Perpaduan UMNO-PAS: Syarat-Syarat Kejayaan

Kassim Ahmad

22 Julai, 2008

Pada waktu ini, sebahagian besar rakyat kita, termasuk orang Melayu, tidak mahu PAS dan UMNO bersatu atas apa alasan pun. Namun demikian, tidak dapat dinafikan lebih ramai orang Melayu mahu melihat perkara itu berlaku. Alasan puak yang kedua ialah untuk memelihara dan mempertahankan hak ketuanan orang Melayu ke atas negara ini dan memelihara dan mempertahankan martabat Islam sebagai agama rasmi. Orang Melayu dalam puak pertama telah menukarkan slogan “ketuanan Melayu” kepada “ketuanan rakyat”. Kita tidak tahu apakah pendirian mereka tentang Islam. Barangkali mereka akan menerima apa yang disebut dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Tidak syak lagi, para prinsipnya, hanya orang Melayu yang boleh mempertahankan hak-hak mereka yang sah dalam negara-bangsa Malaysia yang sedang kita bangunkan. Demikian juga, hanya orang Islam yang boleh mempertahankan agama Islam di Malaysia. Namun demikian, kita juga tidak boleh lupa kepada soal falsafah atau pandangan hidup: orang Melayu yang berfikiran yang macam mana, dan orang Melayu yang ikut ‘Islam’ yang macam mana?

Dari awal dalam sejarah Malaya/Malaysia Baru, wujud dua konsep negera-bangsa yang bertentangan. Pertama, konsep negara-bangsa yang dibawa oleh UMNO-MCA-MIC yang kemudian menjadi Barisan Nasional, yang, pada dasarnya, pro-kolonial dan kapitalis. Kedua, konsep negara-bangsa yang dibawa oleh gabungan parti-parti progresif pada ketika itu, iaitu PUTERA-AMCJA, dengan “Sepuluh Prinsip Rakyat” yang terkenal itu.[1] Seperti kita semua tahu, tekanan dari pihak penjajah Inggeris menyebabkan gabungan UMNO-MCA-MIC menerima kemerdekaan Malaya pada 31 Ogos, 1957 dan memegang tampuk pemerintahan. Gabungan progresif pula menerima tekanan yang dahsyat bukan saja dari pihak penjajah Inggeris, tetapi juga dari pihak Kerajaan Perikatan/Barisan Nasional kemudian hingga sekarang. “Pakatan Rakyat” yang baru muncul dari kerjasama antara PKR, PAS dan DAP dalam pilihanraya umum ke-12 yang lalu seolah-olah mahu mengganti gabungan parti-parti progresif yang dulu itu.

Sekarang dua kemungkinan boleh berlaku. Pertama, UMNO dan B.N. yang ia pimpin, boleh membuat perubahan-perubahan yang diperlukan dari segi falsafah politik mereka dan dari segi dasar pemerintahan mereka untuk melayakkan diri mereka mendapat balik kepercayaan rakyat kepada mereka. Kedua, Pakatan Rakyat, dalam masa yang tidak begitu lama, boleh memperkukuh dan memantapkan kerjasama di antara mereka serta menjalankan dasar “nasionalis, progresif, demokratik dan humanis”, dengan lain perkatan dasar, dasar pro-rakyat dalam pentadbiran mereka. Jika yang pertama berlaku, UMNO/B.N. akan menang balik dalam pilihanraya umum yang ke-13, dan Pakatan Rakyat akan kalah. Sebaliknya, jika yang kedua berlaku, Pakatan Rakyat akan menang dan UMNO/B.N. akan kalah.

Harus diingat bahawa salah satu dari dua kemungkinan ini saja yang akan berlaku; kedua-duanya tidak boleh berlaku serentak.

Ini suatu perlawanan atau rebutan kuasa yang sengit – di antara UMNO/Barisan Nasional dan Pakatan Rakyat. Sebab itu kita melihat pelbagai peristiwa berlaku – peristiwa-peristiwa yang mencelarukan keadaan politik di negara kita sekarang.

Kita harus ingat bahawa perbezaan ideologilah yang memecah-belahkan masyarakat Malaya/Malaysia Baru yang ingin kita bangunkan. Pada asalnya, UMNO menyatukan semua parti dan kumpulan Melayu, termasuk PAS dan PKMM (Parti Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya yang kemudian menjadi Parti Rakyat Malaya/Malaysia). Oleh kerana PAS hendak “memperjuangkan Islam” dan PKMM hendak memperjuangkan sosialisme, maka puak agama dalam UMNO keluar untuk menubuhkan PAS dan PKMM keluar dari UMNO untuk berjuang di bawah bendera parti mereka sendiri.

Sejak dua atau tiga dekat yang lalu, dunia kita yang berpecah mengikut ideologi sudah tidak ada lagi. Perang Dingin antara Blok Barat (yang dipimpin oleh Inggeris-A.S.) dan Blok Timur (yang dipimpin oleh Rusia) sudah berakhir. Blok Timur sudah pecah dan Rusia dan China sudah mengamalkan sistem “pasaran bebas” Inggeris-Amerika Syarikat. Sistem “pasaran bebas” neo-liberal ini sendiri sedang runtuh di depan mata kita. Suatu sistem baru yang lebih adil – gabungan yang harmonis di antara sistem liberal-kapitalis dan sistem sosialis-komunis – sedang muncul. Perubahan ini juga yang sedang berlaku di negara kita.

Perundingan antara UMNO dan PAS sekarang, selain menggambarkan rebutan kuasa yang sengit antara UMNO/ B.N dengan Pakatan Rakyat, juga menggambarkan kegelisahan orang Melayu tentang kedudukan kuasa mereka. Seperti yang telah saya katakana, soal yang pokok bukan “perpaduan Melayu”, tetapi dasar UMNO dan dasar PAS itu sendiri – adakah darar-dasar mereka “nasionalis, progresif, demokratik dan humanis”. Dasar yang akhir inilah yang menggambarkan ciri dunia yang sedang muncul.

Suatu kesilapan falsafah PAS harus dibetulkan. Konsep Melayu itu suatu konsep kebangsaan, kerana Melayu itu suatu bangsa. Ia fitrah yang selaras dengan sunnatullah, natural law, dan tidak harus dinafikan oleh PAS. Manakalah Islam itu suatu falsafah, suatu pandangan hidup, yang kita kenal dengan pandangan hidup tauhid. Salah satu ciri yang terpenting dalam pandangan hidup in dalam pemerintahan ialah keadilan. Apabila sesuatu masyarakat itu memerintah dengan adil, masyarakt itu sebenarnya memerintah mengikut Islam. Contoh Piagam Madinah yang digubal oleh Nabi Muhammad sendiri untuk mentadbirkan, mula-mula negara-kota Madinah dan kemudian seluruh negara-bangsa Arab di Semenanjung Arab, menjadi contah yang baik untuk kita ikut. Tidak pun disebut “negara Islam” dalam perlembagaan ini – kebetulan perlembagaan bertulis yang pertama di dunia!

