“FALSE ULAMA VERSUS SECULARISTS”
AN EXTENDED COMMENTARY

By Kassim Ahmad
6 July, 2006

Although the word ‘ulama’ occurs in the Quran, the word means what it was desired to mean – “scholars”. However, the word in its plural form today has come to mean something different, i.e. a class of clerics who has authority to speak on religious matters and who are accepted by the majority of society as such. Such a class of religious people did not originate in the early Muslim society of Prophet Muhammad’s time. The Prophet and his companions were never known as such. The Prophet was their leader in both secular and religious matters. There was in fact no division between the two spheres of life, both existing in perfect harmony and unity.

This division came much later, as a result of Muslim interaction with the Christian and Jewish communities as well as internal developments within the Muslim community. The Christians and the Jewish communities had their own priesthoods and the young Muslim community took over this practice, although their religion clearly forbade them from doing so. The internal developments they were going through at this time – the emergence of a powerful financial and feudal power elite around the Muawiyah familiy – broke the democratic republican tradition of governance begun by Prophet Muhammad right to the fourth Caliph Ali, ending what has come to be known as the Righteous Caliphate. That led to a new feudalism, fracturing the Community into two distinct though inter-related powers, the secular and the religious. This pattern continue until today, even though the Caliphate was dismantled by the revolutionary Turkish nationalist leader, Mustafa Kamal Attaturk, after the First World War. Attempts by the religious elite to take over state power completely in Muslim countries succeeded only in Iran in 1997 with the so-called Iranian Islamic Revolution.

Europe, after the 30 Year-long Religious War that ended with the landmark Treaty of Westphalia (24 October, 1648), and having gone through what is known as the Enlightenment – the triumph of reason and science over religion – has taken the road of completely relegating religion to a personal sphere and rendering man’s life to be completely secular. Thus the spiritual and the moral sides of man have been pushed to the sideline of his being, and he became the animal par excellence, the predator.

The IKIM writer of the Tuesday column (The Star, 4 July, p. 30), Md. Asham Ahmad, referred to this development when he said, “It is a phenomenon we may call natural to the West considering the long bitter experience that they have had with the church, leading ultimately to the marginalization of religion and secularization of the philosophical programme.”

This early and fatal turning of the Western road explains much of Western history: economic and political philosophy based on private greed; the eastward and the westward push of European colonialism; the World Wars resulting from the clash of competing colonialisms; the foisting of the colonial-settler state of Israel in the midst of the Muslim-Arab world; and now the so-called worldwide War on Terrorism camouflaging as a new Crusade against Islam and bent on hegemony and domination. It is a self-destructive course, but who except God, can divert these American-led criminal gangs of power-crazy fascists, brandishing weapons of mass destruction, launching wars of aggression against Afghanistan and Iraq and would ever be ready to launch them at whoever they choose as their enemy, and bringing chaos and destruction upon themselves and the world?

The Muslims, on the other hand, went into reverse gear. Instead of progressing up the ladder of success (Arabic ‘falah’ meaning ‘to succeed’) where they had assimilated and carried forward world existing science, philosophy and culture (Greek, Indian, Persian and Chinese), which Europe now took over, they developed a “self-sufficient” theology and jurisprudence, not excluding the retreat into quietist “spiritualist” refuge of Sufism, to keep the Community “united, happy, complacent and self-righteous”. This Community became formed around the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries and it stayed there in cold storage until the beginning of the Nineteenth Century when it had to deal seriously and as a matter-of-life-and-death practice with the West. At this point, the problems begin: the orthodox stances of anti-Orientalism, anti-secularism, anti-modernism, anti-Liberalism, and the elevation of the Ulama (i.e. the priesthood) into position of power and influence as “Guardians of the Faith”.

The ideological weapon (“The ulama are the heirs of the prophets.”), a so-called prophetic saying, is brought into full, strident aggressive display. I have termed it “so-called” as a matter of scientific accuracy, not to denigrate it. One of the great tragedies of the Muslim community is that its members read their Quran in Arabic (which is not the mother-tongue for most) without understanding its meaning. Their religious educational system puts the learning of the Hadith as more important than the understanding of the teachings of the Quran. So, in the case of this so-called hadith, as in the case of very many hadith that contradict the teachings of the Quran, they are quite unaware of. The clear Quranic teaching on this matter of Quranic inheritance is that it is being handed over to those of God’s servants whom He chooses (note that God does not even use the word ‘believers’, implying that God’s choice may not square up with our idea of people who should inherit the Quran). (See Quran, 35: 32:) It is clear from this verse that no particular group of people, including the ulama, has been appointed by God to inherit and carry forward His message to the world.

When the Quran states that it is the learned who truly fears God, it is pointing to the fact, because these learned people truly know the comprehensive and awesome power of God by their studies of the planets and of nature.

There seems to be a misunderstanding among many of us, believers in various religions, as to who should protect God’s religion, minding that every religious group claims that theirs is the true religion. In the first place, such people must be quite presumptuous to think that they have been given the task of protecting God’s truth, for God’s religion is surely God’s Truth. No, there is no such task assigned to men in the Quran. The highest task given to him is to struggle, body and soul, in the course of God, i.e. in the course of truth, justice and goodness. (See Quran, 9: 111). No one is entrusted with the protection of God’s religion, as no one except He can do it. So it is the height of folly and presumption for Md. Asham Ahmad to claim in that article that “Without the ulama, who inherited the teachings of the Prophet and who preserved those teachings and then conveyed them to the rest of mankind and who protected these teachings from alteration, corruption and false interpretations, there would be no Islam.” It is surely truer to say that had it not been for God’s miraculous intervention in the case of the Quran, Islam would have been completely corrupted by men, including their ulama! It has happened before with Christianity and Judaism, and, by extension, in all religions. The saving grace of Islam is its-divinely protected Quran.

True believers, whether Muslims or non-Muslims, should rest assured that God’s truth, including God’s religion (which I have designated in another location as the “Islam of the Prophets”, to distinguish it from the “Islam of the Theologians”) will triumph in the end. I believe that time is not far off. I can say that it is almost here.

However, we bear God’s trust as being His vicegerent on Earth, the earth meaning the entire Universe. What does this vicegerent role actually mean? Looking at men’s past history as well at the words of the Quran on the matter, it means men’s freely re-making and re-ordering it in accordance to God’s law of a truthful and lawful Universe, to be the lasting Abode of Felicity or Paradise for God’s righteous servants, and the temporary Abode of Hell – temporary for the cleansing up process – for the sinners.

What a grand finale! God be praised, then, in the Heavens and on Earth!


__________________________________________
Kassim Ahmad is a Malaysian free-lance writer, based in Penang. He can be contacted at kasmad172@yahoo.com.my. His website is at www.kassimahmad.blogspot.com

“FALSE ULAMA VERSUS SECULARISTS”
A COMMENT

By: Kassim Ahmad

3 July, 2006.

Allow me to comment on IKIM’s Md. Asham Ahmad’s above article in your Tuesday column (See The Star, 4 July, p. 30).

For the Muslim community today, there seems to be an intractable problem with both the ulama and the secularists. Is this a real problem, or is it some misunderstanding?

No Muslim denies the necessity for the existence of an intellectual group called scholars, including religious scholars, in society. The role of these scholars is to study, teach and develop the branches of knowledge they are interested in. Being humans, however, they are not free from making errors in their work. How does human society remove these errors? It is through free scientific debates. This much is clear and accepted by every reasonable person.

What is not acceptable is Md. Asham’s statement that “The ulama must be allowed to decide”, because otherwise, according to him, “The ignorant will decide.” Now, according to Islamic principles, those who decide are those whom society puts in position of authority. (See Quran, 4: 59). A scholar cannot be in position of state authority (with power to decide) unless he is put there by the society. The problem is that there have been times in history when a religious class put itself up as state-governing power, presuming to govern in God’s name – a theocracy, as the Muslims now have in Iran, since the so-called Islamic Revolution in 1979. This is in direct contravention to true Islamic teachings, as there is no priesthood in Islam.

Those who reject mortality and religion – the true secularists – have no right to talk about any moral government. But there are those who believe in God and in morality, but who wish to separate religion (in the narrow sense) from politics. These are not secularists, because they believe in God and in morality. They wish the separation from a practical point of view. Md. Asham Ahmad would probably know that both the Quran and Prophet Muhammad’s famous Medina Charter provide for this separation. (See Quran, 22: 67)

There is no need for us to go into abstruse arguments about religion, truth and the verification of truth.

We probably also would not want to be so pompous as to legislate as to who should or should not talk about religion, “for fear of confusing the masses” (as if the scholars are free from confusion!), because of “confusion and error in knowledge”. Let error be corrected by knowledge in free scientific debate where everyone can participate, and not pontificated by some pope, grand mufti or grand ayatollah.

Kassim Ahmad is a Malaysian free-lance writer, based in Penang. He can be contacted at kasmad172@yahoo.com.my His website is at www.kassimahmadblogspot.com

WHAT IS ISLAM?

By: Kassim Ahmad
24 June, 2006

Although the question jars on some Muslims ears, to pose it in the context of the current international situation is both valid and acutely relevant. Not only Muslims, but the West, and therefore the world, for different reasons, of course, are confused as to what Islam is.

To put the answer first, succinctly, the answer is this: We must clearly distinguish the Islam as taught and propagated by the prophets, at least from the time Prophet Abraham right down to the last of the prophets, Muhammad, solely represented by the last perfected of God’s scriptures to mankind, the Quran. This is the true Islam. The other ‘Islam’ that most Muslims inherited from their great-grand fathers, is codified and falsely sanctified in the tombs of traditional theology and jurisprudence, from around three hundred years after Prophet Muhammad’s death. Simply put, it is the Islam of the Prophets versus the ‘Islam’ of the theologians.

What are the major differences between the two? It is extremely important that Muslims and the West understand this now in order to avoid further pain and disasters for both.

Firstly, the first and true Islam is first and foremost inclusive, whereas the second practices exclusivity. This is because Islam recognizes and acknowledges all the prophets and messengers of God, from Adam to Muhammad, including Moses and Jesus, to whom God gave the Old and the New Testaments. Verse 62 of Surah Al-Baqarah (2) of the Quran acknolwledges, among many other similar verses, the original monotheism of the Jews, Christians and other religions, whose adherents are promised salvation, as revealed in these verses.

Secondly, the first and true Islam accepts and practices toleration of other religions, whereas the second does not.. The verse “To you your religion; to me my religion.” ( Quran, 109: 6) unequivocally testifies to this.

Thirdly, the first and true Islam accords perfect and absolute freedom of belief, whereas the second does not. This is because the second ‘Islam’ interprets the Quran by the Hadith, the so-called Prophetic Traditions, made compulsory on Muslims after Imam Shafie so enunciated it in his book, Al-Risala, two hundred and fifty years after Prophet Muhammad’s death.

