the family, which led to the launch of Musawah in February 2009, this group of women, still comparatively small at its core, seeks to share the new-found tools for change with Muslim sisters everywhere.

Today, two decades after its founding, SIS’ key role is to provide input in understanding Islam from a rights-based perspective, advocacy strategies and networking to local and international women’s movements.

It is at the forefront of an emerging women’s pressure group to push for both the reform of how we understand Islam, and to influence laws and policies enacted by Muslim governments or groups within minority Muslim communities.

MILESTONES OVER THE YEARS

·MUSAWAH, a global movement for equality and justice in the Muslim family, was initiated in 2007. Musawah is a product of years of research and advocacy as well as regional and international networking efforts on family law issues.

It is a pluralistic and inclusive movement which brings together NGOs, activists, scholars, practitioners, policy-makers and grassroots women and men from around the world who are committed to the promotion of rights within Muslim families, be it from a religious, secular or other perspectives.

In February this year, Musawah held a global meeting in Kuala Lumpur that drew 250 participants from 47 countries. Three publications were launched then – The Musawah Framework for Action; Wanted: Equality and Justice in the Muslim Family; and Home Truths: A Global Report on Equality in the Muslim Family (a set of 30 national profiles on legal systems, political systems and social customs related to family laws in Muslim countries and communities.

·International Workshop on Trends in Family Law Reform in Muslim Countries: Held in March 2006, its most important outcome is the proposal for an international advocacy movement for comprehensive reform of the Muslim Family Law within the framework of justice and equality.

·In 2003, SIS launched Telenisa, a helpline which offers free legal advice on Shari’ah laws and other issues faced by Muslim women. Telenisa deals with more than 600 cases every year on issues of maintenance, divorce, marriage, polygamy, custody, inheritance, violence against women, etc.

·In 2000, SIS started its training on Gender and Shari’ah (for beginners) and Gender, Human Rights and Shari’ah (advanced training). Since then, it has conducted training for grassroots women, Members of Parliament, human rights activists, lawyers, shari’ah consultants and practitioners, journalists, and government officials. Last year, it trained more than 1,000 grassroots women from 10 states, including Sabah and Sarawak, to raise their awareness on issues surrounding Islamic Family Law.

·International networking and consultation: SIS’ efforts to create the public space and voice for ordinary citizens to speak and engage with Islam, and challenge laws, policies and statements made in the name of Islam that discriminate against women and violate guarantees of fundamental liberties in the Constitution and international human rights principles, are a model for many Muslim countries.

·Q&A booklets on equality, domestic violence, family planning, polygamy and hadith on women in marriage. Originally published in English and Bahasa Malaysia, the Equality and Domestic Violence booklets have been translated into Urdu, Bengali, Mandarin, Arabic, Farsi, Pashtu, Hindi, Tamil, Russian and Kyrgyz and are used as training material. These booklets and other titles are on the reading lists of some universities where gender and Islam courses are taught.

- THE STAR

The delights of knowledge

By DR MOHD SANI BADRON
Senior Fellow/Director, Centre for Economics and Social Studies, IKIM

Muslims striving in the divine cause must include study and teaching for the common benefit of society.

Struggle (jihad) has two aspects. First is the external struggle between the believers against the deniers of religious truths, their enemies and ill-wishers “who mock at Religion and make jest of it” (al-Ma’idah, 5:57).

The second is the internal struggle against one’s carnal self. In this spiritual battle – constantly engaged between ones’ intellectual faculties and the animal powers of ones’ human soul – the intelligent self aims to subdue the bestial and render it under control.

Because the battle against one’s carnal self, which is inclined to evil deeds, is harder and more difficult, mujahadat al-nafs wa al-shaytan has been called the greater struggle (jihad al-akbar) vis-à-vis the external one.

Once, the Prophet welcomed some Companions who had just returned from the battlefield and remarked that they had returned from a smaller jihad (i.e. warfare) to face a greater jihad, i.e. fighting one’s carnal self against earthly temptations.

It is a real challenge to live responsibly among one’s family and society without one’s heart being preoccupied; in other words, worldly necessities should not be the veil which obstructs religious truths from one’s view.

As knowledge, understanding, and wisdom pertain to the second aspect of jihad, Muslims’ striving in the divine cause must include study and teaching for the common benefit of society.

In the year 630 CE/9H, there was a strong rumour that the Romans, led by the Byzantine Emperor himself, were preparing to invade Arabia, and that his armies had arrived near the frontier. In order to confront the Emperor, the Prophet then led a 30,000-strong army expedition to a place called Tabuk.

At that time, God commanded that it was not desirable for all the believers to take to the field.

Rather, a party of every group of Muslims, whether in townships or in the surrounding environs, should refrain from going forth to war.

They had to remain behind instead, to devote themselves to the study of religion and become learned in its insight in hopes of bringing about God-consciousness.