Di atas saya menimbulkan masalah “Islam yang mana”. Islam yang berpaksikan falsafah tauhid ialah Islam yang dibawa oleh semua nabi, dari Nabi Adam hingga ke Nabi Muhammad, nabi yang terakhir. Islam ini dilengkap dan disempurnakan dalam Quran. Ayat yang berbunyi: “Pada hari ini Kami lengkapkan agama kamu dan sempurnakan nikmat Kami kepada kamu, dan Kami reda Islam sebagai agama kamu.” (Quran, 5: 3) menjadi bukti. Tetapi dua ratus lima puluh tahun kemudian, Hadis/Sunnah telah ditambah kepada Quran oleh ulama mereka untuk menjadi pegangan umat Islam yang wajib. Sesetengah pemimpin kita telah bercakap tentang Islam yang sebebar. Islam yang sebenar ialah Islam yang dibawa oleh Nabi Muhammad, melalui para nabi yang awal, dan yang termaktub dalam Quran – sebuah kitab suci yang dijaminkan kesahihan-Nya oleh Tuhan Sendiri. Kepada Islam inilah yang patut kita kembali. Islam ini akan membawa kita kepada kebenaran, keadilan dan keehsanan. Inilah yang dikehendaki oleh rakyat kita dan rakyat seluruh dunia sekarang.

Kassim Ahmad seorang penulis bebas Malaysia. Beliau boleh dihubungi di alamat kassim03@streamyx.com Laman web beliau www.kassimahmad.blogspot.com

---

[1] Lihat Memoir Ahmad Boestamam: Merdeka dengan Darah dalam Api, Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan Malaya, Bangi , 2004; hal. 204-216.

For the love of the common people

By MARTIN VENGADESAN

The Star (Lifestyle) Sunday July 27, 2008

For more than two decades, he was the poster boy for socialism before he turned his back on it and joined Umno. Now in his twilight years, Kassim Ahmad considers himself a failure but has no regrets.

THINKER, teacher, socialist, politician, Kamunting detainee. In his time, Kassim Ahmad was all these and was certainly no stranger to controversy.

Following his own philosophical muse has taken him from the highs of his acclaimed commentary on the Hikayat Hang Tuah (in which he argues that Hang Jebat is the true hero of the Malay epic) to the lows of a five-year spell under the Internal Security Act.

What’s more, after serving 18 years as national chairman of the Parti Sosialis Rakyat Malaysia (PSRM), he infuriated many leftists by resigning and later, joining Umno in 1986.

Kassim received so many attacks on Hadis – Satu Penilaian Semula that he felt compelled to write another book specifically to answer his critics. – MUSTAFA AHMAD / The Star

Then as an Umno member, he began his second career as a “troublemaker” when his interpretation of Islamic teachings earned the ire of religious authorities and conservatives!

Now in his twilight years (he turns 75 in September), Kassim has no intention of slipping away quietly. His autobiography, Mencari Jalan Pulang, Daripada Sosialisme Kepada Islam (Finding the Road Back, From Socialism to Islam) which was released in May, has become a best-seller.

The first print order of 3,000 copies has sold so quickly that a second print is in the works.

He is also a blogger (kassimahmad.blogspot.com), writing on philosophy, politics, religion and literature.

His memoirs Mencari Jalan Pulang, Daripada Sosialisme Kepada Islam sees Kassim reflect with humour and humility upon his life’s struggles.

Yet, he is no longer the intellectual Che Guevera of Malaysian politics that he once was. For one, he is no longer an active politician; he’s even given up on Marxism – more on that later.

Kassim who was born in Bukit Pinang, Kedah, started out brilliantly. He earned his degree in Malay Studies at Universiti Malaya’s Singapore campus and a Masters (also in Malay Studies) at UM’s Kuala Lumpur campus.

He was still in his 20s when his work on Hikayat Hang Tuah established him as a leading intellectual in the emerging new nation of Malaysia.

Indeed, when he returned to Malaysia in 1966 following a four-year spell as a lecturer at the University of London’s School of Oriental & African Studies, Kassim could surely have abandoned leftist politics for a distinguished career in a public sector hungry for highly-qualified Malays. However, his principles did not allow him to do so, and when it became clear that his political activism was affecting his ability to find work as an academic he became a teacher at Sekolah Adullah Munshi in Penang.

“I have no regrets about those decisions,” he says. “I went into politics because I wanted the power to change the country for the better. But I loathe Machiavellian politics and that partly contributed to my failure. Another factor was the unpopularity of socialism among the Malays.”

Indeed in the late 1960s Kassim took a strict ideological line, identifying the hitherto Sukarno-influenced Malay nationalist party, Parti Rakyat Malaysia (PRM), with the doctrine of scientific socialism, a dangerous move in the intolerant Cold War environment.

“I joined PRM in 1960. I went to the office with Syed Husin (current Parti Keadilan Rakyat deputy president Dr Syed Husin Ali) to sign up. But I was not really active until 1967 or so, after my return from the UK. I soon became chairman of the Penang division.

“It was a tough time to be a leftist. Then Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman was still very colonial in mentality and we were against many of his policies. The Malay masses were also averse to socialism because of the issue of national identity and religion.”

PRM was then part of Barisan Sosialis which was falling apart because of mass detentions and a few defections. Kassim was at the forefront of the party’s restyling itself to PSRM. However, it missed out on the Opposition’s successes of 1969, which were cancelled out by the racial riots of May 13.

Kassim with his wife Shariffah Fawziah, son Ahmad Shauqi and elder daughter Soraya following his release from detention in 1981.

“When May 13 came, political activities were stopped for 1½ years. (The new Prime Minister) Tun Abdul Razak brought about many changes. There was a more nationalistic, less colonial outlook that came alongside the New Economic Policy which was meant to alleviate the poverty of the rural poor. During this time, PSRM was invited to join Barisan Nasional, but through a miscommunication, the offer fell through.”

By this time, Kassim had married Shariffah Fawziah Syed Yussoff Alsagoff. The couple have three children – Soraya, Ida and Ahmad Shauqi.

“It was difficult at first as my wife’s family were not happy with my political involvement and her father wished her to marry another man. She refused and married me and once our children came along, her family came around.”

Kassim has good memories of his tenure as leader of PSRM. “My fondest memories were those of my visits to the rural areas of Terengganu, Pahang and other states where I saw and experienced the people’s suffering in places so isolated and underdeveloped that teachers would only go there for two or three days a week.”

For all the good work done by the party in the rural areas, PSRM’s leadership was affected by another around of detentions in 1974. Kassim was held two years later.

“My ISA detention was not part of the roundup in 1974 following the farmers’ and students’ protest, in which leaders like Syed Husin and Anwar Ibrahim were detained.

“My detention was linked to my teaching of the domino theory because Laos, Cambodia and South Vietnam had just fallen to the Communists. In truth there was no good reason for the detention – many of us were just pawns in an internal Umno power struggle then.”

After his release in 1981, Kassim focused on his writing – he wrote two books on his traumatic experiences titled Universiti Kedua - Kisah Tahanan di Bawah ISA (Second University – Detention under ISA) and the banned Zaman Pancaroba (The Troubled Age).

Despite all that, he believes that the ISA is necessary “to cope with the threat of unjust rebellion” and was duly criticised for such a stand.

Kassim Ahmad (second from left) as a young socialist with his wife and fellow leftists visiting Karl Marx's grave in Highgate Cemetery, London.

In 1984 he shocked his followers by leaving the party which he had led for so long.

“It is hard to believe now, but back in the early 1980s when he just became Prime Minister, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad was seen as very progressive.