Fourthly, the first and true Islam proclaims itself the Religion of Truth (Quran, 48: 28; 9: 33; 41: 53 & 61: 9) and the Religion of God (Quran, 110: 2), which will naturally prevail over all false religions in the future. This will come about, not through force, but through the inevitable but natural triumph of truth over falsehood.

Fifthly, the first and true Islam propagates a world legal system based on justice and compassion, whereas the second’s legal system, the so-called Shariah is arbitrarily based on many mistaken perceptions by traditional legal practitioners, as witness the so-called fixed Hudud laws. The Arabic word ‘hudud’ (sing. ‘had’) actually means ‘boundary’. It has nothing to do with law. The word clearly refers to the parameters of the Islamic worldview, or in today’s terminology, ‘paradigm’.

Sixthly, the first and true Islam places human welfare as the highest priority on par with obedience to God, as witness God’s elevation of the human being to a status of His vicegerent in the Cosmos. Whereas the ‘Islam’ of the theologians almost crashes the human being beneath the weight of Divine Omnipotence, of course, under their self-proclaimed tutelage.

Seventhly, the first and true Islam has no priesthood, whereas the second has, giving themselves the false title of ‘Guardians of the Faith’. In the first and true Islam, the individual approaches God directly without any intermediary, for the very idea of intermediary automatically nullifies monotheism.

Eightly, the first and true Islam teaches and propagates democratic governance as opposed to a theocracy as propagated by the second ‘Islam’, as witness Iran under the mullah. Moreover, the first Islam teaches and propagates a humanistic and moral governance. It also advocates a just and fair economic and financial system, free from blood-sucking usury, the bane of the present bankrupt Anglo-American system. In Medina, Prophet Muhammad set up the first city-state (later to become the first nation-state to cover the whole of the Arabian Peninsula), with a written constitution in the history of the world. This nation-state is not to be counter-posed to the idea of either a universal Ummah or an international society, just as nationalism is not contradictory to internationalism.

Ninthly, the first and true Islam allows pluralism in religion, culture, politics and law, as it believes firmly in the triumph of truth, justice and compassion in the end, as this is actually the Grand Divine Plan for mankind. So the likes of George W. Bush, Tony Blair and the rest of their criminal gang of fascists, who are presently strutting the world presuming to police it, will soon disappear.

Tenthly, the first and true Islam, seeks, works towards and struggles for a just world, where as the second ‘Islam’ is a hotch-potch of confusion, leading mankind to nowhere. It also envisions an unending moral and spiritual ascent for Man. The first and true Islam had been that way at the time of the prophets and it has been that way since. It shall be realized, as this is God’s Grand Plan for His Humanity. None can frustrate it.

It is obvious that corrections must now be made to bring forth the first and true Islam to Muslims themselves and to the world. This clearly cannot be done by the detractors of Islam, the enemy from without and from within. The Muslims themselves must reclaim this Islam of the Prophets from the theologians who have falsely arrogated the power of God unto themselves. Muslims must also realize that there exist true believers in the One God in other religions and we must work closely with them to bring about a better and just world for our children and for posterity.



Kassim Ahmad is a Malaysian free-lance writer based in Penang. He can be contacted at kasmad172@yahoo.com.my. His website is www.kassimahmad.blopgspot.com

DEBAT DR MAHATHIR-KERAJAAN PAK LAH
MENANGANI MASALAH PERBEZAAN PENDAPAT

Oleh: Kassim Ahmad
27 Jun, 2006

Debat antara bekas Perdana Menteri Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad dan Kerajaan Pak Lah, nampaknya, sukar dibendung. Apakah ini baik untuk UMNO, untuk Barisan Nasional dan untuk bangsa kita seluruhnya? Ini soalan yang patut kita fikirkan dengan teliti dan bijaksana.

Berpandukan kitab suci kita, kita harus menyelesaikan semua masalah kita melalui perundingan. Nampaknya, dalam debat ini, tahap ini sudah berlalu dan mungkin kita tidak dapat berpatah balik lagi. Mengapa ia jadi begini perlu disiasat. Kemungkinan besar, perbezaan pendapat ini disebabkan oleh faktor yang asing. Faktor ini ialah komplot musuh. Jika ini sudah berlaku, ini tanda bangsa kita akan musnah.

Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri Mohammed Nazri Abd. Aziz telah mengishtiharkan perang terhadap Tun Dr. Mahathir. Mengapa sampai begitu? Tidakkah ada cara lain untuk menyelesaikan perselisihan pendapat ini? Suara siapa yang beliau suarakan?

Sebagai pemimpin parti dan Kerajaan, Pak Lah mestilah bertindak tegas dan bijaksana menganjurkan penyelesaian melalui perundingan yang produktif, yakni perundingan ini mestilah dengan jujur untuk mencarai penyelesaian, selaras dengan kepentingan UMNO dan bangsa.

Kita semua tahu UMNO, dalam usianya 60 tahun sekarang, sudah banyak rosak, dirosakkan oleh semangat materislisme yang berlebihan. Namun demikian, ia masih boleh dan perlu diperbetulkan, kerana masih tiada parti lain, malangnya, yang boleh menggantikan UMNO dalam keadaan sekarang.

PAS dan Keadilan, sebagai dua buah parti yang ingin menggantikan tempat UMNO, memang boleh berbuat demikian, jika pemimpin-peminpin mereka jujur dan sanggup meletakkan kepentingan bangsa melebihi kepentingan ideologi dan ego pemimpin masing-masing.

Kita harus sedar siapa musuh kita sekarang dan kita mesti mempunyai kewaspadaan yang tinggi terhadap musuh itu. Lihat komplot musuh ini di Asia Tenggara. Lapan tahun Perang Iran-Iraq ialah komplot mereka yang besar. Ia suatu tragedi yang besar bagi umat Islam. Sekarang di atas nama Perang terhadap Keganasan Antarabangsa mereka melancar suatu lagi komplot – yang memecahkan masyarakat-masyarakat Iraq dan Pakestin. “Pecah-pecah dan perintah” ialah taktik klasik mereka yang tidak pernah ditinggalkan, dan kita tetap lalai dan terpeangkap di dalamnya! Di bawah komplot ini, mereka juga hendak menyerang Iran dan Syria, dan dengan demikian, mereka harap akan mengubah peta dunia untuk memberikan mereka “Tatadunia Baru” di bawah penguasaan A.S.-Britain-Israel.

Quran mengajar kita, jika dua puak orang mukmin berperang, hendaklah kita damaikan mereka. Tetapi jika suatu puak menceroboh yang lain, kita diperintahkan berperang dengan puak itu hingga ia patuhi perintah Tuhan. (Lihat Quran, 49: 9)

Tentu saja ada kalangan munafik di antara kita: berpura-pura beriman, tetapi sebenarnya kafir. Kumpulan ini mesti didedahkan, kerana mereka merupakan musuh dalam selimut yang sangat berbahaya.

Pak Lah sebagai pemimpin parti dan Kerajaan memikul tanggungjawab berat memegang amanah bangsa Malaysia. Tiada amanah lain yang harus beliau tatah kecuali itu. Baru-baru ini kita dapat tahu bahawa sebuah Kumpulan Tempur Angkatan Laut Amerika Syarikat, sebagian dari tiga Kumpulan Tempur, berlabuh di Pelabuhan Kelang kita, nyata untuk mengheret kita ke dalam komplot perangnya terhadap Iran, sebuah anggota NAM dan OIC yang masih kita pengerusikan. Juga timbul berita bahawa Malaysia akan mengiktiraf negara kolonial Yahudi di Palestin dalam tempoh terdekat. Ini semua tanda-tanda yang tidak baik dan amat berbahaya kepada kedaulatan negara dan bangsa kita.

Pak Lah, UMNO dan bangsa Melayu sekarang menghadapi suatu masa yang amat genting. Hanya ketakwaan kepada Allah, kesetiaan kepada bangsa dan kejujuran yang tinggi yang boleh menyelamatkan kita dari kehancuran yang menanti.

Kassim Ahmad seorang penulis bebas yang tinggal di Pulau Pinang. Beliau boleh dihubungi di kasmad172@yahoo.com.my Laman web beliau www.kassimahmad.blogspot.com

IS FREEDOM RESTRICTIVE?
A COMMENT

By: Kassim Ahmad
6th June, 2006

Wan Azhar Wan Ahmad of IKIM, in his weekly Tuesday column (The Star, 6th June, p. 32), makes the provocative statement: “Man has no right to do wrong.” In a discussion on freedom, does this statement make sense? I think not.

In order to be free, man must be free to make mistakes. To learn by trial and error, a human trait, perhaps a trait of all forms of life, is a fact of life. A child cannot learn to walk unless he falls a few times before he can properly walk. This rule applies universally.

When God wanted to create Adam, a human being, His vicegerent on Earth, the angels protested, because the angels only knew the animal kingdom, peopled by havoc-making beings. God simply replied that He knew better, because God knows the future as the present – an Eternal Now. So the angels were ordered to bow down to Adam, an unheard of order, because Adam was only a creature, a servant of God, Only Whom all beings bow down to. One of the angles did not obey the divine order, and he automatically became the Devil, the perennial opponent of the Lord. The principle of rebellion against God is, hereby, introduced into the concept of freedom. Man’s freedom to believe in God must, ipso facto, include his freedom not to believe in Him. Therefore, the so-called Hadith punishment of apostasy is illegal in a true concept of divine law, or Syariah.

This allegorical story of the creation of Adam serves to show the complementarity of opposites. Even God, the Absolute Master, allows opposition to Him, because without opposition, the Truth, in fact He, God, cannot be revealed.

Wan Azhar, in that article, counterposed humanism to Islamic worldview. Is this correct? Is Islam against humanism? I think not. The concept of Adam, Man, as vicegerent of God on Earth, extended to cover the whole Cosmos or God’s creation, is a very strong Divine endorsement of Man and his place in the Universe. God Himself places the whole of His creation in the service of Man. This is confirmed by His order to the Angles to bow down to Adam.

I think the confusion arise in the concept of humanism. The term “secular humanism” that Wan Azhar uses in that article refers to a defective concept of humanism, a humanism that is sectarian and not universal, and therefore devoid of moral and spiritual dimensions – a materialist humanism, if you like, that has led to worldwide European colonialism, two disastrous World Wars, and great chaos in the world, climaxing in what is now called globalization.

Wan Azhar makes the same mistake, equating the present mostly man-made extra-Quranic Syariah with the true divine-based Law.

As in all things, freedom should be understood in its entire sweep of cosmic movement. Man, of course, came from an unfree state. He originates from the bowels of the Earth, coming through the ladder of evolution, up and up until at a historical point he became human (at which point this story of Adam’s creation takes place), yet going further up and up, eons from now, till this honoured and perfected creature of God meets Him to achieve the great destiny of Man that God has planned for him.