According to the Quran, that mission of tafaqquh fi al-din, which means the obligation of acquiring a deeper knowledge concerning religion, is further related to another duty; that of teaching ones’ fellow Muslim brethren, when they return from warfare (see al-Tawbah, 9:122).

Thus, imparting knowledge and its application to fellow-believers in the best interests of Muslim religious life, and instructing them truthfully, is part and parcel of the struggle in the divine path.

From that Quranic verse, scholars such as al-Ghazzali (d. 505/111) inferred a very significant category of communally obligatory knowledge, or fardu kifayah knowledge, which refers to two kinds of specialisation.

First, specialisation in Sacred Law. Pursuit of it is obligatory as it is a means to practice religion.

This includes the pursuit of the knowledge of the language of the Quran (Arabic), the legal methodological principles (usul al-fiqh), rules concerning trade (fiqh al-mu‘amalah), funeral rites (al-jana’iz), inheritance (fiqh al-mawarith), marriage (fiqh al-munakahat), criminal law (fiqh al-jinayat), and so on.

As the worldview of Islam does not draw any dividing line between the sacred and the profane, but rather a different aspect of one and the same reality, the doctrine of fardu kifayah knowledge has a positive bearing on every kind of science, even if it is not a so-called ‘Shari‘ah’ science.

Al-Ghazzali’s Ihya’ ‘Ulum al-Din, written in the 12th Century, for example, includes the like of medicine, arithmetic, agriculture, and politics as part of fardu kifayah knowledge.

Since then, however, intellectual perspectives, various knowledge and the sciences have developed tremendously.

Thus, in the 21st Century, Prof Dr Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas includes among fardu kifayah knowledge the human sciences; natural, applied and technological sciences; comparative religions; Western culture and civilisation; linguistics; and Islam in World History, including its thought and civilisation.

In short, fardu kifayah knowledge refers to those sciences upon which the activities of this life depend.

Pursuant to the conception of fardu kifayah knowledge, Muslim rulers of the past provided clinics and hospitals – all well-arranged under the waqf system (endowment).

Abu Bakr al-Halwani’s Lata’if al-Ma‘arif recorded that a health system par excellence was pioneered by the Umayyad Caliph, al-Walid ibn ‘Abd al-Malik, who ruled the vast land from Spain to India in 705-715CE/86-96H.

Indeed, apart from building hospitals, al-Walid I developed a welfare system, built educational institutions and measures for the appreciation of art.

Al-Halwani’s Lata’if further recorded that the Muslim rulers of the past also established a special section of judicial system to administer matters concerning bequests and inheritance (al-tirkat wa al-mawarith).

Other examples are also pertinent: the science of geography and topography were developed to support the need for communication amongst pilgrims and traders, in addition to their benefits to agriculture.

While astronomy was indispensable for travel, it was also very beneficial to agriculture in terms of a weather almanac, the ebbs and tides, and the movements of the sun and the moon.

The science of botany, meanwhile, was important to understand the nutritional and medicinal properties of plants.

Indeed, the absence of such sciences would render the community lost.

With regard to the indispensability of such sciences for the welfare of this world, al-Ghazzali was of the opinion that if one ignored the pursuit of fardu kifayah knowledge, it was tantamount to committing sin for destroying one’s community, something prohibited by God in the Qur’an, al-Baqarah, 2:195.

No solution in sight

By ZAINAH ANWAR

A bold attempt to resolve a protracted problem has yet again revealed the rifts among Malaysians in matters of religion.

The ongoing debate over the right of a convert to Islam to unilaterally convert his underage children underscores the importance of determining the public role of religion in a plural society like Malaysia.

The Cabinet recently made a courageous policy decision that when one party to a marriage converts to Islam, the minor children should be raised in the religion agreed upon by the parents at the time of marriage. This decisiveness will help to resolve an area of conflict over competing claims and interests that neither the individuals nor the courts have been able to resolve satisfactorily.

However, what was a bold attempt to resolve a protracted problem has yet again revealed the rifts among Malaysians in matters of religion. While the Cabinet decision was welcomed by non-Muslims, the Bar Council, the inter-faith Consultative Council (MCCBCHST), women’s and human rights groups and segments of the Muslim community, the advocates of Islamic state and syariah rule have opposed the decision.

Some of the Islamists felt that the issue was already decided by the December 2007 Federal Court decision, which ruled that only one parent’s consent was needed for the conversion of minor children. But in effect, this decision did not settle the matter as it did not address several questions of law.

The Court ignored Schedule 11 in the Consti­tution on interpretation which provides that “words in the singular include the plural, and words in the plural include the singular”. Thus the right of the “parent” to decide on the religion of children below 18 (Article 12 (4) ) should be read as the right of both parents.

Article 12 (4) must also be read with Article 8 (2), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, race, descent, place of birth or gender. Read together with the Guardian­ship of Infants Act, which recognises that both parents have equal right of guardianship to their children, a persuasive argument can be made that the consent of both parents is needed to change the religion of the children.