“We had known each other from our Alor Setar days and we had met and talked informally about bringing some of the PSRM ideas into the Barisan Nasional concept.

“We even formed a sub-committee in PSRM to handle these negotiations but my integrity was questioned and I felt I should resign from the party.”

Thus began a journey which led Kassim to review his opinions on Marxism.

As he explains it on his blog in a posting to rebut Hishamuddin Rais’ harsh review of Mencari Jalan Pulang, Daripada Sosialisme Kepada Islam: “... Marxism is history today, and Hishamuddin and his likes (sic) had better accept this reality and bitter truth.”

And he tells me: “The fatal flaw in Marxism/Socialism is its restriction on personal freedom. A person must be free to work and earn according to his ability. However, unrestrained capitalism results in many inhumane injustices. What we need is a good welfare concept where people are able to exercise their individual freedoms but still be supported by the state when the need arises.”

Kassim’s review of his socialist leanings coincided with a renewed interest in Islam, which harked back to his childhood (his father was a religious teacher).

“When I studied the Islam of my ancestors I realised that many deviations had occurred and it was very different from the Islam of the prophets.”

In 1986, Kassim made a double move that had him at the centre of both political and religious storms: he joined Umno and then published Hadis – Satu Penilaian Semula (Hadith – A Re-examination), a highly controversial religious analysis!

“When my book came out there were big discussions. Some labelled me an apostate, misunderstanding my message and calling me anti-Hadith.

“I don’t consider myself anti-Hadith, but I feel some have sought to elevate the Hadith to equal the Quran. I maintained that where there are contradictions, the Quran must take precedence.

“The problem may not be so much one of interpretation, but that of fear of open dialogue. The intellectual culture in Malaysia is weak, largely due to a leadership that has made religion and ethnicity sensitive subjects. That’s wrong. We should seek to understand one another and ourselves in an open-hearted manner. That’s why inter-faith discussion is important.”

In his view, last year’s Lina Joy decision seems to indicate that Malays have no freedom of religion (On May 30, 2007, The Federal Court dismissed her appeal to remove the word Islam from her identity card because she had converted to Christianity).

Says Kassim: “The Quran clearly and absolutely upholds the freedom of religion for all men. sura 2, verse 256 gives you complete freedom of religion, yet apostasy charges are popular.

You cannot force religious faith on a whole people. It must come from within. Secularism itself is not strange to Islam, as indicated in the Medina Charter, which was written by the prophet Mohamed to help the people govern a multi-religious society.”

What then does he makes of groups like Al Arqam, Al Ma-anah, and Sky Kingdom?

“These are deviationist groups. I think if you look at the Sky Kingdom which appeared to be peaceful, the authorities took a wrong approach. You cannot force on people your own definition of what is religiously correct as it will only encourage them to rebel and oppose you.”

As for joining Umno – as Pengkalan Kota branch leader in Penang – he explains why:

“I joined because it was the party with the strongest roots in the Malay community and I wanted to work with the grassroots poor. I viewed politics in a different way; I felt that if those with progressive views joined the ruling party they could renew it and reshape it.

But it doesn’t appear as if the “progessive” ones achieved their aims and Kassim retired from active politics in 1991. His opinion of Umno today:

“It needs a radical change. Over the last two decades, it has alienated itself from the Malay masses and become an elitist party. But it is still a party rooted in the defining community of Malaysia, i.e. the Malays. It needs to go back to its original struggle. Whether it can make the necessary changes or not remains to be seen.”

On Pakatan Rakyat, he says: “They have to resolve their ideological differences and prove themselves a better coalition than Barisan Nasional quickly. Otherwise the people will throw them out.”

Kassim busies himself with writing, reading and taking short walks. He looks forward to the next World Cup and watching Brazil play. While his occasional travels have been slowed down by bronchitis, he has no intention of putting down the pen with which he has made his mark.

“After writing my memoirs, I felt as if a big load was taken off my shoulders, and I can relax now,” he says with a laugh.

Buoyed by his book’s success which has stirred interest in his previous works as well, Kassim plans to compile his essays posted on his website into two books in the next two or three years.

No one is more excited than his publisher who himself is a good barometer of a younger generation’s interest in a man from the past. Ezra Mohd. Zaid, director of ZI Publications, is only 25.

He explains: “I feel that Kassim is an intriguing figure, both at the centre of our intellectual thought and yet marginalised because of his unorthodox views. I feel he deserves a platform to address contemporary issues.”

It’s been a long journey but, as long as his health allows him, Kassim Ahmad has not reached the end of his road – he still has paths to explore and welcomes anyone to come along for the ride.

Living by his principles

TO his most ardent admirers, Kassim Ahmad is Malaysia’s “foremost thinker and philosopher”. To his detractors, he is a Marxist-turned-Umno man who is anti-Hadith.

But to his son and closest friends, he is a scholar and a gentleman who made great personal sacrifices for his country and its ordinary people.

His lifelong friend Parti Keadilan Rakyat deputy President Dr Syed Husin Ali says they were two young friends who were united in a passionate political struggle that changed their lives.

“After Kassim came back from London, the two of us ceased to be just academicians and took over the leadership of PRM (Parti Rakyat Malaysia) and that’s when we renamed it Parti Sosialis Rakyat Malaysia which I perhaps didn’t totally agree with.

"We came together to build a party to fight for the common people. We tried hard, but maybe in the end we failed"- DR SYED HUSIN ALI

“Kassim became the chairman and I became the secretary general. There was some strain with the old leaders, especially Ahmad Boestamam, but eventually we came together to build a party to fight for the common people. We tried hard, but maybe in the end we failed,” muses Dr Syed Husin.

Indeed, he, Kassim and other party colleagues earned a spell under the Internal Security Act.

Kassim’s son, Ahmad Shauqi, now 41, recalls those difficult years vividly. “The time my father spent under detention was very tough. I was in Standard Three. My mother wasn’t working and there was no steady income for the family. Fortunately PSRM gave a sum of RM100 or RM150 every month for a few years and our relatives helped too.

“I must salute my mother for not abandoning my father or the family when he was detained because she was very pretty and many men were chasing her during this time,” he adds with a laugh.

Kassim and Dr Syed Husin were detained at Kamunting but were placed in different cells.

“We were never in the same dormitory but we managed to talk over the zinc partition, and to pass food and books to each other,” says Dr Syed Husin.

To the authorities, Kassim was a trouble-maker but to his son, he was a soft-spoken and law-abiding citizen.

“He cared about the welfare of the people as a whole, putting it higher even than that of the family. He knew the hardships of life growing up in Kedah and he wanted to work to improve the conditions of everybody’s life, not just his family’s,” says Ahmad Shauqi.

“My father tends to think the best of people and sometimes he has been taken advantage of. But most people I meet think very highly of my father although some rural Malays have been given an incorrect impression of him because of (his book) Hadis – Satu Penilaian Semula (Hadith – A Re-examination).

Parti Sosialis Malaysia chairman and Kota Damansara assemblyman Mohd Nasir Hashim was among the generation of leftists who remembers Kassim’s leadership of the progressive struggle.

“Our paths did not cross much, because I was overseas and only joined PSRM in the mid 1980s soon after he left the party but I can tell you that many young leftists in the 1960s and 70s looked upon him as a guiding force. After he came out from detention, he moved towards Islamic socialism before abandoning socialism altogether. Even so as an Islamist thinker, he questioned a lot and was branded unfairly as ‘anti-Hadith’.