Although Wan Azhar does not does not consider philosophical determinism as opposed to the concept of freedom, it is pertinent that we should briefly refer to it. God’s creation is said to be done in exact measure, apparently meaning that everything has been decided from beginning to end. Since philosophical determinism goes counter to the concept of man’s responsibility and punishment, the Muslim theologians have constructed a half-way house, called in Arabic ikhtiyar or to strive. This term, however, does not connote real freedom, but simply an attempt to apply a freedom that is somehow limited. To understand the matter clearly, we have to clearly distinguish between the comprehensive knowledge of an All-Knowledgeable God, on the one hand, and His actions or His desires, on the other. God, being Perfect, simply does not originate or propagate evil. Evil, as we have seen, is the result of the principle of rebellion born out of the concept of freedom given to Man.

In that story, God forbids Adam and his wife, Eve, from approaching the Tree of Knowledge. This is God’s way of telling us that knowledge is highly dangerous, but He did not really stop Adam and Eve from doing that. In fact, He allows the Devil to entice them to do just that. So today we understand the terrible meaning of that censure. We are in possession of such great power, nuclear energy, that we can literally wipe the human race from the face of the Earth, or create a paradise on it! This grand story serves to show that only the morally fit among mankind can and should bear the awesome burden of responsibility.

Now, look at how the opposites have come into play to salvage the situation. We know that George W. Bush and his gang of neo-conservative thugs (I wish I can use better words to describe them!) would like to obliterate the Earth, if they can ensure their survival. This they obviously cannot.

Now we can understand God’s wisdom when He silenced the opposition of the protesting angels by simply saying He knew better. Many of us, throughout the ages, never believed that a better world was going to be born and we remained loyal to or compromised with the oligarchical slave system of oppression. But the prophets, since the time of Noah, if not earlier, up to Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, did and fought to change it, and they were and are right. The slave leader, Spartacus, who rose against the might of Rome, believed in that and fought. Had they not fought, would we be here today?

Of course, the good people of the world want to see a moral world being born tomorrow to replace the system of immorality of Bush and his worldwide gang of fascists. But, if these good people are free, and they are free, how can they get that world without fighting for it? Having misbehaved themselves these last ten years and more down the years and ages, this gang of thugs have thoroughly exposed the devilish intent of their minds? Now that that lies exposed to the world, the world can and will make the final inevitable judgement!

That is how Man progresses morally and spiritually. Therefore, to be truly free, we must be free to do wrong, so that the wrong can be exposed, contained and eliminated by the willing actions of free men.

Kassim Ahmad is a Malaysian free-lance writer living in Penang. He can be contacted at kasmad172@yahoo.com.my). His website is: www.kassimahmad.blogspot.com

THE MAHATHIR-PAK LAH GOVERNMENT DEBATE
A COMMENT

By: Kassim Ahmad
10 June, 2006

It has been brewing for some time and it has now come out fully in the open. This debate is healthy and good. Everybody knows what mettle Mahathir is made of. Says Tengku Razaleigh, “Mahathir cannot be influenced by anyone, no one can silence him. He is not afraid of anyone and I admire a man like that.”

Pak Lah’s so-called “quiet elegance” about Mahathr’s criticism of his administration cannot resolve the matter. Most government ministers’, ex-ministers’ and some veteran UMNO politicians’ statements and comments, unfortunately, do not help also. Like everybody else, Tun Dr. Mahathir has a right to make comments on the way the Government is running the country. Nobody should say that he should not “interfere” or criticize him for making his unhappiness public. As he rightly said, “I want answers to my questions.” Have these questions been answered? No, they have not.

Apparently, deeper questions that may affect the country’s independence and sovereignty are at stake. These have to be properly and wisely resolved. Tengku Razaleigh’s statement (The Sun, June 8, p. 2) plus Dr. Mahathir’s own answer (The Star, 10 Jun, pp. 1& 3) throw some light on the matter. It boils down to two things. The economy is not moving. Some sinister hands with a different agenda are at work behind Pak Lah.

It is, of course, correct that Pak Lah is the head of the party and the Government, and he should be allowed to lead the country as well as he can. He himself has said so, albeit sometime boasting about his huge mandate, which he should not have done, being the unassuming man that we know him to be. But man can change. Pak Lah should guard against this danger.

We can thank our lucky stars that Malaysia is a blessed country. This does not come all by accident. It is the result of wise leadership, a supportive and loyal citizenry and, of course, some luck. But we cannot push our luck too far. We must dare to confront important questions of policy and resolve them in the proper manner, and not let them fester for fear of “confrontation”, or worse still, distract the attention of the people to trivial issues and thereby let down our guard and allow the enemy to ruin our nation.

We must not forget that we are still living in a very dangerous world of Anglo-American unilateralism. In Washington and London, seats of power are filled by veritable fascists. The world economy and financial system are collapsing around us. While we should befriend everyone and work together with our neighbours, the United Nations, and the big powers, including China, Russia and India to build a better, just and more peaceful world, we should be extremely wary and vigilant against Anglo-American hegemony manifesting in various guises.

As leaders of the party and the Government, Pak Lah and the other UMNO and Barisan leaders must understand the awesome responsibility that they shoulder towards the nation. They must be highly vigilant and stand resolutely on principle in matters of the country’s sovereignty and independence. Tun Dr. Mahathir, many of our enlightened intelligentsia, and our good citizenry are invaluable assets to our country. Do not leave any of these important elements out. Use them wisely.

Kassim Ahmad is a Penang-based free-lance writer. He can be contacted at kasmad172@yahoo.com.my. His website is

SENJATA NUKLIER – MENGAPA A.S-BRITAIN-ISRAEL
BOLEH ADA DAN IRAQ DAN IRAN TIDAK BOLEH ADA?

Kassim Ahmad
6 Jun, 2006

Nampaknya, senjata nuklier, kalau dimiliki oleh kuasa-kuasa besar Barat, termasuk anak emas mereka Israel, dibolehkan dan sah, tetapi kalau dimiliki oleh Iraq, Iran dan Korea Utara, sudah menjadi bahaya dan perlu dicegah oleh “masyarakat anatarabangsa” (baca: kuasa-kuasa besar). Baru-baru ini A.S. sudah berjaya mendapatkan sokong semua anggota Majlis Keselamatan PBB untuk memujuk Iran menamatkan usaha membangunkan teknologi nukliernya sendiri dengan mendapat ganjaran dari kuasa-kuasa besar Barat.

Soalan di atas soalan pokok yang patut kita tanya. Dunia tahu bahwa negara kolonial Israel yang dipaksakan ke atas dunia Arab oleh kuasa-kuasa besar ini memiliki senjata nuklier, di samping mereka sendiri mempunyai senjata itu. Senjata ini memang sangat merbahaya, kerana ia boleh membunuh dan merosakkan secara besar-besaran. Senjata ini merupakan suatu ancaman dan ugutan kepada semua negara lain yang ingin bebas dari konkongan Empayar A.S.-Britain-Zionis.

Dunia juga tahu bahawa negara pertama yang telah menggunakan senjata ini ialah A.S. sendiri ke atas Jepun pada penghujung Perang Dunia Kedua. Tidak ada sebab A.S. menggugurkan bom-bom atom ini ke atas Hiroshim dan Nagasaki, kerana pada waktu itu, perundingan menyelah kalah oleh Jepun sedang pada peringkat akhir. A.S. menggugurkan bom-bom pembunuh besar ini semata-mata sebagai ugutan dan amaran kepada mana-mana kuasa lain (pada ketika itu Kesatuan Soviet) yang mahu mencabarnya. Dari sini, kita boleh melihat sifat kerakusan sistem kolonial Barat, yang bermula kira-kira pada abad kelima belas dan yang sekarang berada pada peringkat akhirnya.

Sistem ini tidak mengerti kerjasama antarabangsa. Ia hanya mengerti kekerasan dan paksaan. Tentunya kekerasaan dan paksaan ini dibungkus dalam pakej “demokasi”, “kebebasan” dan “hak asasi”. Inilah yang menghalang ramai orang mengenali sifat jahatnya yang sebenar. Dalam cerita mithos Islam, ia dikenal sebagai Dajjal, yakni penipu. Dalam cerita itu, pada Akhir Zaman, Dajjal akan muncul dan mengandar syurga dan neraka di bahunya. Sesiapa yang mengiktirafnya sebagai Tuhan akan diberi ganjaran syurga. Sebalikya akan dicampaknya ke dalam nerakanya.

Bersalahan dengan fahaman kebanyakan orang, kita dengan tegas mengiktiraf hak semua bangsa yang merdeka memiliki senjata nuklier. Ini sama sekali bukan kerana kita sukakan peperangan. Sebalikya, kita mahu menghapuskan peperangan. Tetapi, hakikatnya dan anehnya, jalan kepada perdamaian abadi ialah dengan kita bersedia untuk mempertahankan diri kita dengan senjata nuklier. Apabila lebih banyak negara di luar blok imperialis A.S.-Britain-Israel memiliki senjata nuklier dan boleh mempertahankan diri mereka dari pencerbohan kuasa imperialis ini, pada waktu itu, senjata nuklier dengan sendirinya tidak boleh dipakai lagi! Imperialis yang gila seperti George W. Bush-Tony Blair dan gerombolan neokonnya juga mahu hidup! Dulu mereka fikir mereka saja patut hidup dan orang lain boleh mati! Sekarang mereka akan mati! Oleh itu, mereka akan berdamai! Inilah logik imperialis.

Satu pelajaran untuk umat Islam ialah mereka harus bersatu untuk menjadi kuat supaya mereka boleh menjadi umat yang bebas “menyerukan kebaikan” dan “melarang kejahatan”. Baru dengan demikian akan wujud sebuah dunia yang aman dan adil.

Setelah menggulingkan pemimpin Iraq Saddam Hussein secara haram, A-S-Britain-Israel mahu menyerang Iran pula. Apa kata dunia? Sepatutnya, dunia mesti menuntut Bush dan Blair dibawa ke Mahkamah Antarabangsa untuk dibicara atas tuduhan penjenayah perang dan Saddam Hussein dibebas dan dinobatkan balik sebagai Presiden Iraq. Belum kedengaran suara demikian. Apa yang sedang berlaku di Iraq, tiga tahun setelah George Bush dengan angkuhnya mengisytiharkan menang, ialah perang gurila dalam bandar. Perang gurila ini sudah pun mengalahkan “gergasi” militer dunia ini. A.S. hari ini sukar hendak menyerang Iran, persis kerana tentangan hebat yang telah bangkit di Iraq.

Di antara 1981-1988, kerana hasutan kaum imperialis ini, Iran dan Iraq berperang. Mengikut rekod, Iraq tidak mahu berperang dengan Iran, dan meminta berdamai sebaik saja perang itu berlaku. Permintaan damai ini diulang tiap-tiap tahun oleh Iraq dan tiap-tiap tahun ditolak oleh Iran. Perang ini suatu tragedi besar bagi umat Islam.