The Federal Court judgment was criticised for its failure to read laws holistically and the confusion it caused over jurisdiction. Even though it ruled that civil marriages could be dissolved only by the High Court, even if one party had converted to Islam, it also held that converts could go to the Syariah Court for relief. But any judgment from the Syariah Court has no effect on the High Court.

These issues and other constitutional matters on jurisdiction and conflict of law between civil and syariah will now be heard in an appeal before the Federal Court.

Think of the children

Another earlier Court decision awarding custody to the Hindu mother, while recognising the right of the father to convert the children to Islam, also left an untenable situation in real life. How do you stop exposing the child to the practice and teachings of the religion of his custodian who is his daily caregiver and protector?

What if custody is with the convert Muslim parent: Is it realistic to expect the Muslim parent to ensure that the child is brought up in the religion at the time of marriage? Should the Court be making orders that cannot be implemented in practice?

Perhaps the more important question to answer is what is in the best interest of the child. If the court decides that custody must be with the mother, then it is only realistic that the child can be brought up in the religion of the mother. To decide that the child must be converted to Islam and brought up as a Muslim, no matter what, does not serve the best interest of the child, nor reflect Islamic juristic principles on conversion and profession of faith among minors.

As many Muslim scholars have asserted, it is not necessary to convert children to Islam as they bear no responsibility for their sins or rewards until they are of sound mind.

Also, the Administration of Islamic Law Act states that for a valid conversion to Islam, the person must utter in reasonably intelligible Arabic the two clauses of affirmation of faith, and must be aware that the two clauses mean “I bear witness that there is no God but Allah and I bear witness that the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. is the Messenger of Allah”. These two clauses must be uttered on his or her own free will. This means that for children under 18, a parent can only give consent to the conversion, and not convert them on their behalf.

What is clear is that at all levels, be it Consti­tutional, Islamic juristic principles, and lived realities, the solution to the conundrum can be found. But politics, ideology, and confusion between personal faith and public policy got in the way.

When conflicts arising out of conversion, freedom of religion, moral policing, women’s rights, and human rights are viewed only through the religious prism and therefore must be decided according to syariah law, it makes the search for solutions even more complicated.

Far too often, the argument that syariah principles represent “the will and command of God” has instilled fear and silenced discussion and debate.

In Malaysia, this narrow ideological approach is now being supported by a new interpretative trend urging the Courts to read Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution, which states that Islam is the religion of the Federation, to mean that all laws must conform to syariah principles.

Even though Article 3(4) states that nothing in Article 3(1) derogates from any other provision of the Constitution, arguments are now being made in court to give Article 3(1) an expanded meaning without considering other Constitutional provisions that limit syariah jurisdiction, and in particular Article 4(1) which recognises the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

This view is also propagated in public forums and lectures led by Islamic state ideologues. There are even those who publicly say the Constitution only applies to non-Muslims, while Muslims of this land are governed by syariah law.

Law reform needed

The Cabinet has displayed the political will to find a solution to the endless contestations arising from conversions. Given the public outcry and heart-wrenching distress caused to parents and children, what is urgently needed now is immediate law reform to restore the law to the status quo before these confusing and conflicting judgments were made.

There must be clarity in law and interpretation that non-Muslims should not be subjected to syariah jurisdiction, a child’s religion can only be changed with the consent of both parents, and that all matters pertaining to a civil marriage must be resolved in the civil court under civil law, even if one party has converted to Islam.

In the long run, what is perhaps needed is the submission of a White Paper to Parlia­ment that clearly addresses all the problems, complexities and competing interests on matters involving religion. The Government can then present its long-term solutions for debate on the proper role of religion in public life and as a source of public law and policy, and the framework and principles to be used to address the areas of conflict.

The renowned Sudanese legal scholar, Abdullahi An-Na’im, advocates that the use of syariah rules and principles to make laws must pass the test of “civic reason” and be subject to safeguards within the framework of constitutionalism, human rights and citizenship.

Similar frameworks are also advocated by other Muslim scholars, groups working on women’s rights in Islam, and by the newly launched Musawah, the Global Movement for Equality and Justice in the Muslim Family.

What this means is that there is a place for religion in public law and policy. But this right can only be realised within the framework of constitutional and democratic governance at home and international law abroad.

The challenge, as posed by An-Na’im, is for the advocates of Islamic laws and policies to support their proposals in free and open public debate by reasons that are accessible and convincing to citizens, regardless of their religious or other beliefs.

And those who disagree must also enjoy the public space to present their counter proposals on an equal footing, whether their arguments are based on a different set of syariah principles or from other religious, Constitutional or human rights perspectives.

In Malaysia, the public space for debate on matters of religion is expanding. The search for just solutions can only take place if we as citizens protect this space and consider the possibilities of equality and justice from multiple perspectives – religious, international human rights, constitutional and fundamental rights guarantees, and our lived realities. The use of syariah arguments for public law and policy must be grounded in the realities of modern day life in a democratic constitutional state, and a world linked by international law.