“I believe leaders like Kassim and (DAP stalwart the late) Dr. V. David, at their height, were a force to reckon with.

“Kassim was always coming out with fiery statements and interpretations of global politics. In later years he mellowed. He must have had his reasons for going to Umno; it was a tough world for a socialist and in Malaysia the leftist movement had been wiped out.”

Dr Syed Husin admits that Kassim’s decision to leave PSRM affected their friendship “a little” but they remained friends.

“We were certainly not antagonistic. We still attended each other’s children’s weddings and most recently met at the launching of my book (The Malays: Their Problems & Future).

“But in hindsight, I think Kassim would have had more influence if he remained independent after leaving PSRM instead of joining Umno because his style and their political culture were incompatible.”

Adds Dr Syed Husin, “Kassim is an important thinker. Right from his student days he was interested in both socialism and Islam. Some people misunderstand him, thinking the interest in Islam came later. Even as an Islamist he holds opinions which are viewed as controversial, some of which I share and others that I don’t.

“He is a very powerful poet and should be recognised as such. Whatever the controversy surrounding his politics and religious views, his contributions as a writer should not be overlooked. He was given an honorary doctorate by UKM (Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia) in the 1980s but by and large he has not been given his due.”

Still for all his trials and tribulations, it is heartening to see Kassim enjoy retired life with his loved ones. His two daughters married an Australian and a Frenchman and reside overseas while his son lives in Penang with his Malaysian Chinese wife.

“As a father he has done his job well,” says Ahmad Shauqi. “Even though he was not always around when we were growing up, he gave his values of what was right and wrong. He has a very open mind and heart which he has passed to us and now to his (11) grandchildren (aged from 22 to three).

“My father likes to impart his knowledge and values but then give you the freedom to chose your own path. He taught us to be independent and self-reliant and not to depend on the government or a corporation for your living.” – MARTIN VENGADESAN

Hadis: Satu Penilaian Semula #19

Bab IV: Kritikan Terhadap Hadis

Teori Keselarasan Hadis

Menjangka kritikan-kritikan dari pembantah-pembantah teorinya, Imam Shafi’i telah mewujudkan teori keselarasan Hadis, yakni Hadis tidak boleh bercanggah dengan Quran dan tidak boleh bercanggah sama sendiri. Jika didapati bercanggah sama ada dengan Quran atau dengan hadis-hadis lain, maka percanggahan ini pada lahir saja dan tidak percanggahan sebenar.^.23 Ini nyata sebuah teori yang pintar untuk mengelak kelemahan-kelemahan Hadis yang ketara, tetapi apakah teori ini boleh menyelamatkan Hadis adalah satu perkara lain. Kita akan melihat bahawa ia tidak boleh menyelamatkan Hadis.

Dalam satu huraian yang agak berbelit-belit, Shafi’i mendakwa bahawa Hadis tidak boleh bercanggah dengan Quran dan tidak boleh bercanggah sama sendiri. Ringkasnya, beliau menegaskan Nabi sebagai jurubicara Tuhan, yang perlu ditaati oleh orang-orang mukmin secara mutlak atas perintahNya, mempunyai kuasa untuk menjelaskan hal-hal yang dinyatakan secara umum dalam Quran dan dengan demikian tidak terdapat percanggahan di antara sunnah dan Quran. Percanggahan kadang-kadang ternampak di antara satu sunnah dengan yang lain kerana keadaan-keadaan yang berbeza yang menimbulkan sunnah-sunnah itu atau kerana laporan-laporan yang tidak lengkap, dan kontradiksi yang sebenar tidak wujud.

Perhatikan dialog antara Shafi’i dengan penyoalnya:

Dia (penyoal) bertanya: Mungkinkah sunnah bertentangan dengan Kitab (Tuhan)?

Shafi’i menjawab: Tidak mungkin! Kerana Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala mengenakan kewajipan ke atas manusia (mentaati syariah) melalui dua jurusan – yang berasal dari Kitab – KitabNya dan sunnah. (Yang kedua ini mengikat kerana kewajipan untuk taat diletakkan dalam kitab dan patutlah diikut. Jika tidak mungkin Rasul membenarkan sunnahnya dimansuhkan (oleh Kitab) tanpa beliau sendiri mengadakan satu sunnah lain untuk memansuhkannya. Sunnah yang memansuhkan diketahui kerana ia datang kemudian, sedangkan kebanyakan ayat Quran yang memansuhkan hanya dapat diketahui dengan (petunjuk-petunjuk melalui) Sunnah Rasul.²⁴

Shafi’i sebenarnya tidak memberi contoh-contoh yang terang untuk membuktikan teori keselarasan Hadisnya. Apa yang dihuraikan oleh beliau ialah apa yang dikatakan oleh ahlul Hadis peranan sunnah sebagai penjelas dan pengkhusus kepada ketentuan-ketentuan umum dalam Quran. Perkara ini telah saya bincang dan bahas dalam Bab II. Walau bagaimanapun, eloklah kita bincang hujah Shafi’i mengenai hukuman zina di mana hukuman Wuran bercanggah dengan hukuman Hadis.

Quran menetapkan hukuman zina dengan ayat yang berbunyi:

“Penzina perempuan dan penzina lelaki, hendaklah kamu sebat tiap-tiap seorang mereka seratus rotan, dan janganlah perasaan belas kasihan menghalang kamu daripada menjalankan hukuman Tuhan, jika kamu benar-benar beriman kepada Tuhan dan hari kemudian.”²⁵

Hadis pula menyatakan: “Umar melaporkan, Tuhan telah menghantar Muhammad dengan sebenarnya dan mewahyukan Kitab kepadanya. Di antara ayat-ayat yang telah diwahyukan Tuhan maha kuasa ialah ayat merejam dengan batu hingga mati dan kami pun merejam dengan batu hingga mati. Merejam hingga mati dalam Kitab Allah adalah benar terhadap suami dan isteri yang berzina, jika disabitkan kesalahannya atau jika mengandung, atau ada pengakuan salah.”²⁶

Shafi’i menghuraikan kontradiksi ini demikian: “Sunnah Rasul menentukan bahawa hukuman sebat seratus kali untuk (penzina) yang belum berkahwin disahkan, tetapi dimansuhkan untuk yang telah berkahwin; dan hukuman rejam untuk (zina) pasangan yang telah berkahwin disahkan.”²⁷

Tafsiran di atas amat menarik. Bukan saja hukuman sunnah bercanggah dengan hukuman Quran, tetapi nampaknya sunnah telah diberi kuasa untuk mensahkan dan membatalkan hukuman quran! Anehnya, di tempat lain Shafi’i tidak membenarkan sunnah membatalkan Quran atau Quran membatalkan sunnah. Di situ beliau menegaskan hanya Quran boleh membatalkan quran, dan hanya sunnah boleh membatalkan sunnah.28 Nyatalah teori keselarasan Hadius tidak terpakai.

Kelemahan Hadis yang terbesar ialah kontradiksinya dengan kalimah Tuhan, iaitu Quran. Beratus-ratus contoh boleh kita berikan, tetapi kita akan membataskan contoh-contoh ini kepada beberapa perkara yang besar saja. Berikut kita senaraikan:

Sambongan: Kontradiksi Dengan Quran

Homeless: the Malay Left Rehabilitated?