Umat Islam sepatutnya menolong satu sama lain. Yang salah, kita tolong betulkan kesalahan itu. Yang betul, kita tolong perkuatkan dia. Apabila Saddam Hussein mengajak Teheran, sebelum Perang Teluk Pertama, mengadakan satu Pakatan Strategik untuk menentang pencerobohan A.S-Britain-Israel, mengapa Teheran tolak? Ini satu kesilapan besar. Selepas itu apa jadi? Libya menyerah kepada telanan kuasa-kauasa Barat dan melepaskan haknya untuk membuat senjata nuklier. A.S. dan sekutunya ketawa, tetapi apa yang Libya dapat? Selepas itu Saddam Hussein digulingkan dan mereka jangka suatu halangan besar kepada kemaraan cita-cita hegemoni mereka di Asia Barat dan di dunia terhapus. Hakikatnya tidak!

Apa akan jadi sekarang? Apapun akan jadi, umat Islam harus berpegang teguh kepada perjuangan yang hak dan berjuang dengan tabah untuk mewujudkan sebuah dunia yang aman dan adil. Dunia yang aman dan adil ialah sebuah dunia tanpa imperialisme dan kolonialisme dan tanpa penindasan dalam apa bentuk pun.


Kassim Ahmad seorang penulis bebas yang tinggal di Bandaraya Tanjung, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia. Beliau boleh dihubungi di kasmad172@yahoo.com.my. Laman web beliau: www.kassimahmad.blogspot.com

A SHORT COMMENT ON
REFORMIST TRANSLATION OF THE QURAN

Kassim Ahmad
22 May, 2006

The Arab scholar Dr Rashad Khalifa’s brilliant discovery of the awesome mathematical miracle of the Quran in 1974 was a turning point in the history of God’s final scripture. One can say that the post-1974 period is a completely new period for the world’s understanding of the Quran. The Quran is scientifically proved and validated as God’s final message to the world, thereby also scientifically proving the existence of God.

Mr. Edip Yuksel and his two co-translators, Layth Saleh al-Shaiban and Marth Schulte-Nafeh of this translation, are among the many thousand, may be millions, of people throughout the world who have benefited from Dr. Khalifa’s discovery and excellent translation. Mr. Yuksel and this writer must number among the thousands who were and are admirers and students of the late Dr. Khalifa. Now that Mr. Yuksel and his two colleagues have expressed their profound appreciation for his milestone discovery by this “Reformist Translation” of theirs, I am extremely happy and welcome the translation.

That this translation is superior to all traditionalist translations goes without saying, as it breaks out of the Hadith and traditionalist tafsir’s shackles (including the gender bias) that have for a thousand years robbed the Muslim community of its freedom of thought. In several ways, it is an improvement on Dr. Khalifa’s own translation. Off hand, I can cite two crucial words as examples. The words “to acknowledge” for “to believe,” and “conscientious” for “God-fearing” or “righteous” that are normally used, are to my mind a definite improvement.

The translation’s Notes are excellent. As the translators have made many cross-references, they are a mine of useful information that is a scholar’s delight.

The translation is not perfect, of course, even in terms of language, not to say the interpretations of those profound Quranic metaphors, allegories and even apparently straight-forward verses. I am also referring to the two historical and universal or idealistic dimensions of the Quranic message, which, as far as my quick glance at it informs me, is not taken into account in this translation. This appears to me the reason why it cannot satisfactorily explain the apparent superiority of the male to the female, the existence of slavery, and the harsher punishments – the historical aspect of 7th Century Arab social reality that the message engaged in, and the idealism towards which the message continuously pushes the Arabs and mankind forward and upwards.

Every generation has to interpret the Quran anew, just as our knowledge of God, Man and the Universe advances.

I am convinced that the world’s, including and especially the West’s, understanding and appreciation of the God’s Final Scripture, after more than a thousand years of misunderstanding and even aversion, will progress fast from now on until the world accepts this new Quranic paradigm in its radical new phase of life on this planet.

Kassim Ahmad is a Malaysian free-lance writer, living in Penang. He can be contacted at kasmad172@yahoo.com.my. His website is: www.kassimahmad.blogspot.com

JAWAPAN PENUH KEPADA ENCIK NORDI ACHIE (1)

Oleh: Kassim Ahmad

19 Mei, 2006

Saya telah membaca dengan teliti komen En. Nordin Achie terhadap artikel saya dalam Al-Islam, keluaran April, 2006 (h. 76-79). Saya mengucap ribuan terima kasih kepada beliau kerana berusaha membuat komen yang rasional, ilmiah dan membina. Sepanjang yang saya ingat, inilah sebuah komen di antara yang paling baik terhadap tulisan-tulisan saya yang bersifat keagamaan.

Pada permulaan tulisan saya yang tersebut, saya meningatkan pembaca betapa kita kerap menjadi tidak rasional apabila membincang isu-isu agama. Ini kerana bagi kebanyakan orang, agama soal kepercyaan; tidak boleh dimasukkan perhitungan akal dalam perbincangan-perbincangan ini. Sebenarnya, ini satu anggapan yang silap. Saya gembira kerana nyatalah En. Nordi Achie tidak termasuk ke dalam golongan ini.

Ada lapan, sebenarnya tujuh, perkara yang telah dibangkitkan oleh penulis ini. Saya akan jawab semuanya dengan lengkap.

Pertama, perihal Imam Shafi’e meletakkan Hadith separas dengan Quran, kenyataan saya dalam tulisan itu, dipertikai oleh beliau. Dalam kaedah fikah yang pokoknya diasaskan oleh Imam Shafi’e, dua ajaran pokok dalam Islam dirumuskan sebagai Quran dan Hadis. Yang lain, Ijmak, Qias dan Ijtihad sebagai tambahan. Kedudukan dua ajaran pokok ini didakwa ditentukan dalam sebuah hadis, tetapi hadis ini dibantah oleh sebuah hadis lain yang membataskan ajaran pokok kepada Quran saja (2). Dalam pada itu, mengikut Prof. Ahmad Ibrahim, yang menentukan kesahihan tafsir dan kesahihan Hadis ialah Ijmak, yang ditafsirkan sebagai muafakat Ummah (3).

Oleh kerana kedua-duanya dianggap ajaran pokok dengan Hadis dikatakan memainkan peranan menerangkan Quran, Hadis mestilah tidak boleh bercanggah dengan Quran. Inilah pengertian masyarakat umum, tetapi sebenarnya banyak hadis yang didakwa sahih (khasnya dari Bukhari dan Muslim) bercanggah dengan ajaran Quran (4). Saya akan memberi dua contoh saja di sini, iaitu hukum rejam untuk penzina yang telah berkahwin, dan hukum bunuh untuk orang murtad.

Dalam kes yang kedua, kebebasan beragama itu mutlak dalam Quran; tidak ada hukuman di dunia ini. Hal ini sangat jelas. Oleh yang demikian, hukuman bunuh dalam hadis itu bercanggah dengan ajaran Quran. Mereka yang mendakwa kebebasan ini hanya terbatas kepada sesiapa yang hendak menganut agama Islam, tetapi apabila telah memeluk Islam mereka tertakluk kepada hukuman hadis ini, nyatalah ingin menterbalikkan logika. “Bebas boleh memeluk apa-apa agama, tetapi apabila telah memeluk Islam, tidak bebas keluar!”

Dalam kes pertama, hukuman terhadap pasangan penzina, sama ada telah berkahwin atau tidak, dalam Quran ialah seratus rotan. Hukuman dalam hadis, yang membezakan antara yang telah berkahwin dan yang tidak, ialah rejam hingga mati. Hukuman ini diambil dari Kitab Taurat (6). Hukuman ini nyatalah berbeza dari hukuman dalam Quran. Ia tidak boleh dikatakan sama sekali penjelasan terhadap hukuman Quran. Ini perubahan atau pindaan terhadap hukuman Quran! Di sini nyatalah Hadith telah mengatasi Quran!

Harus diperhatikan bahawa sebenarnya terdapat dua pilihan hukum di sini, kerana dalam Ayat 5 yang berikutnya, kita dibolehkan meringankan hukuman ini hingga menagmpuni mereka, jika mereka bertaubat selepas itu. Di sini saya ingin menyebutkan dua dimensi dalam Quran: iaitu, satu dimensi sejarah dan satu lagi dimensi universal. Tiap benda atau idea itu abstrak selagi ia hanya wujud dalam imaginasi atau khayalan manusia. Tetapi apabila ia dimanifestasikan dalam sesuatu konteks, katalah masyarakat Arab abad ketujuh, atau masyarakat Eropah abad kelapan-belas, barulah benda atau idea itu menjadi konkrit. Demikianlah agama Islam, pada mana-mana zaman pun, pada zaman Nabi Ibrahim, atau zaman Nabi Musa, atau zaman Nabi Musa (jangan lupa mereka semua mukmin dan muslim), atau zaman Nabi Muhamad, ajaran itu abstrak selagi ia tidak dipraktikkan. Apabila ia dipraktikkan, agama itu mesti menangani keadaan yang wujud, di samping ia mahu membawa perubahan. Jadi, undang-undang dan peraturan-peraturannya, kecuali kepada perkara yang pokok, iaitu konsep tauhid, harus mengambil-kira dua dimensi. Pertama, dimensi sejarah atau dimensi realiti yang maujud; kedua, dimensi universal atau idealistik.

Hukuman dalam zaman dulu dalam mana-mana tamadun pun memang keras. Di England dalam abad ke-18, umpamanya, salah satu hukuman terhadap pencuri ialah potong kepala (7), bukan potong tangan, seperti di Semenanjung Arab dalam abad ke-7 Di beberapa tempat, saya telah menyebut Islam telah memberi dua prinsip hukuman, iaitu prinsip-prinsip keadilan atau hukuman setimpal, dan ihsan atau hukuman rahim. Apabila sesuatu hukuman yang dijatuhkan itu memenuhi tuntutan keadilan dan/atau memenuhi kehendak ihsan, maka itulah hukuman Islam (8).

Kedua, perkara Nabi Muhammad contoh yang baik bagi kita dan beliau dikurniakan akhlak yang tinggi. Apakah makna “contoh yang baik” dan “akhlak yang tinggi”? Nordin Achie mahu saya menghuraikannya dengan lebih panjang. Adakah ia terbatas kepada perkara-perkara besar saja, atau termasuk juga perkara-perkara lain, seperti adat orang Arab dan kecenderungan peribadi? Sebelum saya menjawab soalan ini, ingin saya tegaskan sekali lagi bahawa apa yang diikut oleh Nabi Muhammad ialah perintah-perintah Tuhan dalam Quran. Itulah sebabnya, mengikut sebuah hadis yang diriwayat oleh A’isyah, akhlak Muhammad ialah Quran. Hadis-hadis yang kita terima hari ini sebagai sahih, khasnya oleh Bukhari dan Muslim, ialah berita tentang perktaan dan perbuatan Nabi. Kita harus membezakan antara berita dengan kejadian yang sebenar, kerana kedua-duanya mungkin tidak sama. Ukuran yang saya pakai ialah Quran; jika ia selaras dengan ajaran Quran, baru saya terima berita itu sebagai sebenarnya sahih. Penulis kita dan semua sarjana Islam akur dengan ukuran ini, sekurang-kurangnya pada teorinya. Saya telah merujuk kepada risalah saya, Dilema Umat Islam – Antara Hadis dan Quran yang menghuraikan perkara ini.