Governing via outcome-oriented thinking

By Dr MOHD ZAIDI ISMAIL
SENIOR FELLOW/DIRECTOR, CENTRE FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, IKIM

Governance is not simply about the process of decision-making and implementation but also about the substance of the act.

We have stated earlier that there has been unanimity among Muslim scholars on the meaning of tadbir, a major Arabic term signifying administration, management, or governance (see IKIM Views of Oct 28 and Dec 23 2008).

To illustrate, we also related the definitions offered by three past Muslim scholars, namely, al-Baydawi (d. 791H), al-Jurjani (d. 816H) and al-Tahanawi (d. 1158H).

Their definitions, just like those of other Muslim luminaries, at the very least highlight two fundamental points regarding the act or process which may correctly be referred to as tadbir.

Firstly, purpose or end is both integral and central to such an act or process.

Secondly, in line with the paramount role of tawhid (unity as well as unifying) in Islam, the act or process not only encompasses two different operational modes – knowledge and practice – but also integrates both the foregoing into an organic single.

At the level of knowledge, it comprises one’s act of deliberating the possible outcomes with every intention of knowing what is good.

At the practical stage, it involves the act of executing something in order to obtain good results.

It should also be noted that both knowledge and practice involved in the process of tadbir do not simply aim for any goal, but only at goals which are praiseworthy.

In this respect, tadbir is an extension and the embodiment of the freedom of choice in Islam which, as argued by Professor Dr Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas, is termed ikhtiyar (ikhtiar in Malay) and ought to be based solely on what is good (khayr).

In short, such definitions demonstrate that governance is not simply about the process of decision-making and the process by which decisions are implemented but also about the substance of the decision-making, namely – noble ends, desirable outcomes, praiseworthy results, and good consequences.

It is also pertinent here that one be cognizant of the fact that eminent Muslim lexicologists, such as ibn al-Manzur (d. 711H) in his Lisan al-‘Arab and al-Firuzabadi (d. 817H) in his al-Qamus al-Muhit have recorded that tadabbur – which is a verbal noun of another cognate word, tadabbara – is synonymous with the meaning of tadbir at the epistemic or theoretical level.

The expression tadabbara al-amr, being the fifth derivative of the triliteral root verb da-ba-ra, connotes one’s search for the end, or outcome, of an affair.

In the above sense, therefore, tadabbur is synonymous with tadbir which, as previously explained, consists of one mentally looking into the outcome of an affair and, depending on the occasion, may be rendered into English as purposive reflection, foresight, or prudence.

In fact, al-Jurjani in his famous Book of Definitions succinctly explained the subtle difference between the two modes or types of thinking, one termed tafakkur and the other tadabbur.

According to him, although both are mental acts or dispositions, the former consists of one directing one’s mental observation and scrutiny towards proof or evidence, whereas the latter involves one directing attention towards the end or outcome.

It is therefore clear that tadbir at the epistemic level, or tadabbur as its synonym, denotes a particular mode of thinking, namely, thinking which is being specifically directed towards an outcome or result with the intention of knowing what is good, praiseworthy and noble.

Hence, any act of governance, management or administration deserved of being referred to as tadbir needs not only involve that mode of thinking but also needs to nurture and nourish it.

Otherwise, one is simply misappropriating the term.

Tadbir in the Quran

By DR MOHD ZAIDI ISMAIL
SENIOR FELLOW/DIRECTOR,
CENTRE FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

God commands, and at His creative behest, things come into being and events take place.

We have had some occasions before to briefly argue that the term tadbir is one of the major Arabic terms meaning administration, management, or governance.

This has also been duly recognised by a number of studies carried out in modern times, such as Muhammad al-Buraey in his Administrative Development: an Islamic Perspective (London: KPI, 1985); Wan Mohd Nor Wan Daud in his Malay work Penjelasan Budaya Ilmu (Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, 1991); Yassine Essid in his in-depth study of the origins of Islamic Economic Thought aptly titled A Critique of the Origins of Islamic Economic Thought (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995); and most recently, Scott Kugle in his Introduction to The Book of Illumination (Louisville: Fons Vitae, 2005), his translation of Kitab al-Tanwir fi Isqat al-Tadbir, a work by Ibn ‘Ata’illah al-Iskandari, the great Muslim scholar of late 13th Century Cairo.

Although the term tadbir itself is not used in the Quran, the present tense of its verbal form, yudabbir, is repeated four times – in Yunus (10): 3 and 31; al-Ra‘d (13): 2; and al-Sajadah (32): 5.

In all of such occasions, the verb is accompanied by the term al-amr and refers to a particular type of Divine Act.

We therefore read yudabbir al-amr, whose meaning, for want of an exact English equivalent, is “He (that is, Allah) governs the affairs”.