Reviewed by Hishamuddin Rais The Edge June 2008

When I was in secondary school in 1969, I used to pin on my locker a self-made mini poster of Sidang Roh, Kassim Ahmad’s controversial poem, as decorative art. It was Kassim too who introduced me to Yusuf in A Common Story, about a kampong boy who went away to study at a university in cosmopolitan Singapore. Yusof I thought was almost the alter ego of Kassim. He was the narrator of the young kampong boy in angst over religion and worldly affairs.

I was young, innocent and growing up, looking for ideas and reference points when I stumbled into Kassim, whom I thought then was an engaging Malay intellectual. When I entered University of Malaya in 1971, Kassim was already the party chief of the Kepala Lembu [Cows Head] (the popular name for Party Sosialis Rakyat Malaya. Kassim was often invited to participate in various student activities. Without fail, I attended almost all his forum and debates. Unfortunately, I came to realize that the Kassim I admired was not an eloquent speaker; he was boring and unimpressive in person.

Reading Mencari Jalan Pulang, Kassim’s autobiography, one is left with a similar impression. The engaging Malay intellectual I once thought I knew does not sum up his life experience by making coherent the events that mattered to him. This is the writer who reedited the Hikayat Hang Tuah and brilliantly introduced Jebat as the icon for a progressive Malay society, but he does not reevaluate and to furnish us with the participant’s details of what really happened while he was the main player in the Malaysian political landscape. One would have thought he might at least give readers his version of those events – or Kassim Ahmad’s definitive interpretations.

His growing up in rural Kedah, the poverty that surrounded him; growing up during the Japanese Occupation; the war of liberation against the British; these are major events that must have played a major part in shaping his proto-left leanings, but all are dealt with a touch and go manner.

There is no penetrating analysis of what brought about the birth of Kassim Ahmad, the homo sapien that took over the leadership of Party Rakyat from Malay nationalist Ahmad Boestamam. Nor is there ‘cerita dalama’ [inside story] to explain why he decided to turn a broad-based Malay nationalist party into a scientific –socialist one. Readers would want to find out the historical internal debates amongst his ‘comrades’ or party memebrs when he ‘ousted’ Ahamad Boestamam – the first Prime Minister we never had.

I remember clearly the major schism that developed in the Malay left as the result of Kassim’s scientific socialism, his Marxist-Leninist and also Maoist school of thought. In my second year at the University of Malaya as a member of the Kelab Sosialis, I was no longer a fellow traveler. Though I could still follow the ideological debates, reading material had become limited. Thus I was hoping some of the convoluted debates of that era would be clarified here, but there is nothing about them in Mencai Jalan Pulang.

Kassim touches on the Asian, African and Latin American struggles for independence against the background of the Cold War, but without his own ideological and critical analysis. The Sino-Soviet conflict, as I recall, was the cause of the major debates among Kelab Sosialis members, but it is not on the orbit that Kassim has chosen for this book.

The subtitle of Mencari Jalan Pulang, Daripada Sosialisma Kepada Islam, aptly describes a confused soul who was sesat jalan – lost on his way to a nowhere place, headed in a nowhere direction. Why did he become a born –again Muslim after he had embraced scientific socialism as an ideology? What was his criticism of Marxism? The pertinent question was answered by a Palestinian comrade whom Kassim and I knew well: the fear of death is lingering as one gets older. I can subscribe to part of that argument, but a shallow understanding of that ideology may be the core reason, because Kassim almost turns name-dropper in Mencari Jalan Pulang – names of ancient and modern thinkers are liberally sprinkled, so much so one begins to wonder if Kassim really understood what all those were about.

Sometimes in the early seventies, I read Kassim’s review of Maxime Rodinson’s Muhammad. It was an elegant, rationalist study of the life of the Prophet by the French Marxist historian and sociologist. In conclusion, Rodinson regarded Muhammad as our Arab brother. Kassim, in concluding his review, considered Rodinson a brother too. I should conclude my review of Kassim’s autobiography by saying that may be Kassim after all his sesat years is trying to be a brother.

Kassim Ahmad’s rebuttal:

8 July, 2008

This is obviously a case of an ex-fellow-traveler not wanting to be an ex when confronted with the reality and truth of his error. It has been well-said that truth is bitter, but it is the truth that will set you free, as Prophet Jesus said. What courage Hishamuddin had arrogated to himself by claiming that I did not know what I was doing when I criticized Marxism and that I was confused, and further landed myself in this confusion because of the fear death, “as one grows old”! What a profound observation!

I was 53 years old when I published my Hadis – Satu Penilaian Semula, a book that shook the foundations of Muslim orthodox theology which after twenty-years is still being debated. Was I afraid of death when I wrote that book? If orthodox ulamas have their way, I would be an apostate, not meriting a decent Muslim burial! What a way of choosing to die for this fearer of death!

Marxism was a revolutionary doctrine in those days, and young people, anywhere, should be imbued with revolutionary fervor. In the University in the early 70-ties, Hishamuddin was one, indicating, rather flatteringly in his review, how he followed my intellectual development However, it must be said, that many fail to see through Marxism’s fundamental error, being a materialist doctrine, rooted in the old classical materialism of the Greeks and carried forward as a false philosophical strain into modern Western philosophy. Anyhow, Marxism is history today, and Hishamuddin and his likes had better accept this reality and bitter truth. Any intellectual worthy of the name must be prepared to confront the truth and deal with it.

That said, however, the valid legacies of Marxism and socialism are there to be carried forward to the New Just World that is being borne, as I said in my book.

This anarchist reviewer is, however, not interested in truth. I hear that he runs a philosophical class somewhere in Bangsar. One of these days, I might attend the class and listen to his definition of truth. I am not likely to waste my time with such likes, though. My memoir explains briefly, but clearly, my almost life-long intellectual journey, including my early ideological make-up and my short, rather naïve, idealistic plunge into scientific socialism, but the ideologically-blocked, Hishamuddin included, can and will never see the truth. Obviously, he has not read the book carefully, having concluded before he began that the writer was a confused person, lost and homeless.

That, sadly, is the truth of the matter of Hishamuddin’s critical review of my book; not that I dislike criticism, having had to handle criticism at every step of my life. What is dislike in his review is falsehood and dishonesty masquerading behind a facade of intellectualism.

OIL PRICES SHOULD GO DOWN, NOT UP!

(In The Long Run!)

By: Kassim Ahmad

21 June, 2008

The recent price rise of 40 percent in petroleum has come as a great shock to Malaysians. This is because of its rapidity as well as quantum.

What is the reason? Can it be stopped? Discussions in the media, even by experts, do not help us much to get to the bottom of this problem of rapid price rise of petroleum. Some blame it on the global market, and dismally recommend us to live with it! Some hint at speculation in the global petroleum market without providing us ways of solving it.

It looks as if those of us low-income, and even middle-income, earners are doomed to die in a hyperinflationary world, coupled with a world becoming seriously short of food. At this time of great crisis, we must surely invoke the mercy of the Lord!

One thing is clear. There is no lack of supply of the oil in the global marker. The spiraling price rise is due to usury in the present international financial system. Usury is allowed in Western neo-liberal economics, but it is strictly prohibited in truly Islamic economics.