Umpamanya, adat orang Arab lelaki ialah memakai serban atau tutup kepala, kerana ini sesuai dengan iklim di sana. Tetapi di Malaysia, dengan hawanya yang panas, ia tidak begitu sesuai. Adakah ini sunnah Nabi yang sunat kita ikut? Saya tidak fikir begitu. Jika Nabi Muhammad seorang Melayu, beliau juga akan memekai pakaian mengikut adat Melayu.

Dalam pada itu, tiap insan mempunyai kesukaan dan kecenderungan sendiri, yang mungkin berebeza dari insan lain, seperti suka makan ketam. Jika Nabi Muhammad suka makan ketam, adakah kita juga sunat memakan ketam?

Tuhan menyuruh kita ikut teladan Nabi Muhammad, selain teladan Nabi Ibrahim, kerana kekuatan iman mereka dan keteguhan perjuangan mereka menegakkan tauhid, termasuklah komitmen mereka kepada keadilan, kebenaran dan perasaan kasih saying sesama manusia. Perekara-perkara inilah yang harus ditekan dan diutamakan, bukan yang lain-lain yang bersifat adat setempat dan sezaman dan kecenderungan individu.

Juga kita dilarang oleh Tuhan membezakan antara nabi-nabi dan rasul-rasul-Nya, yang mana yang lebih baik dan yang mana yang kurang baik (9). Tuhan Maha Kaya. Insan yang diciptakan-Nya yang baik itu banyak, bukan satu. Konsep “insan kamil” yang diajar oleh golongan sufi tidak terdapat dalam Quran, kerana sifat sempurna itu hanya milik Tuhan.

Ketiga, hadis-hadis yang didakwa sahih yang bercanggah dengan ajaran Quran, saya dapati banyak juga. Dalam kiraan kasar, saya letakkan 40 peratusan yang terang-terang bercanggah dengan ajaran Quran. Kita tidak harus lupa akan wujudnya musuh dalam selimut, yang wujud dalam semua masyarakat dalam semua zaman, yang bekerja siang malam, untuk menggagalkan sesuatu ajaran yang baik Ini sunatullah. Ini satu cara yang paling berkesan untuk membezakan antara yang palsu dan yang benar.

Apabila saya bertanya kepada seorang pakar Hadis di Universiti Sains Malaysia, Dr. Muhammad Radzi Hj. Othman, pada tahun 1990 tentang hadis mutawatir (hadis yang mempunyai ramai pelapor dan dengan itu yang benar-benar sahih), beliau menjawab satu saja (10). Oleh yang demikian, mengapa kita mengajar anak-cucu kita menerima beribu-ribu hadis yang sebenarnya tidak sahih dam yang bercanggah dengan ajaran Quran pula?

Keempat, perkara perubahan undang-undang mengikut perkembangan zaman. Memang suatu sunatullah bahawa manusia berubah dan undang-undangnya pun berubah. Dulu kita hidup dalam gua, bercawat dan memperoleh makanan daripada memburu. Selepas itu, kita bercucuk tanam tetapi terpaksa berpindah-randah kerana mencari tanah yang subur (pertanian rendah). Kemudian kita mengamalkan pertanian pertengahan, tidak perlu berpindah-randah lagi tetapi memakai teknologi rendah (kerbau tenggala). Sekarang kita mempraktikkan pertanian tinggi dengan menggunakan teknologi tinggi. Oleh itu, peraturan dan undang-undang masyarakat pun berubah.

Tetapi, dalam konsep perundangan Islam zaman Muhammad ini, paradigma kita ialah Quran, yakni falsafah hidup kita tidak terkeluar daripada paradigma ini. Dari segi ini kita berbeza dari perundangan Barat setelah Europah memisahkan agama dari kehidupan duniawi dari tarikh Perjanjian Westphalia (24 Oktober, 1648) yang menamatkan Perang Agama Eropah yang berlarutan selama tiga puluh tahun. Konsep perundang Islam tidak, atau tidak seharusnya, lari dari konsep undang-undang alamiah (natural law). Tetapi apa yang sebenarnya berlaku ialah sebagian besar dari Syariah dicipta oleh manusia Islam sendiri (kaum fukaha). Ini telah disedari oleh ramai sarjana yang mengkaji perkara ini. Oleh yang demikian, Syariah ini tidak berbeza dari konsep perundangan positif (positive law) Barat. Yang berbezanya kita mendakwa Syari’ah itu perintah Tuhan, sedangkan Eropah mengatakan undang-undang mereka ialah perintah Raja atau Parlimen.

Kelima, dalam hal ini, seperti yang telah saya sebutkan dalam artikel awal saya, kita mesti berbalik kepada konsep perundangan yang cantik yang diajar dalam Quran dalam Ayat 4, Surah 59. Ayat ini menyebut dua sumber undang-undang, iaitu undang-undang dasar (Quran) dan undang-undang tambahan yang dibuat oleh pihak yang berkuasa dalam sesuatu masyarakat untuk melaksanakan undang-undang dasar tadi. Dalam konsep ini, yang berdaulat ialah Tuhan (kerapkali disebut dengan rasulnya kerana Tuhan tidak datang kepada manusia kecuali melalui rasulnya), bukan kerajaan, yang hayamempunyai kedaulatan nisbi. Tetapi kerajaan (frasa yang digunakan di sini pihak yang berkuasa, kerana, dalam zaman Muhammad, belum ada konsep kerajaan sehingga beliau sendiri mendirikan kerajaan setelah beliau berhijrah ke Madinah), sumber perundangan kedua, boleh menggubal undang-undang tambahan denga syarat undang-undang itu tidak bercanggah dengan undang-undang dasar yang termaktub dalam Quran.

Harus kita perhatikan juga bahawa Nabi Muhammad memainkan dua peranan. Pertama, beliau seorang nabi lagi rasul. Tugas beliau ialah menerima dan menyampaikan wahyu Tuhan (Quran) kepada bangsa Arab, dan, melalui bangsa Arab, kepada dunia. Ini telah beliau lakukan dengan sempurna. Kedua, beliau ialah pihak berkuasa, atau pemimpin, kepada bangsa Arab yang akhirnya mengikut beliau. Sebagai pemimpin, beliau bertanggungjawab memimpin bangsanya melaksanakan falsafah hidup atau paradigma Quran. Dalam tugas ini, beliau berjaya besar, tetapi setelah kira-kira tiga ratus tahun, bangsa beliau kembali menyeleweng kepada adat lama (11).

Ayat yang padat dan ringkas ini memberikan suatu konsep perundangan yang sangat cantik. Kepada panduan inilah kita harus kembali untuk menyelesaikan dilema umat Islam, akibat doktrin yang salah yang telah dilakukan oleh nenek-moyang kita kira-kira 300 tahun setelah Nabi Muhammad wafat. Kita tidak perlu pesimistik kerana kesalahan mereka (Imam Shafi’e dan lain-lain). Kita pasti boleh bangkit balik dengan syarat kita tidak mendewakan mereka dan membetulkan diri kita dengan segera dengan berbalik kepada ajaran Quran. Inilah ajaran nabi Muhammad yang sebenar. Walaupun, seperti kata Nordi Achie, Quran itu kalimah Allah, kalimah itu disampaikan melalui kesedaran dan perkataan Muhammad (12). Tuhan sebenarnya tidak bercakap seperti manusia bercakap. Apabila Tuhan bercakap kepada Nabi Musa, adakah nabi Musa nampak Tuhan? Tidak. Beliau hanya dengar suatu suara bercakap dalam bahasa beliau yang menyatakan Dia Tuan Musa (13).

Keenam, perkara “ulama”(diletakkan di antara koma kerana perkataan ini sudah berubah maknanya) yang telah diterima oleh masyarakat Islam sebagai pihak berkuasa dalam urusan agama. Hal ini jelas, kecuali mungkin dalam masyarakat Turki sejak Mustafa Kamal Attaturk menolak mereka dalam Revolusi Kebangsaan Turki pada 1922-24. Dalam semua negara Islam sekarang, golongan “ulama” melaksanakan pernana dan kuasa mereka sebagai “penasihat” melalui institusi-institusi Majlis Agama, Majlis Fatwa dan sebagainya, kecuali di Iran setelah Revolusi Iran pada 1979 apabila kaum mullah mengambil-alih tampuk kerajaan.

Ketujuh dan akhir, perkara kejatuhan umat Islam, kerana terpenjara dalam penjara-istana yang mereka buat sendiri, iaitu apa yang didakwa sebagai Syari’ah atau undang-undang Tuhan. Perkara ini telah saya sentuh di banyak tepat di atas dan tidak perlu saya perpanjang lagi.

Saya tidak mahu menutup jawapan saya ini dalam nada kecewa. Mengikut ajaran Quran, tiada siapa yang patut putus asa, kerana Tuhan Maha Pengampun dan Maha Penyayang dan mengampun semua dosa (14). Oleh itu, kita jangan putus asa untuk mendapat pengampunan Tuhan. Kita boleh menebus semula kejatuhan kita dengan mudah. Ada dua syarat saja. Pertama, kita kena membebaskan diri kita dari semua berhala, kecuali Allah. Jika kita telah mendewakan mana-mana nabi, seperti yang telah dilakukan oleh umat Kristen terhadap Nabi Isa, atau kita telah mendewakan golongan ulama kita, seperti yang telah dilakukan oleh umat Yahudi, kita harus membetulkannya dengan segera. Kedua, kita harus kembali kepada ajaran Quran. Ini tidak bermakna kita perlu menolak Hadith atau Ijmak atau Qias, atau pun falsafah Barat, atau mana-mana ajaran lain, tetapi kita perlu meletakkan ajaran-ajaran ini di bawah kritikan Quran. Syarat-syarat ini boleh kita penuhi, kalau kita mahu. Kita hanya perlu sedar bahawa kita semua, termasuk pemimpin-pemimpin kita, dari kalangan sekular atau agama, dari mana bangsa pun, tidak sempurna. Tuhan saja yang sempurna. Terhadap diri kita dan terhadap pemimin kita, kita mesti sanggup, dalam frasa Quran, “menyerukan kebaikan dan melarang kejahatan”(15). Inilah saja jalan yang selamat, jalan kejayaan dan jalan kemenangan.