The word amr in Arabic, apart from connoting “a command or a decree”, may also mean “an affair, an entity, an event, or a state”.

Both meanings, though apparently distinct, are indeed closely related, at least insofar as the Islamic cosmological scheme is concerned.

For God commands, and at His creative Behest, things come into being and events take place.

The expression yudabbir al-amr in the aforementioned cases is also mentioned alongside the facts of creation, whether celestial or terrestrial.

Among the Arabic terms used for the act of creating in those instances is khalaqa, whose infinitive, khalq, may mean either “to create something in a form which has no precedence” or “to predetermine, to ordain, or to give measure (al-taqdir)”.

One may therefore infer, on justified grounds, that not only does Allah bring all the creatures and events into existence according to a comprehensive design predetermined in His Perfect Knowledge, but He also generously sustains and governs all of them.

The erudite theologian, jurist and commentator of the Quran, Imam Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (d. 604 A.H.), in commenting on one of those four Quranic verses, said: “Yudabbir al-amr (literally ‘Allah governs the affairs’) means that Allah decrees and foreordains according to the requirement of wisdom and He also does that which is done by one whose act is always appropriate and who attends to the ends and outcomes of affairs such that nothing unbecoming would ever come into existence.”

Similarly, the traditionist-theologian Imam al-Bayhaqi (d. 458 A.H.), in his Kitab al-I‘tiqad wa al-Hidayah ila Sabil al-Rashad, explains

that Allah as The Governor is both omniscient – including His knowing the end and outcome of each and every thing – and omnipotent, involving His deciding in accordance with His Knowledge and His acting just as He decides.

In fact, Shah Waliyullah (1703-1762), the well-known Muslim scholar of Delhi, in his famous work, Hujjat Allah al-Balighah, argued that with regard to the bringing into being of the world, tadbir is the last in the order of the three intimately-related Divine Attributes; the other two being ibda‘ and khalq.

Such being the case, one quite often comes across renowned luminaries – like the famous Ibn ‘Ata’illah al-Iskandari (d. 1309) in his Kitab al-Hikam as well as Kitab al-Tanwir fi Isqat al-Tadbir – admonishing people to be confident in, as well as preferring, Divine Governance in all matters, and to not be deluded by the apparent sufficiency of one’s own governance.

The Divine Governance of the entire cosmos is indeed His Pattern of Recurrent Acts (Sunnatullah), which is all-inclusive, appearing partly in the modes of cause-effect correlation and of the rise and decline of nations and civilizations in the theatre of history, holding sway not only over the physical domain but also over the ethico-spiritual realm, regulating not only socio-political life but also individual and family lives.

Human rights shouldn’t impose on religions and cultures

By Dr WAN AZHAR WAN AHMAD

Human rights should neither be made the basis to undermine the Constitution, nor be worshipped as if they represent a sacrade agenda.

Many perceive the doctrine of human rights as a set of legal standards which determines the national and international order. Some regard it as being above their state constitutions and various other codified laws, even nobler than any religious scriptures.

It seems that a kind of a new universal jurisprudence entirely based on human rights is emerging and is becoming bolder, urging that priority be given to the so called rights of man in the area of civil, political, economic, social and cultural over national interests or religious precepts.

A number of aspects pertaining to the human rights discourse suggests that careful scrutiny is inevitable. Human rights carry unavoidable political content and epitomize certain value systems which somehow differ from one society to another.

“Value system” here is not confined to the principles of ethics and morality, but rather must include religion-based world views as well.

Therefore, one must examine those political contents and the various value systems to ensure that human rights are not in conflict with these world views.

If there exists any contradiction or deficiency, adjustments and reconciliation must be made to the effect that no party may abuse any right accorded them, and none may suffer any injustice.

This is necessary since the universal nature claimed by the human rights movement is actually complex.

It requires assessments in progressive terms, and interpretations in accordance with the current legal, political, historical, social, cultural and religious contexts of any given community.

As human rights deals with a variety of groups, we tend to have different views on how the doctrine is best integrated into the development agenda of any nation.

In our Malaysian context, like it or not, we must always bear in mind that we are governed by the Federal Constitution.

This supreme document is already incorporated, and thus guarantees a considerable number of human rights principles.

Our role here is to facilitate the understanding and awareness of our fellow citizens concerning their human rights obligations in the light of the constitutional provisions and their implications.

In this sense, human rights should neither be made the basis to undermine the Constitution, nor be worshipped as if they represent a sacred agenda which could impose restrictions in terms of transforming the country into a united, peaceful and developed nation.

Human rights must not be exploited to create security threats or economic instability for the Govern­ment.

Yet if one examines the unfolding of events in recent years, one may conclude that human rights and the state are actually at loggerheads.

On the one hand, the country has issued statements and has even taken actions indicative of the fact that the Government supports the promotion and protection of human rights. It has even ratified a number of international treaties on human rights.