“Those who charge usury are in the same position as those controlled by the devil’s influence. This is because they claim that usury is the same as commerce. God however, permits commerce and prohibits usury. Thus, whoever heeds this commandment from his Lord and refrains from usury, he may keep his past earnings, and his judgment rests with God. As for those who persist in usury, they incur Hell, wherein they abide forever. God condemns usury and blesses charities. ” (Quran, 2: 275-76)

I have qualified the above sentence by the words “truly Islamic”. This is to distinguish from what is now officially peddled as “Islamic banking”, because this system hides its equally usurious character behind various nice-sounding terminologies. Also we have been bombarded with the “sins” of subsidies. As the saying of greedy people goes, “There is no such this as a free lunch.” If we believe in the honorable position of every human being, as a creature created in the image of God, as we should, the society must take care of everyone us, the strong the weak. The Hobbesian society of “each against all” is not a human society. The word is not “subsidy”, but an obligation that society owes to its weaker members, who have a right to it.

The present international financial system controlled by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, from New York and London, is simply riddled with usury. It takes many forms, from the old burden on borrowing and unequal terms of trade, the murderous IMF “conditionalities” to the various newfangled financial tools, as hedge-funds, futures market, and such like that the laymen cannot understand. This international financial system, known as the Bretton Woods system created in July, 1944 and tied to the U.N. system, sorely needs reform, as the U.N. system itself sorely needs reform. The system worked well until 1971 when then U.S. President Nixon destroyed it and changed the fixed-exchange rate system to a free-floating one. Why the 125 nations of the world, comprising the U.N., have not brought about the necessary changes to this life-killing financial system is due to international geopolitics.

In February, 1996, the independent and internationally-known American economist, Lyndon H. LaRouche, published a proposal for a “New Bretton Woods” international monetary conference on the model envisioned by F.D. Roosevelt before his untimely death in 1945. This new system would eliminate colonial empires; create a new fixed-exchange rate monetary system based on gold; facilitate foreign exchange and long-term low-interest trade credits; and industrialize the Third World. It would also put into effect La Rouche’s 1991 Eurasian land-bridge plan – the “New Silk Road” – using large-scale, high-speed rail and associated “development corridor” projects as a “science driver”, thus helping to stimulate exports for the U.S. and other industrial nations. This would get the world out of the current depression.

However, the resources of the IMF were fully deployed to counter the international discussions of LaRouche’s policy through diversionary discussions of “Back to Bretton Woods” but only making minor reforms of the IMF dictatorship of the international monetary system. Our former Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir, mooted with Japan the idea of Asian Monetary Fund in 1998. This was immediately crushed by Washington.

With this system in full onrushing collapse at the present moment, the powers of the world, especially Russia, China, India and others including the U.S. and Europe, have no other choice but to undertake the changes that LaRouche had proposed. The alternative would be a descent into a new Dark Age.

This collapse has come at a time when another greater crisis has emerged – the food crisis. This crisis immediately threatens the lives of two billion people worldwide. The root cause of this crisis is none other than the so-called free-market system. This system which has looted the world to this extent has to go. We must care for the lives of humans more than the sacrosanctity of the devilish free-market (read flee-market).

As for Malaysia, we should eliminate wasteful expenses, corruption, cheating and usury in our own financial and monetary system, while at the same time work vigorously with other nations to reform the international financial and monetary system along the lines proposed by Mr. LaRouche. This would enable us to do far more for our people, including elimination of poverty, achieving self-sufficiency in food-production, and drastically bringing down the present increasingly-worrying crime-rates.

We should also be more vigorous, working with other nations in persuading the U.S. and its ally Israel to give up their warlike policy against Iran, which is nothing but a diversion from the inevitable sinking of the Anglo-American Titanic.

We would not like to conclude this essay without making the observation that, in the long run, prices should not go up, but should rather go down. This is because, against the belief of the Multhusians, population increase does not mean less food; it means increase of food, as a human being is not only a consumer, but also a producer. As we have seen, under conditions of scientific and technological progress, production of goods and services increases tremendously. As Mr. LaRouche has also said, with the present state of scientific and technological advancement, the world can support four times the present six billion population of the world. If we allow the neo-Malthusians in New York and London run the world, they would rather kill five billion people through wars and famines than change!

Kassim Ahmad is a Malaysia free-lance writer. He can be contected at kassim03@stremyx.com His web site is www.kassimahmad.blogspot.com

Hadis: Satu Penilaian Semula #18

Bab IV: Kritikan Terhadap Hadis (Sambongan)

Kelemahan Kritikan Isnad

Ahlul-Hadis mendakwa bahawa pengumpulan dan penapisan hadis telah dilakukan dengan begitu teliti dan rapi, khasnya oleh Bukhari dan Muslim, dua ‘sahih’ yang disanjung lebih daripada yang lain, melalui kritikan klasik terhadap isnad atau pelapor-pelapor hadis.¹⁶ Suatu ilmu khusus yang dinamakan Ilmu al-Jarh wa’t’Ta’dil, atau ilmu penerimaan dan penolakan pelapor-pelapor hadis di mana pelapor-pelapor diperiksa dari segi kewibawaan mereka.

Walau bagaimanapun, kita telah melihat bahawa kebanyakan hadis muncul dalam zaman tabi’in (penganti sahabat Nabi) dan zaman tabi’ tabi’in, (penganti-penganti sahabat) iaitu empat puluh atau lima puluh tahun ke atas selepas Nabi wafat,¹⁷ dan kritikan isnad hanya dimulakan setelah satu setengah abad selepas itu bila generasi-generasi pelapor pertama, kedua dan ketiga sudah mati dan tidak dapat ditemui dan diperiksa lagi.¹⁸ Oleh yang demikian, kepastian pelapor-pelapor pertama, kedua dan ketiga tidak dapat dijamin, malah boleh diandaikan mereka ini telah diada-adakan kemudian oleh golongan hadis.

Di samping itu, ahlul-Hadis akhir abad ketiga dan awal abad keempat telah membina satu benteng untuk pelapor-pelapor hadis yang pertama, di mana didakwa para sahabat terpelihara dari kesalahan bila mereka melaporkan hadis daripada Nabi.¹⁹ Konsep ini nyatalah tidak munasabah dan menyalahi kaedah saintifik.

Mari kita periksa beberapa contoh isnad:²⁰

Nabi Nabi

1. Umar ibn Khattab A’ishah

2. Alqamah ibn Waqqas al-Laithi ‘Urwah ibn az-Zubair

3. Ibni Ibrahim at-Taimi Ibni Shihab

4. Yahya ibn Sa’id al-Ansari ‘Uqail

5. Sufyan Al-Laith

6. Abdullah ibn az-Zubair Yahya ibn Bukair

BUKHARI BUKHARI

Bila kritikan isnad timbul sebagai satu disiplin untuk menapis hadis pelapor-pelapor 1, 2 dan 3 telah tidak ada lagi. Apakah bukti-bukti yang kukuh yang tidak boleh disangsikan bahawa hadis-hadis yang disokong oleh isnad-isnad di atas benar-benar berasal daripada Umar ibn Khattab dan A’ihah? Bukti-bukti itu tidak ada. Yang ada hanyalah pendapat atau agakan. Inilah yang diterangkan dalam Quran:

Selanjutnya, kami mengadakan bagi tiap-tiap nabi musuh-musuh dari kalangan syaitan-syaitan manusia dan syaitan-syaitan jin yang merekakan dan menceritakan satu sama lain perkataan-perkataan indah-indah untuk memperdaya. Sekiranya Tuhanmu kehendaki, mereka tidak akan melakukannya. Kamu janganlah memperdulikan mereka dan rekaan-rekaan mereka… Adakah akan kucari selain Tuhan sebagai sumber undang-undang, sedangkan Dia telah mewahyukan kepada kamu buku ini dengan terperincinya?… Kalimah Tuhanmu lengkap dengan benar dan adilnya. Tiada suatu pun yang boleh memansuhkan kalimahNya… Jika kamu mentaati kebanyakan manusia di dunia, mereka akan menyelewengkan kamu dari jalan Allah. Mereka hanya mengikut agakan, dan mereka hanya meneka. (6:112-116)

Kebanyakan orang hanya mengikut agakan, dan agakan tidak boleh menggantikan kebenaran… Tetapi Quran tidak boleh diciptakan oleh sesiapa selain daripada Tuhan. (10:36-37)

Konteks ayat-ayat di atas menunjukkan bahawa Tuhan mensifatkan kitab-kitab manusia sebagai agakan dan tekaan. Bolehkah sesiapa menafikan bahawa Hadis merupakan salah sebuah kitab manusia?

Mengikut satu sumber, Bukhari mengutip 600,000 buah hadis, tetapi menerima hanya 7,275 buah ke dalam sahihnya.²¹ Nyatalah hal ini ditonjolkan untuk membuktikan betapa telitinya Bukhari memeriksa hadis-hadisnya hingga hanya 1.2 peratus sahaja lulus dari tapisannya. Tetapi satu perkiraan matematik yang mudah akan menunjukkan kepada kita bahawa hal ini mustahil boleh dilakukan oleh Bukhari. Jika sebuah hadis, hitung panjang, terdiri dari tiga ayat, bermakna beliau telah mencatat, menyemak dan menapis dalam masa 40 tahun 1,800,000 ayat, atau kira-kira 300 buah buku masing-masing setebal Quran!

Mengikut satu sumber lain, Ibn Hanbal telah menyatakan bahawa ada 7,000,000 hadis ‘sahih’.²² Jika laporan ini benar, bermakna dalam masa 23 tahun, bekerja pada kadar 18 jam sehari untuk mengeluarkan hadis, Nabi kenalah berbuat demikian pada kadar satu hadis untuk tiap-tiap 77 saat! Tidak perlulah diulas perkara yang mustahil seperti ini.

Nyatalah kritikan Hadis dari segi isnad semata-mata tidak memadai. Hadis perlu juga dikritik dan dinilai dari segi isinya atau matannya. Malah, hadis-hadis yang isnadnya sempurna tetapi yang matannya cacat haruslah dinilai sebagai hadis-hadis yang lemah dan tidak terpakai. Dari segi ini kita akan dapati bahawa banyak, mungkin kebanyakan, hadis di dalam enam kumpulan itu tidak dapat diterima.

Kelemahan Hadis dari segi matan dapat dianalisa dari tiga jurusan. Pertama, dari jurusan kontradiksinya dengan Quran. Kedua, dari jurusan kontradiksinya dengan sejarah, sains dan hukum akal. Ketiga, dari jurusan kontradiksinya sama sendiri, yakni antara hadis dengan hadis.

Sambongan: Teori Keselarasan Hadis

Hadis: Satu Penilaian Semula #17

Bab IV Kritikan Terhadap Hadis

Seperti telah kita lihat dalam bab lalu, sejarah telah membuktikan sepenuhnya bahawa pada waktu Nabi Muhammad wafat pada 11 Hijrah (632 T.M.) seluruh Quran sepertimana yang diwahyukan oleh Tuhan kepada beliau melalui malaikat Jibrail telah tercatat dan telah disusun oleh beliau di bawah arahan wahyu. Hal ini bukan sahaja telah disaksikan oleh sejarah, tetapi telah juga ditegaskan oleh Tuhan sendiri dalam firmanNya: “Kamilah yang bertanggungjawab menyusunnya menjadi Quran.”¹ Sebaliknya, catatan-catatan hadis yang disahkan oleh Nabi, seperti yang dilakukan olehnya terhadap Quran, tidak ada.²

Seperti telah kita lihat dalam Bab III, hadis-hadis telah dikumpul dan ditapis untuk mengadakan apa yang dipanggil hadis-hadis ‘sahih’ antara 200 dengan 250 tahun kemudian. Pemilihan dan penapisan enam pengumpul Hadis, khasnya Bukhari dan Muslim, merupakan tidak lebih daripada pendapat-pendapat mereka tentang apa yang dikatakan hadis ‘sahih’. Pengkaji-pengkaji lain di zaman lain mengadakan ukuran-ukuran ‘kesahihan’ yang lain pula. Inilah punca kontroversi yang tidak berkesudahan mengenai Hadis. Ia merupakan tekaan dan agakan terhadap apa yang telah diucapkan dan dilakukan oleh Nabi. Pendek kata, ia merupakan pendapat manusia yang tidak terjamin kebenarannya, sedangkan Quran dijaminkan kebenarannya oleh Tuhan sendiri.³ Inilah kelemahan umum Hadis.

Aliran Kritikan Senantiasa Wujud

Kritikan terhadap Hadis, malah penolakan teori Hadis seperti yang ditaja oleh Imam Shafi’I bukan satu perkara baru. Kaum Mu’tazilah dari zaman Shafi’i lagi telah mendatangkan dua hujah yang kukuh untuk menolak teori ini, iaitu Hadis merupakan tekaan dan agakan, dan Quran lengkap dan tidak memerlukan buku-buku lain untuk melengkapkannya.⁴ Malangnya, oleh kerana gerakan Hadis terlalu kuat dan oleh kerana beberapa faktor sosial dan intelektual lain yang menyebelahi gerakan Hadis pada waktu itu maka kritikan dan penentangan ini merupakan satu aliran minoriti yang tidak berkesan.

Gerakan islah Jamaluddin al-Afghani dan Muhammad Abduh yang bermula pada akhir abad kesembilan belas menumpukan perhatian kepada pemberantasan faham taqlid dan tidak kepada masalah Hadis. Umumnya, gerakan ini tidak menolak Hadis sebagai sumber teologi dan hukum. Para mujadid ini hanya ingin membuat pemilihan yang lebih ketat terhadap hadis-hadis yang diterima.⁵ Namun demikian, kita juga dapat menyaksikan aliran yang menolak Hadis di Mesir dan di India.⁶ Kemungkinan besar aliran ini telah juga muncul di negara-negara Islam lain. Oleh yang demikian, aliran penolakan Hadis senantiasa wujud dalam masyarakat Islam. Ini satu hakikat yang penting diperhatikan.