(1) En. Nordin Achie ialah pensyarah Pusat Penataran Ilmu dan Bahasa, Universiti Malaysia Sabah. Komen beliau dimuat dalam majalah Al-Islam keluaran Mei, 2006, h. 76-78.
(2) Lihat Kassim Ahmad, Hadis – Satu Penilaian Semula (HSPS), h. 88-89.
(3) Lihat Ahmad Ibrahim, Islamic Law in Malaya (1965), h. 25
(4) Pembaca yang ingin mengetahi lebih lanjut tentang perkara ini, sila lihat risalah-risalah penulis, Kontroversi Hukum Hudud(KHH) (Julai, 2002) dan Dilema Umat Islam – Antara Hadisdan Quran (DUI) (Ogos, 2002).
(5) Quran, 24: 2.
(6) Lihat Kassim Ahmad, DUI, h. 25.
(7) Lihat Christopher Hibbert, The Rootf of Evil (1966); h. 71.
(8) Lihat Kassim Ahmad, Hadis – Jawapan kepada Pengkritik(HJKP) (1992); h. 72-73. Lihat juga nota 31, h. 73.
(9) Lihat Quran, 2: 136.
(10)Lihat Kassim Ahmad, HJKP, h. 29, nota 12.
(11)Inilah makna ayat Quran yang dahsyat yang berbunyi, “Rasul berkata: ‘Wahai Tuanku, kaumku telah membelakangkan Quran ini.’” (25: 30)
(12) “Inilah perisytiharan seorang rasul yang mulia.” (Quran, 69: 40). Ayat ini diulang sekali lagi dalam 81: 19.
(13) Lihat Quran, 20: 11-44.
(14) Lihat Quran, 39: 53.


Kassim Ahmad seorang penulis bebas Malaysia yang tinggal di Pulau Pinang. Beliau boleh dihubungi di kasmad172@yahoo.com.my Sila lawat laman web: www.kassimahmad.blogspot.com

Note: This is an extended version of Kassim Ahmad's interview with the Bosnian magazine. MBM

KASSIM AHMAD'S INTERVIEW WITH FARIS NANIC*

Penang, Malaysia
8th May, 2006


1. In the last decade you have been portrayed as an anti-hadith thinker in Malaysia due to your writings on certain aspects of fiqh and shari'a. What was the problem?

A. My book titled «Hadith – A Re-evaluation» (Malay original: Hadis – Satu Penilaian Semula) is self-explanatory. I am critical of the hadith both in terms of its content (Ar. matan) as well as its chain of narrators (Ar. isnad). I did not deny its existence, but I denied its pre-eminent place with the Quran, which is a new doctrine introduced by Imam Shafi'e (d. 820) two hundred years after the Prophet's death. That explains why the official corpus of Hadith (the so-called Six Books of Authentic Hadith of the Sunnis and three collections of the Shi'ah Hadith) did not come into existence until after Shafie introduced this doctrine that the Hadith/Sunnah is compulsory on the Muslims. This was done with his ingenious argument in his book, Al-Risalah, that obedience to the Messenger equals upholding of the Hadith and Sunnah. When we examine all usages of this phrase in the Quran, the meaning is clearly to obey God and to uphold the Quran.

Before this, there were personal notes and collections of hadith, but they were not official. They became official only after Imam Shafi'e introduced his new doctrine .

2. Bosniacs belong to the hanefi madhab and therefore have less problems with hadith role in jurisprudence. Do you think it is a universal muslim problem?

A. In principle, I think it is a universal Muslim problem. Everywhere the majority of Muslims consider the Hadith as on par or almost on par with the Quran. Muslims are taught to believe that without the Hadith, the Quran cannot be understood and without the Hadith the Prophet's role is somehow negated. All this is untrue and unreasonable. God Himself states that the Quran is complete and perfect. In some places in the Quran, the Quran is said to be the «words of an honourable messenger».(Quran, 69:40 & 81:19) Muhammad was entrusted with the Quran precisely because he was morally and intellectually fit to carry and deliver it to the Arabs and to mankind. This, we know, he did.

Of course, Muslims are taught that Prophet Muhammad was an illiterate man to deflect the Christian criticism that He copied the Quran from the Bible. But the Arabic word ummi means «gentile», not «illiterate».

3. You have presented a poetical metaphor describing muslims as those who have entered a shiny palace, lock themselves in and threw the keys out. What do you mean?

A. The teaching of the Quran is complete and perfect in the sense that it is the guidance for a spiritually adult human being, the last completed, perfected and up-dated Book of God. It is like the text for a University student. It does not teach you how to eat and dress or how to pray even, for that matter, because these things one has learnt at the primary level. All the rituals of prayer, fasting and so on were introduced during Prophet Abraham's time and passed on from generation to generation until the time of Prophet Muhammad and until today. (Quran, 2:128) So what we have learnt from the primary and secondary schools, as it were, are no longer taught in the Quran. The Quran is complete and perfect in the sense that all a spiritually adult human being needs to know he can know from a study of the Quran. The perfect system which the majority of Muslims mean is the minutely-regulated so-called Shariah law which regulates everything, even including on what day to cut your finger nails and what prayer to say while entering the toilet! This is their perfect system (the palace of my metaphor) of which they are extremely proud. Unfortunately, this is a prison! It is a prison, because it robs them of their freedom to think and to act.

4. Do you think there is a general lack of knowledge in the West on real muslim contribution to the human civilisation or there exists a deliberate manipulation and decrease of that contibution by the western science historians?

A. It is both. The enemity of the Jews and the Christians towards Islam is nothing new. It did not start with 9/11, as a great many people, including Muslims, tend to think. (Remeber the Crusades?)One form of this enmity is their conspiracy to deny Muslim contributions to many branches of modern knowledge. Read the books The Making Of Humanity by Robert Briffault and, Introduction to the History of Science, by George Sarton Vol. II to realise this. Many Westerners, as with others, simply take over their society's perjudices towards Islam without bothering to make their own investigations. But sooner or later, especially after 9/11 and with Huntington's thesis of the «Clash of Civilizations» between the West and Islam, the European and the American peoples will come to know the true Islam in the teachings of the Quran. The Muslims themselves, although still a minority, after Dr. Rashad Khalifa's brilliant discovery of the mathematical miracle of the Quran and criticism of the Hadith, have re-awakened to the truth of the Quran. Both these forces will combine to bring back the Quran to the Muslims and to the world, precisely at a time when both stand in great need of it.

5. If we agree that in approximately three centuries there has not been any muslim paticipation in revolutionary breakthroughs in scinece and philosophy, what is your opinion on the roots of such state of affairs?

A. The Muslim creative spirit, fired by the revolutionary teachings of the Quran, has been killed. That is the root cause. Note that the teachings of Muhammad (the Quran) came to free the then world of their burdens (of superstitions and false teachings). Who has killed this spirit? As usual, the enemies of truth and justice come in many garbs, including the Muslims. The Muslims themselves, like the Christians and the Jews, have created their own priesthood without realizing it. It is this priesthood that had created the Hadith and the so-called Sharia, both of which are not sactioned by the Quran.

6. In the light of actual unipolarism in the world and so far Malaysian principal stance for multipolarism and dialogue instead of conflict of civilisations, what do you think what should be general muslim position on dialogue amnog cultures and civilisations?

A. It is obligatory on Muslims everywhere to seek peace, but not peace at any price. It is obligatory on them to fight those who make war on them. The dialogue of cultures and civilizations is an important way to world peace, but not the only way. What do you do to a group that does not sincerely want a dialogue, but only wants to dominate you?

7. Some observers think that Malaysia, in the post-Mahathir era is not playing a significant role any more, outside regional considerations, namely ASEAN. Do you agree?

A. Yes, I do. Malaysia worships pragmatism and avoid philosophy like the plague. Even Tun Dr. Mahathir. So it is wise and good politics to be in the good books of Uncle Sam! But Tun Dr. Mahathir was slightly different. He was anti-colonial and anti-feudal from the very beginning.

8. Prime minister Badawi recently expressed dissatisfaction with certain tendencies in the Malaysian society and challenged civil servants to leave their posts if uncompetent to fulfill their tasks and duties. What is behind these statements?

A. The Malaysian bureaucracy is huge and costly, but productivity-wise it is declining. And people are complaining. That is the reason.

9. Energy and energy independence is one of the crucial factors of a country's independence and sovereignty. How do you envisage Malaysia's energy future and what do you think should be Malaysian standpoint on nuclear technology for energy production?

A. I think Malaysia, as all sovereign countries, should go to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Can we imagine what will happen to the deserts of Africa once we can turn them into gardens of green and feed the world population cheaply? That is what nuclear technology can do! Why don't we do it then? Because it does not benefit the oligarchy, which lives and prospers on peoples' miseries.

10. Malaysian government recently floated ringgit against major currencies. Is this because it feels the danger from 1998/99 Asian flu is over or because it has built enough measures to counter another speculative attack on its currency? What happened with other 1999 Mahathir's government mesures?

A. The entire world financial system is in danger of imminent collapse. It is usury-ridden and bankrupt. «The Great Disorder under Heaven» (Mao Tse-tung's phrase) that is now reigning in the world is due to this. The sooner we correct this, the better. But most leaders of the world belong to an elitist club that does not want to rock the boat. So they do almost nothing even though the Titanic is sinking! The real peoples' leaders are now few and far between. Where are the Sukarnos, the Chou En-lies, the Nehru's, the Nassers, the Ben Bellas and the Titos of today?

11. Proporodov Journal is a Croatian Bosniac Muslim minority magazine. Our readers are very interested in Malaysia's particular experience with various minority aspects. Therefore, two questions emerge. First, what is Malaysian goverment doing, bilaterally and multilaterally, to help Malay national minority in neighboring countries, especially Thailand? Second, what is the level of intregration of Chinese, Hindu, Tamil, Sikh and other minorities intoMalaysian society, especially in public sector like politics, military, diplomacy and alike?

A. Given the present situation of Anglo-American imperialist world hegemony and a divided Muslim world, nothing much can be done, although we should help the poor and the down-trodden in all countries. The answer to the second part of the question is that more can be done, because so far the integration of the various communities into a just Malaysian society is quite superficial. It can be upset by a major crisis. But I think such a policy would need a new humanist political philosophy. It cannot be achieved under a so-called liberal democratic system of the Western capitalist mould.

* Mr Faris Nanic is editor of Propordov Journal, a Croatian Bosniac Muslim magazine.

[I interrupt the serialization of Hadith: A Re-Evaluation to bring this interview Kassim Ahmad had with a Croation Muslim magazine. MBM]

KASSIM AHMAD'S INTERVIEW
WITH FARIS NANIC*

Penang, Malaysia
8th May, 2006


1. In the last decade you have been portrayed as an anti-hadith thinker in Malaysia due to your writings on certain aspects of fiqh and shari'a. What was the problem?

A. My book titled «Hadith – A Re-evaluation» (Malay original: Hadis – Satu Penilaian Semula) is self-explanatory. I am critical of the hadith both in terms of its content (Ar. matan) as well as its chain of narrators (Ar. isnad). I did not deny its existence, but I denied its pre-eminent place with the Quran, which is a new doctrine introduced by Imam Shafi'e. That explains why the official corpus of Hadith did not come into exixtence until after Shafie introduced this doctrine that the Hadith/Sunnah is compulsory on the Muslims.

2. Bosniacs belong to the hanefi madhab and therefore have less problems with hadith role in jurisprudence. Do you think it is a universal Muslim problem?