On the other hand, however, issues like religious conversion, body snat­ching, allegedly denying one citizen­ship, the mistreatment of refugees, and so on, are portrayed as serious infringements of certain basic hu­­man rights.

Human rights advocates seem to argue that although generally supportive, the country’s backing is insufficient.

The Government has never af­­firmed in strong clear terms that the country is more than willing to play its role effectively in relation to those human rights precepts as binding legal principles or legal obligations.

The fact that those documents are conditionally ratified with certain reservations speaks for itself.

Those human rights vanguards fail to appreciate either consciously or unconsciously that those international documents must be interpreted and understood purposely and contextually, in accordance with the peculiarities, demands and values of the community they aspire to serve.

No doubt the state plays a significant role in upholding the rights of its subjects.

But, in executing this role, the authorities must also honour the legal limits imposed by its Constitu­tion and any other laws currently enforced.

We are not supposed to give in to any foreign provisions affecting our interests if those are contradictory to any provision of our Constitution.

The Government must also respect the religious parameters of certain religions wherever relevant.

One must know, for example, that free­dom of religious conversion en­­shrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is antithetical to Islam.

Islam has its own way of dealing with such an issue.

No one has the right to interfere in matters they do not understand.

It is perhaps clear now that the state can and sometimes should take human rights into consideration in its decision-making process.

In doing so, however, certain limitations must be observed.

What is perfectly moral in certain cultures might not be the same in certain other environments.

What can be done by the authorities is to nurture a better understanding of any given country – its history, its aspirations, current situations and future directions. This is possible through education at all levels.

History is very important and must be taught properly to all citizens, either in a formal manner or otherwise.

Similarly, the followers of all religions must be made aware that their common enemy is secularism and the secularisation processes.

The current international framework of human rights is largely – if not completely – based on secular philosophy.

True religion or any value system which recognises ethics and morality has no role whatsoever apparently.

If we really believe in a religious or value system, we cannot accept any notion under the banner of human rights which propagates the idea that man is free to do whatever he likes without restriction.

Faith knowledge not static

By Dr MOHD SANI BADRON,
SENIOR FELLOW/DIRECTOR,CENTRE FOR ECONOMICS and SOCIAL STUDIES,IKIM

The scope and content of knowledge of one’s religious tenets commensurate with the increase in one’s maturity and responsibility in one’s society.

Rigid traditionalists who make ignorance their capital, and excessive rationalists who misuse logic to encroach traditional wisdom always pose harm within the Muslim community: their misleading rhetoric may confuse people in general as far as the true intention of traditions (naql) is concerned.

Indeed, knowledge concerning faith or ‘ilm al-i‘tiqad should be understood as neither static nor limited to its basic preliminaries, such as those taught to Muslims in childhood.

On the contrary, the scope and content of knowledge of religious tenets – which is obligatory with regard to its pursuit – is dynamic, commensurable to the increase in one’s maturity as well as responsibility as an individual Muslim in one’s society, in tandem with the advancement in the capacity of one’s intelligence and reasoning.

A contemporaneous, dynamic understanding of religious doctrines is quite important in order to vanquish one’s epistemological doubt if any, whether due to one’s personal inner agitation, or external influence in the form of surreptitious deviant interpretations whose argumentation is raging in one’s society.

We are referring to subtle, masquerading deviations which seek to undermine the teachings of the Quran, the traditions of the Prophet (hadith), and those of his Companions (athar) – all of which constitute Islamic religious tradition (naql).

Knowledge of i‘tiqad, which is obligatory to pursue, refers to knowledge that is sufficient to eliminate doubt and confusion concerning religious beliefs throughout one’s life.

That is to say, to the extent that one is able to know what true religious doctrines are, as opposed to what are false, until one is able to avoid from believing in falsehood and errant beliefs, or from rejecting true religious tenets.

Knowledge of i‘tiqad is always interconnected with a profound grasp of the total intellectual situation and requirements of the time.

On this religious doctrinal knowledge, some Muslims are content with their sufficient knowledge gleaned from the Quran as well as the hadiths and athars.

In short, content with the traditions (naql) which contain the final evidence of all truths – the hujjah al-balighah, mentioned in al-An‘am, 6: 169.

Together with sound reason (al-‘aql al-salim) and the consensus of the learned in the Muslim community (ijma‘), as history unfolds, these sources constitute the bases of Islamic theology.

Later in history, sound reasoning employed the analytical science of formal logic (kalam) in defence of Islamic theology against the “rationalistic” Mu‘tazilah and peripatetic philosophy, as well as against the traditionists; in particular, concerning the problem of interpretation of verses referring to Allah in the Quran whose meanings are obscure, or whose meaning are not immediately self evident (ayat mutashabihat vis-à-vis ayat muhkamat).

Then, while politically there was an expansion of Islam in the Mediterranean basin, intellectually the theologians applied their knowledge in a most devastating manner against the various emergent heresies; whether dualism, pantheism, monism, atheism, trinitarianism, pseudo-Sufism, reincarnationism, and so on.