Kelemahan Umum Hadis: Tekaan dan Agakan

Akhir-akhir ini setengah penulis cuba mendatangkan apa yang mereka anggap bukti-bukti sejarah bahawa hadis telah mulai dicatat sejak Nabi hidup lagi. Dikatakan beberapa sahifah atau catatan peribadi beberapa orang sahabat Nabi telah wujud.⁷ Malangnya, rekod sahifah-sahifah ini tidak ada lagi kecuali apa yang dikatakan sahifah Hammam ibn Munabbih (m. 101 atau 102), seorang murid Abu Hurairah yang menurunkan 140 hadis daripada Abu Hurairah^.8 Namun demikian, kita tidak mempunyai keterangan-keterangan yang pasti tentang kewujudan sahifah-sahifah ini.⁹

Bukan saja pengumpulan hadis-hadis ke dalam Enam Buku ‘sahih’ tidak disaksikan, malah mengikut beberapa buah hadis ‘sahih’, Nabi sendiri telah melarang penulisan hadis. Sebuah hadis riwayat Muslim dan Ibn Hambal menyatakan: “Abi Sa’id al-Khudri melaporkan bahawa Rasulullah telah berkata, ‘Jangan menulis sesuatu daripadaku kecuali Quran. Barangsiapa telah menulis sesuatu selain daripada Quran hendaklah memadamnya.’.” Ibn Hanbal juga melaporkan lagi, “Zayd Ibn Thabit (seorang pencatat wahyu Nabi yang rapat) menziarahi Khalifah Muawiyah dan mencerita kepadanya sebuah cerita mengenai Nabi. Muawiyah suka mendengar cerita itu lalu memerintahkan seorang pencatat menulisnya. Tetapi Zayd berkata, “Rasulullah telah memerintahkan kami supaya tidak menulis sesuatu daripada hadisnya.”

Kita menurunkan hadis-hadis ini bukan sebagai bukti-bukti mutlak untuk menafikan autoriti Hadis (kerana wujud hadis-hadis lain yang membenarkan penulisan Hadis),¹⁰ tetapi, secara nisbi, nyatalah hadis-hadis ini lebih munasabah dan lebih menggambarkan pendirian Nabi. Adalah tidak munasabah sama sekali bagi Nabi meletakkan kata-katanya setaraf dengan Quran. Juga tidak munasabah bagi Nabi menghendaki umatnya mengikut sesuatu yang tercatat secara sah dan pasti sebelum beliau wafat, seperti konon dinyatakan dalam hadis Pidato Perpisahan.

Marilah kita memeriksa apa yang telah dilaporkan sebagai hadis mengenai sunnah dalam Pidato Perpisahan Nabi sewaktu beliau melakukan haj akhir. Hadis ini mempunyai dua isnad: satu oleh Jabir b. Abdullah dan satu lagi oleh Malik b. Anas. Laporan Jabir ada dua versi:

(a) Jabir bin Abdullah melaporkan bahawa Rasulullah berpidato kepada rakyat dan berkata, “…dan aku telah meninggalkan kepadamu satu perkara: jika kamu berpegang teguh kepadanya, kamu tidak akan sesat selepasku, iaitu kitab Allah. Kamu akan ditanya tentangku. Jadi, apa akan kamu kata?” Mereka menjawab, “Kami akan memperaku bahawa kamu sebenarnya telah menyampaikan dan menyempurnakan perutusan dan memberi peringatan.” (Riwayat Muslim)¹¹ (Tekanan ditambah).

(b) Jabir bin Abdullah melaporkan bahawa Rasulullah telah berkata dalam Haj Akhir: “Dan aku telah meninggalkan di antara kamu satu perkara: jika kamu berpegang teguh kepadanya, kamu tidak akan sesat selepasku - kitab Allah dan apa yang kamu dapat daripadaku melalui soalan (Hadis) (Riwayat Muslim)¹² (Tekanan ditambah).

Malik bin Anas melaporkan sebuah hadis cacat bahawa Rasulullah berkata: “Aku meninggalkan kepadamu dua perkara; selagi kamu berpegang teguh kepadanya, kamu tidak akan sesat – kitab Allah dan sunnah rasulNya. (Muwatta)¹³ (Tekanan ditambah)

Tidak perlulah saya huraikan kontradiksi-kontradiksi yang ketara dalam kedua-dua hadis ini. Laporan Jabir dalam kedua-dua versinya menyatakan bahawa Nabi meninggalkan satu perkara saja, tetapi dalam versi kedua ayat akhir telah dipinda dan perkataan hadis ditambah oleh editor dalam kurungan. Hadis kedua yang menyatakan Nabi telah meninggalkan dua perkara dikatakan cacat oleh ahlul-Hadis sendiri!

Saya ingin menambah satu lagi keterangan mengenai hadis ini. Dalam sirahnya, Ibn Ishaq berkata: “Al-Zuhri memberitahu kepada saya daripada Anas bin Malik: Pada esoknya selepas Abu Bakr menerima pelantikan di dalam dewan, beliau duduk lalu Umar bangun dan bercakap…beliau berkata, ‘Wahai rakyat…Tuhan telah meninggalkan kepada kamu kitabNya; dengannya Dia membimbing rasulNya…”¹⁴ (Tekanan ditambah).

Dapat dilihat dari sini bahawa hadis Pidato akhir yang mendakwa Nabi telah meninggalkan dua perkara kepada umatnya adalah palsu.

Kata putus mengenai Hadis dan larangan terhadap Hadis diberikan secara langsung dan tidak langsung oleh Quran sendiri. Dalam Bab II kita telah merujuk kepada penggunaan perkataan-perkataan ‘hadis’ dan ‘sunnah’ dalam Quran dan kita telah mendapati bahawa tidak satu pun daripada perkataan-perkataan ini membenarkan kewujudan Hadis atau Sunnah Nabi.¹⁵ Beberapa perkataan ‘hadis’ merujuk kepada Quran dan menafikan makna selain daripada Quran. Perhatikan:

Inilah wahyu-wahyu Tuhan yang kami bacakan kepadamu dengan sebenarnya; hadis yang manakah selain wahyu-wahyu ini yang mereka percayai? (45:6)

Tuhan menurunkan hadis terbaik, sebuah kitab yang tidak bercanggah, dan menyatakan kedua-dua jalan (ke syurga dan neraka).” (39:23)

Ini sebuah wahyu dari Tuhan sekalian alam. Kamu ingin mengelak hadis inikah? (56:80-81)

Perlu diperhatikan bahawa ayat pertama melarang kita mempercayai hadis selain daripada Quran, yang kedua menyatakan bahawa hadis yang terbaik ialah Quran, dan yang ketiga menyindir kita kerana kecenderungan kita untuk membelakangkan Quran serta menggunakan hadis-hadis lain.

Perlu diperhatikan juga bahawa dalam Quran perkataan ‘hadis’ digunakan dalam dua pengertian yang bertentangan. Hadis Quran diungkapkan sebagai ‘hadis terbaik’ (ahsan’al hadis) dalam ayat 23 surah 39 tadi dan ‘omong kosong’ (lah’wal-hadis) dalam ayat 6 surah 31. Perhatikan ayat ini sepenuhnya:

Setengah orang menegakkan omong kosong untuk menyesatkan manusia dari jalan Tuhan tanpa pengetahuan, dan untuk memperolok-olokkannya. Mereka akan mendapat seksaan yang menghinakan.

Kita telah melihat bukti-bukti bahawa Quran merupakan ‘hadis terbaik’ dalam Bab II. Kita telah dan akan melihat, sambil kita maju dalam kajian ini, bahawa kebanyakan hadis merupakan “omong kosong” yang “menyesatkan manusia dari jalan Tuhan tanpa pengetahuan”.

Sambongan: Kelemahan Kritikan Isnad