A. In principle, I think it is a universal Muslim problem. Everywhere the majority of Muslims consider belief in the Hadith as obligatory on them.

3. You have presented a poetical metaphor describing Muslims as those who have entered a shiny palace, lock themselves in and threw the keys out. What do you mean?

A. The teaching of the Quran is complete and perfect in the sense that it is the text for a spiritually adult human being, for the university level of education. It does not teach you how to eat and dress or how to pray even, for that matter, because these things one has learnt at the primary level. But for the majority of Muslims, this perfect system means that everything, even including on what day to cut your finger nails and what prayer to say while entering the toilet, has been stipulated for them! This is their perfect system (the palace of my metaphor) of which they are extremely proud. Unfortunately, this is a prison!

4. Do you think there is a general lack of knowledge in the West on real Muslim contribution to the human civilisation or is there a deliberate manipulation and decrease of that contibution by the Western science historians?

A. It is both. Sooner or later the European and the American peoples will come to know the true Islam in the teachings of the Quran. They will not be burdened by the Hadith-bound theology of the so-called ulama. The Quran will free them and they will in turn free us. This is what is likely to happen in the next thirty to sixty years.

5. If we agree that in approximately three centuries there has not been any Muslim paticipation in revolutionary breakthroughs in science and philosophy, what is your opinion on the roots of such state of affairs?

A. The Muslim creative spirit, fired by the revolutionary teachings of the Quran, has been killed. That is the root cause. Note that the teachings of Muhammad (the Quran) came to free the then world of their burdens (of superstitions and false teachings).

6. In the light of actual unipolarism in the world and as far as the Malaysian principal stance for multipolarism and dialogue instead of conflict of civilisations, what do you think what should be the general Muslim position on dialogue among cultures and civilisations?

A. It is obligatory on Muslims everywhere to seek peace, but not peace at any price. It is obligatory on them to fight those who make war on them. The dialogue of cultures and civilizations is an important way to world peace, but not the only way. What do you do to a group that does not sincerely want a dialogue, but only wants to dominate you?

7. Some observers think that Malaysia in the post-Mahathir era is not playing a significant role any more, outside of regional considerations, namely ASEAN. Do you agree?

A. Yes, I do. Malaysia worships pragmatism and avoid philosophy like the plague. Even Tun Dr. Mahathir. So it is wise and good politics to be in the good books of Uncle Sam! But Tun Dr. Mahathir was slightly different. He was anti-colonial and anti-feudal from the very beginning.

8. Prime minister Badawi recently expressed dissatisfaction with certain tendencies in the Malaysian society and challenged civil servants to leave their posts if they are uncompetent to fulfill their tasks and duties. What is behind these statements?

A. The Malaysian bureaucracy is huge and costly, but productivity-wise it is declining. And people are complaining. That is the reason.

9. Energy and energy independence is one of the crucial factors of a country's independence and sovereignty. How do you envisage Malaysia's energy future and what do you think should be the Malaysian standpoint on nuclear technology for energy production?

A. I think Malaysia, as all sovereign countries, should develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Can we imagine what will happen to the deserts of Africa once we can turn them into gardens of green and feed the world population cheaply? That is what nuclear technology can do!

10. Malaysian government recently floated ringgit against major currencies. Is this because it feels the danger from 1998/99 Asian flu is over or because it has built enough measures to counter another speculative attack on its currency? What happened with other 1999 Mahathir's government mesures?

A. The entire world financial system is in danger of imminent collapse. It is usury-ridden and bankrupt. «The Great Disorder under Heaven» that is now reigning in the world is due to this. The sooner we correct this, the better. Most leaders of the world belong to an elitist club that does not want to rock the boat. But the Titanic is sinking! The real peoples' leaders are now few and far between. Where are the Sukarnos, the Chou En-lies, the Nehru's, the Nassers, the Ben Bellas and the Titos of today?

11. Proporodov Journal is a Croatian Bosniac Muslim minority magazine. Our readers are very interested in Malaysia's particular experience with various minority aspects. Therefore, two questions emerge. First, what is Malaysian goverment doing, bilaterally and multilaterally, to help Malay national minority in neighboring countries, especially Thailand? Second, what is the level of intregration of Chinese, Hindu, Tamil, Sikh and other minorities intoMalaysian society, especially in public sector like politics, military, diplomacy and alike?

A Given the present situation of Anglo-American imperialist world hegemony and a divided Muslim world, nothing much can be done, although we should help the poor and the down-trodden in all countries. The answer to the second part of the question is that more can be done, because so far the integration of the various communities into a just Malaysian society is quite superficial. It can be upset by a major crisis. But I think such a policy would need a new humanist political philosophy. It cannot be achieved under a so-called liberal democratic system of the capitalist Western mould.

* Mr Faris Nanic is editor of Propordov Journal, a Croatian Bosniac Muslim magazine.

Hadith: A Re-Evaluation


Where Have We Gone Wrong?


The time is ripe for Muslims and for mankind as a whole to undertake a fundamental study of this great human crisis. At some point, somewhere, we have gone wrong. Where have we gone wrong? It will be recalled that modern secular Europe emerged in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries in rebellion against the Catholic Church in particular and against religion in general to embrace secular humanism of the liberal or Marxist variety. For the last one to three hundred years it experimented with these social philosophies and systems and the experiments have proved a failure. Today the two philosophies and systems are seeking a synthesis. Can the synthesis be achieved? Can it answer mankind's present quest for a new spiritual philosophy?

As for the Muslims, the new and young Muslim society and state set up by Muhammad and his compatriots in seventh century Arabia developed and expanded so rapidly that within a century it had become an empire to comprise also Persia and Byzantium, and within two to three hundred years it had created a great world civilization. But, as quickly as it had arisen, so quickly had it declined and fallen. Today, the Muslim polity, science and civilization, great though they were in their time, are glories and things of the past. There seems to be no bridge linking their great predecessors of the early centuries and present-day Muslims.

The great question mark hanging over the Muslims and the entire mankind today is: Why? The short answer to the question, which is the thesis of this book, is that mankind, including the Muslims, have deserted the true teachings of God. The true teachings of God in the era of Muhammad is contained in His final scripture to mankind, the Quran. The People of the Scripture, i.e. believers before Muhammad, especially the Jews and the Christians, rejected Muhammad because they had idolized their own prophets and religious leaders and refused to acknowledge Muhammad's divine message. Modern secular rebellious Europe not only turned against their religious priesthood, in which action it was right, but also against religion altogether, in which action it was wrong. This is the cause of the present Western impasse.

As regards the Muslims, Muhammad brought them the Quran, described by God Himself as an invincible book, but no sooner did Muhammad die and leave them, they contrived to make Muhammad bring two books and, after bitter quarrels, they legislated, two hundred and fifty years later, that Muslims must uphold not only the Quran but also the hadith. However, in truth, since then, they followed the hadith rather than the Quran. This explains God's warning in the Quran that we have quoted earlier. So it came about that while secular Europe embraced either liberalism or Marxism, the Muslim world embraced the hadith, with the philosophies of secular humanism infecting the elites of Muslim societies, thus justifying the Quranic warning.


Avoiding Misunderstanding

Raising such a fundamental issue as this, it is difficult to avoid misunderstanding from both sides. The secular side, being more open-minded and tolerant, will simply dismiss this call to the Quran as antiquated, outmoded and irrelevant. Many secularists will simply not consider it. On the other hand, the traditionalist side, being close-minded and intolerant of dissenting views on matters regarded as their preserves, will raise a hue and cry and throw slanderous accusations into the debate.

One cannot be discouraged by the prospect. It is part of the social struggle to expose falsehood and confirm the truth. The secularists will be worthy opponents since they will be prepared to fight it out in open battles. Open debate is part of their secular tradition. The traditionalists are a different breed. Open debate is not part of their tradition. In fact, they came into being in Muslim society by killing open debate. Authoritarianism is their culture. Thus, slander, threats and falsehood will be their methods.

It will be claimed that the writer is trying to cause confusion and further divide Muslim society. This is far from the truth. The Muslims cannot be further confused and divided than they already have been for a long time. What worse confusion and division can there be than when Muslims fight and kill one another?

My aim is to try to establish the truth. My personal history bears testimony to this tendency. Like other Malays, I was born and brought up in an ordinary orthodox Malay Muslim family. However, my early interest in social philosophy took me on a long spiritual quest, over a period of thirty years, spanning liberal nationalism, Islamic liberalism and socialism, every single one of which each time sat uneasily over traditional Islam. The failure became obvious to me when the coherent integrated social philosophy that I was seeking eluded me. It was in the Islam of the Quran, scientifically understood, that I discovered the framework of such a philosophy.

Looking back, this is only logical, since the Quran contains the sure truth from God, while most of human teachings, as the Quran points out, are mere conjecture. But at that time, the Quran was, so to speak, covered up for me by the fog of hadith.

It will be claimed that calling the people back to the Quran alone will create a new sect, in addition to the sects that already exist. This is standing the argument on its head. Since the Quran is, in the first place, anti-sectarian, not only will it not create a new sect, but it will, on the contrary, eliminate all existing sects and reunite all Muslims. This is precisely what we want to do. History proves that under Muhammad the young Muslim society was completely united and there was no sect whatever. It is ironic that the Ahl'ul-Hadith who talk so much about following the example of the Prophet have completely abandoned this finest of his examples!

It will also be claimed that in rejecting the hadith as a source of law, we shall be rejecting the role of the Prophet. It will further be claimed that this is the first step to the ultimate rejection of the Quran! As for the first part of the claim, it is obvious to anyone that it was only through Muhammad that mankind received the Quran from God Almighty. That was his primary role — God's messenger — indeed his only role, as the Quran stressed several times. Was not this role great enough for Prophet Muhammad? Surely, it was.

As for the second part, it is too ridiculous to even think of it. But since the die-hard traditionists would stop at nothing to slander their opponents, one would lose nothing to spend a few lines exposing them. How can anyone, after calling the people back to the Quran, then reject the Quran? Even if he does, and this means reverting to disbelief after belief, how can that benefit him? He would lose everything, while the people, on the contrary, would benefit greatly by going back to the Quran.

The Muslims must re-possess critical consciousness and discard prejudice and group fanaticism. We must avoid throwing slanderous accusations at what we may not like at first. God Himself has taught us to verify things before we accept or reject them. No less an intelligent man than Sayyed Hossein Nasr who has said the following about those who deny the authority of the hadith:

It is against this basic aspect of the whole structure of Islam that a severe attack has been made in recent years by an influential school of Western Orientalists. No more of a vicious and insidious attack could be made against Islam than this one, which undercuts its very foundations and whose effect is more dangerous than if a physical attack were made against Islam.