While luminaries such as Abu al-Hasan al-Ash‘ari vindicated kalam as a valid science in the service of the theology of Islam, others like ‘Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi formulated the epistemology, and Abu Bakr al-Baqillani refined the anti-Aristotelian metaphysics of atom and accidents, as alternative sciences pertaining to Islam.

Closely following the Quranic way of argumentation, al-Juwayni, al-Ghazzali, Fakhr al-Razi, for example, marshalled logical reasoning formulated in subtle yet succinct and cogent discourse, which was convincing enough for the minds of their contemporaries.

Their service was in meeting the intellectually deviants, on the latter’s own philosophical ground, and only in language and method they could appreciate.

Wisdom found in the Quran was ably translated into contemporary intellectual idioms, extensive proofs on Divine Oneness and prophecy were then argued intensively with the intention of meeting the pressing circumstances.

In chapters Ta Ha and al-Shu‘ara’, the Quran recorded the reasoning of the prophet Moses against the Pharaoh who claimed to be God; while in al-Naml, the reasoning of Solomon against Queen of Sheba is also recorded.

Nevertheless, it has been shown that argumentation of both prophets are similar in substance to proofs cogently demonstrated earlier in history by the prophet Abraham, whose debates are recorded in al-Shu‘ara’ and al-Baqarah.

Indeed, when Nimrod, a tyrant who claimed to be God, disagreed with the prophet Abraham concerning the Lordship of Allah, the latter’s potent arguments confounded the former (al-Baqarah, 2: 258).

And Allah praises Abraham’s refutation which confounded his disbelieving people (al-An‘am, 6: 83).

Recognise the sin before one can truly repent

By MD ASHAM AHMAD

We are now living in an increasingly secular environment where the word ‘sin’ is losing its meaning.

There are so many verses of the Quran that contain the command and encouragement to repent, and the statement that God loves those who turn unto Him in sincere repentance.

The Prophet himself, according to the well-known tradition, used to seek God’s forgiveness between seventy and one hundred times a day.

“One who has repented from sin”, said the Prophet, “is like one who has no sin.”

So, every Muslim is taught to ins­tantly repent from all sins, mortal or venial.

Repentance is not to be delayed since death is very imminent and no­­body would knowingly want to re­­turn to God without having repented for his or her sins.

No true Muslim will take sin lightly. To sin, according to the Quran, means to be unjust to one’s own soul; and God has declared that He does not like those who are unjust.

Nevertheless, to err is human, but to persist in error is satanic.

So the real issue is not sin, but in refusing to repent, which is the chief characteristic of Satan, the accursed.

Even though God is all-Merciful, all-Forgiving, and He commands His servants to repent, it does not automatically mean that He is going to grant forgiveness.

“Forgiveness is only incumbent on Allah toward those who do evil on ignorance and turn quickly in repentance to Allah … forgiveness is not for those who do ill deeds until when death attends upon one of them, he says: Lo! I repent now…” (al-Nisa’: 17-18).

There are conditions to be fulfilled before one can be said to have truly repented.

First, with regard to the past, namely, for all the wrongdoings one had committed, one must have regret or remorse.

Second, with regard to one’s present state, one must desist from sin immediately.

And third, with regard to the future, one must be determined not to repeat the same error.

The urgent desire to repent will only arise in the soul of one who knows with certainty that sins are destructive to the soul just as poison is to the body.

Only then will one sincerely regret one’s sin, cease and desist, and be determined not to repeat that sin.

Of course it is already assumed here that the person believes in God and in His perfect Attributes, and also in the Hereafter where ultimate judgement will take place.

True repentance, being an outcome of something profound in the soul, will not simply happen to just anybody.

It will only happen to someone who possesses true knowledge, namely, knowledge which yields certainty in the soul about the nature of the ultimate reality.

This knowledge is at the core of one’s consciousness and it guides one’s ethical judgements and behaviour; it is ultimately wisdom bestowed by God upon whosoever He desires from among His servants.

Ethics, as espoused by the religion of Islam, is ultimately grounded upon human conscience, and as such, knowledge and education are of paramount importance.

Today we are living in an increasingly secular environment where the word sin is losing its meaning, and perhaps in the near future will no longer become fashionable.

How would anybody ever think of repentance if one does not recognise what is a sin and what is not?

This is the necessary outcome of secular education: the true places of things in the hierarchy of existence are no longer recognised and acknowledged.

That kind of education would not give one any idea of what justice is all about, and what it means to be unjust to one’s own soul.

The three conditions mentioned are applicable if the sin committed is purely between man and God.

However, if the sin is between man and man, there is another condition to be met: one has to seek forgiveness from the person one has wronged and to repay whatever his or her due is.

God’s forgiveness, in this regard, is subject to the forgiveness of the victim and no amount of prayer and charity may deliver the transgressor from God’s wrath and punishment.