How can this scholar, who has quoted a blasphemous hadith in the same book, spout this slander? Why should we Muslims, in possession of an invincible scripture from God Almighty, be afraid of the criticisms and even attacks of Orientalists? Such fear, in fact, reflects our own weakness. It shows that we are not sure of our own selves. The Quranic methodology should be a lesson for us. The Quran incessantly reproduces the false arguments of idol-worshippers and hypocrites and rebuts them with proofs and with better arguments. We should do the same to expose falsehoods and confirm the truth. The methods of suppression and slander are alien to the methods of truth.

Rejecting the authority of the hadith does not mean denying its existence. Some true reports of what the Prophet said and did outside the Quran as leader of his community and as an ordinary man must have been preserved. Such reports deserve to be treated as any other historical account whose authenticity must be judged against other historical accounts, against the higher authority of the Quran, and against rational criteria. While Quranic pronouncements are divine and are eternally binding on believers, those of Muhammad in his capacity as leader must be treated in accordance with the Quranic injunction regarding politico-social authority, i.e. that they are only conditionally binding. The conditions are that they do not contradict the Quran, they are binding only for the community of that time, and that for other communities of other times they only constitute as precedents to be followed or bypassed as and when deemed useful.

It should also be well understood that this re-evaluation of the hadith is in no way a slur upon our classical scholars. They understood and reacted to their problems as best they could. We who come after them are not bound by their solutions. As Muhammad Abduh has well said, "They are human and we are human. We learn from them but we do not [blindly] follow them." No doubt our re-examination constitutes a criticism. But this is normal scientific procedure. It has been done by all our great philosophers and scholars from the beginning, by Ibn Sina, al-Ghazzali, Ibn Rush, Ibn Taimiya, Shah Waliyullah, Muhammad Abduh and scores of others. We owe it to them and to ourselves to constantly practice this method. For how else can knowledge develop and society progress unless they continually be purged of errors. This accounts for the very important Quranic directive, repeated many times, to believers:

Let there be a community among you who preach goodness, advocate righteousness and forbid evil. These are the winners.

It must also be pointed out that this criticism and re-evaluation of the hadith that we are making is nothing new. Imam Shafi`i who first stipulated that the hadith should be accepted as a source of law had opponents that he himself described in his book. In recent times there were such proponents in Egypt, India and Indonesia. It may be that our treatment, thanks to recent developments in Quranic and hadith studies, is more systematic than previous efforts.

In this study we have adopted what may be termed as Islamic scientific methodology. In is unfortunate that today we associate scientific methodology to the Western empirical and rational methods, when, in fact, it was Islam that introduced this methodology to the West. The words of the English historian Robert Briffault deserve to be quoted in full:

"... It was under their successors at the Oxford school that Roger Bacon learned Arabic and Arabic science. Neither Roger Bacon nor his later namesake has any title to be credited with having introduced the experimental method. Roger Bacon was no more than one of the apostles of Muslim science and method to Christian Europe; and he never wearied of declaring that knowledge of Arabic and Arabic science was for his contemporaries the only way to true knowledge. Discussions as to who was the originator of the experimental method ... are part of the colossal misrepresentation of the origins of European civilization. The experimental method of [the] Arabs was by Bacon's time widespread and eagerly cultivated throughout Europe..."

However, the scientific methodology of Europe sought to bar supra-rational and supra-sensory knowledge from science. It is now admitted that this is inadequate to conform to the truly Islamic scientific methodology of combining sensory, rational and supra-rational knowledge to produce true integrated knowledge. Using this methodology, we take the Quran as our basis and starting point and subject all the evidence of the hadith, i.e. the hadith itself, the major classical writings on them and modern European and Muslim criticisms, to Quranic and rational judgements. We may, of course, take ten years to do this and produce five volumes that few will have the time and the stamina to read. Our purpose is different. Ours is to write a readable book for the general reader with enough matter for him to think and draw conclusions.

It is hardly necessary to state that this is a view offered to the reader for his consideration. God Almighty Himself has ordered us to read in His name, for doing that we cannot fail to develop our mind and increase our knowledge. A good book will do that positively; a bad one, negatively. Reading in His name, therefore, cannot but produce good results. Yet, the Muslims today are very bad readers. Centuries of subservience to bigoted religious authorities have shackled their minds. This subservience plus their deplorable ignorance of the contents of the Quran combine to make what they are today — a weak, backward and humiliated people. The time has come for us to break out of this prison. It is for this purpose that this study is undertaken.

Next: CHAPTER II REFUTATION OF THE TRADITIONISTS' THEORY

Hadith: A Re-Evaluation

Basing ourselves on this premise, we can make the following hypothesis. The rapid rise of the Arab nation from its dark period of paganism prior to Muhammad to become the most powerful and civilized nation in the world then, within a short period of time, is due to the new, inspiring, powerful and dynamic Islamic ideology of monotheism brought by Muhammad. The Arabs, under his and his immediate successors' leadership, discarded their erstwhile polytheism and super-stitions. They united to fight and struggle under the guidance of the Quran and set up a just social order. Because this struggle was based on divine truth and justice as contained in the Quran, it was invincible. It also gave rise to a great social movement, bringing forth with it outstanding political, military and intellectual leaders who helped to create the first scientific-spiritual culture in history.

This hypothesis, in contrast to the modernist or the traditionalist theses, appears to be the most helpful in our effort to understand the history and the decline of the Muslims. The modernist thesis, in brief, states that the Muslims declined because they have remained traditional and have not modernized themselves according to Western secular values. The traditionalist thesis, on the other hand, blame the secularization of Muslim societies and the neglect of orthodox Muslim teachings as the major cause of Muslim decline.

It is obvious that the modernist and the traditionalist theses cancelled each other. Furthermore, the modernists have to explain why the Turkish experiment with Westernized modernization failed. They also have to explain why developed Western societies such as the United States and Europe have been undergoing a multi-faceted crisis since the First World War, and why a new philosophical trend of thought critical of Western-type modernization has developed in Europe and America.

The traditionalists, on the other hand, must explain the failure of their system from the beginning when it was first formulated around the third, fourth and fifth centuries of Islam. Some Arab countries have hardly modernized and had been practicing the traditional system for centuries – why have these not progressed? If they have not progressed, it is idle to expect Muslim countries to progress if they implement the traditional system.

The answer lies in our hypothesis. The early Muslims rose to the pinnacles of success precisely because they were in possession of and practiced the powerful and dynamic Islamic ideology as preached in the Quran. They subjected other knowledge, local and foreign, to the discriminative teachings of the Quran. As long as they did this, they progressed. A time came when other teachings, local and foreign, gained the upper hand and submerged the Quran, as witnessed by the following Quranic prophecy:

The messenger will say, "My Lord, my people have deserted this Quran." We thus appointed for every prophet enemies from among the criminals, and God suffices as Guide and Protector.

After about three hundred years, extraneous harmful teachings not taught by Prophet Muhammad but skillfully attributed to him gradually gained a foothold in the Muslim community and turned them away from the dynamic invincible ideology that initially brought them success. This ideology, as we shall show, is precisely the hadith. This is the main cause of their downfall. It therefore follows that the purging of this harmful ideology, and with it other foreign modern ideologies, from the Muslim community, and their return to the original ideology brought by Muhammad in the Quran is the sine qua non for the regeneration of the Muslim community and for a new Muslim Renaissance.


Age of "Great Disorder"

The time has now arrived for the Muslims to examine their situation more critically and boldly. Actually, this perilous situation is not confined to the Muslims alone; it covers the entire mankind. A number of twentieth century philosophers, historians and social critics have unanimously stated that this century is the most critical century in human history. The late Chinese leader, Mao Zedong, described the century as "Great Disorder under Heaven." The American historical philosopher, P.A. Sorokin, has detailed the crisis of the twentieth century in his able book, The Crisis of Our Age, published in 1941. It is in this century that two terrible world wars occurred, and a third more horrible one might still occur, in spite of the end of the Cold War, to destroy the present civilization.

It is in this century also that an array of philosophies, ideologies, theories, systems that includes liberalism, Marxism, pragmatism, logical positivism, existentialism, Nazism, Fascism, Stalinism, Ghandhism, Maoism and religious traditionalism collapsed. When dominant existing philosophies and systems cannot solve the problems of human security and welfare, it is a sure sign that a very serious crisis is upon us.

A number of modern writers and poets, such as Dostoyevsky, Albert Camus, Jean-Paul Sartre, Y.B. Yeats and T.S. Eliot, had expressed this atmosphere and sense of great crisis in their works. Listen to the loneliness and poignant sorrow of Eliot:

I said to my soul, be still, and wait without hope
For hope would be hope for the wrong thing; wait without love
For love would be love of the wrong thing;
there is yet faith
But the faith and the love and the hope are all in the waiting.

and the deep despair and earnest prayer of Yeats:


Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world;
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.



This literature of pessimism and absurdity of life beginning in the twenties and thirties and continuing after the Second World War is, of course, a reflection of the great disorder currently existing in the world. This great disorder is evidenced by the great ideological cleavage, the continuous raging of the fires of war, the massive starvation and poverty in the Third World, the steep decline in public morality, world-wide financial and economic crisis and the inability of the United Nations to function effectively.

The Muslims had long lost their intellectual and political leadership of the world. The break-up of their empire in 1258 AD gave way to independent dynasties which continued until they were colonized by European powers beginning in the sixteenth right up to the early twentieth centuries. Then, with the rise of nationalism in Asia and Africa, nearly all of them regained their independence and set up sovereign nation-states.

However, the Muslims had ceased to be creative around the fourteenth century. Their period of intense creativity lasted three centuries from the ninth through to the eleventh. Their last great philosopher was the Arab Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406). Since that time Muslim intellect stagnated and even degenerated and Europe took over to develop dominant philosophies and disciplines along materialist and hedonistic lines.

After more than a century of modern reformism efforts initiated by Jamaluddin al-Afghani and Muhammad Abduh, the Muslim world, a world as disunited as any other, have not progressed much. They have not been able to fight off the ideological influence and domination of the world power-blocs. They are not united in their Muslim purpose. Their economies are dependent and backward. Their sciences and technologies are non-existent. Militarily, they are weak and dependent on the big powers.

However, there has been much talk, since the early seventies, of implementing the Shari`a or medieval Muslim law and the setting up of an Islamic state. This is the slogan of the traditionalists who have taken over the reform movement of Muhammad Abduh. The examples of mullah rule in Iran since the great popular anti-Shah revolution and the Islamization programmes in some countries do not give support to the traditionalist alternative.

The main weakness of the Muslims is their disunity. This disunity takes the form in their inability to cooperate for the good of Muslims in individual countries and the whole Muslim world. It also surfaces in the form of conflicts and wars between Muslims, as typified by the Iran-Iraq war and the civil wars in Lebanon.

What is the cause of this disunity? The Muslims claim that they worship one God and follow His one religion. They also declare their religious brotherhood. How then are they so disunited? This is the mystery that we have to unravel. This is the reason for our re-evaluation of the hadith. Our hypothesis is that the hadith — in principle, a false teaching attributed to Prophet Muhammad — is a major factor causing disunity and backwardness among Muslims. Our study is to prove this hypothesis.