Islam maintains both a horizontal and vertical relation: every individual must maintain good relations with God but one must not take for granted one’s responsibility towards other human beings.

This is particularly true if one is holding the position of leadership.

The bigger the responsibility one holds the more susceptible one is to mistakes, wrongdoings and injustice; hence the call to repentance becomes even more relevant.

Unfortunately, it is not the habit of our leaders to seek forgiveness or apologise for their wrongdoings.

Only those too arrogant would not admit their mistakes even after being told and reminded repeatedly.

We can see this satanic attitude rampant in developing and third world countries.

Islam is a religion that advocates reform (islah) but no genuine reform is possible without first reviving the culture of repentance.

Repentance, according to the Quran, precedes reform.

To call upon Muslims to reform means to ask them to repent for their sins, i.e., to realise and admit their mistakes instead of continuously blaming others for their pathetic state of affairs.

To revive the culture of repentance also means to be open to criticism and to react to it in a positive manner: the manner exemplified by the conduct of the Rightly Guided Caliphs.

If the philosophy of repentance were understood and practised, the Muslim community should have been the most dynamic and progressive community.

- THE STAR

Knowing the Prophet and integrity

By DR MOHD ZAIDI ISMAIL
Senior Fellow / Director, Centre for Science and Technology, IKIM

To genuinely celebrate Prophet Muhammad’s Birthday, or Maulidur Rasul, is to embrace integrity, to fight for the triumph of truthfulness and trustworthiness in society, and to reject hypocrisy.

ON MARCH 17, Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Mohd Najib Tun Razak launched The National Integrity Plan report, dubbed “Target 2008” (Tekad 2008), at the Malaysian Institute of Integrity.

The report, purportedly an assessment of the country’s progress in promoting integrity, among other things, recommends that all the five priorities set in the plan’s first five-year period (2004-2008) be carried forward to the second phase covering the period 2009 to 2013.

Those priorities are: to reduce corruption and the abuse of power, to increase efficiency of the public delivery system, to enhance corporate governance, to strengthen the family institution, and to improve the quality of life and people’s well-being.

Earlier this month, Muslims in Malaysia celebrated what may by now be deemed as their official annual routine: the commemoration of Prophet Muhammad’s Birthday, or more commonly known in its Arabic equivalent, Maulidur Rasul.

Unfortunately, like what has frequently happened to a once noble or virtuous act that has been rendered a routine, the commemoration seemed to be more ceremonial than the embodiment of the message and spirit of his prophecy.

In fact, many have been lamenting about the deterioration in the quality of such a momentous occasion, though not much has been done to improve it.

Perhaps, the reader may have begun to wonder: what actually is my point in drawing attention to these two apparently separate events?

Simply to prove that the Muslims have become so segregated and accustomed to piecemeal undertakings that they continually, if not continuously, fail to notice the intimate relation between these seemingly disparate occasions, so near chronologically but which, were they to be held at once in a more organised fashion, would most probably have saved a substantial amount of public monies and yet would have given a more significant impact.

How can I make such a claim? Because the Prophet Muhammad is indeed the epitome of integrity.

And to genuinely celebrate his birth and his prophecy is to embrace integrity, to fight for the triumph of truthfulness and trustworthiness in society, to reject hypocrisy and all that is antithetical to honesty and virtue.

Muslims have been proud that their Prophet demonstrated perfection and comprehensiveness of life.

His life, as the late Saiyid Sulaiman Nadwi, a renowned modern biographer of the Prophet, correctly pointed out in his Mohamed the Ideal Prophet, “from ... birth to death, is before us like an open book”.

But many Muslims somehow fail to realise that for his life to be so, for every aspect and moment of it to be reported and preserved for the benefit of posterity, required that he be a complete man of integrity, exemplifying transparency at its fullest, distinguishing not between one’s private and public lives.

He never tried to hide anything about himself; on the contrary, he even instructed that his every word and action not only be recorded, but also transmitted.

He never lied. How could he have done so while at the same time professing to be the model example for humanity? How he appeared to the public is exactly how he was in his most secluded life.

Indeed, the Prophet knew full well that to Allah everything is transparent, nothing is concealed.

Hence, the explanation of a famous Muslim mystic-cum-theologian, Abul-Qasim al-Qushayri, in his al-Risalah al-Qushayriyyah, “the lowest degree of truthfulness is that one’s innermost being (al-sirr) and outward appearance (al-‘alaniyah) are in harmony”.

Or as Abu ‘Ali al-Daqqaq once remarked: “Truthfulness is that you be with people just as you perceive yourself to be or that you perceive yourself to be just as you are.”

Or, as noted by Abu Sa‘id al-Qarshi: “The truthful one is he who is ready to die and he who would not be ashamed if his secret were disclosed. Allah Most High says: ‘Wish for death if you are truthful ’.”

Yet, lacking consciousness of the Divine Presence and Scrutiny, how can all this be actualised in modern life?

- THE STAR