The Malaysian Insider :: Opinion
The Malaysian Insider :: Opinion |
| The anti-Sharia movement: Fact, fiction or farce Posted: 24 Feb 2013 04:22 PM PST
FEB 25 — An article in the New York Times, "The Man Behind The Anti-Shariah Movement", showcased the crusading efforts of David Yerushalmi. His circle of support includes like-minded prominent visionaries, thought leaders and presidential candidates like Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Pamela Geller, Frank Gaffney — all alleged experts on culture, financial systems, history and religion. Yerushalmi says he has been taught Arabic and Sharia by two Islamic scholars, but won't reveal their identities. The premise of his position is that Islamic law, or Sharia, "presents the greatest threat to American freedom since the Cold War," whereby the USA would eventually stand for United States of Afghanistan! (Actually the biggest threat to America may be S&P recently downgrading US debt, from AAA to AA+, with the insulting negative outlook, and stating "… America's governance and policymaking [is] becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed…") Yerushalmi makes some interesting comments, and three of them require either additional elaborations or placing into context for a more informed understanding. First, he states Islamic militants have not perverted Islam, rather, the Islamic doctrine seeks global hegemony and overseas Muslims support Islamic rule. It's interesting to know he and his inner circle believe in something that we, Muslims, do not believe in; Islamic militants have not only attempted to pervert the religion, but also highjacked its core peaceful teaching with their diametrically opposite ideology of hate and murder. As Timothy McVeigh and Anders Behring Breivik, the so called "Christian terrorist", do not represent Christian values, Tamil Tigers not represent all Tamils, Ayuman Shinto not represent all Japanese, IRA not represent all Catholics, the late Osama Bin Ladin and his ilk neither represented Islamic values, Muslim culture nor Arab outlook. A sampling of Muslims overseas includes: 1. Most of the word's internal conflicts are in Muslim-majority countries; witness the brutality in Syria, Yemen, Libya, change of leadership in Tunisia and Egypt, and financial accommodations in Saudi Arabia, Oman, Kuwait. 2. Extremists have killed more Muslims than non-Muslims, look at the Shabab Islamic movement contributing to the famine in Somalia; hence, we are "fighting" the same enemy. 3. Brain drain in Muslim countries due to lack of education, economics, opportunities and repression and corruption in their home countries; they are not looking to establish an Islamic caliphate in the US. Why doesn't Yerushalmi use examples of Muslims in Muslim-majority countries like Malaysia (multi-ethnic/multi culture) and Turkey (led by an Islamist party) instead of continual focus on sensational headlines from Saudi, Sudan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran? It's easy to get one's point across and influence masses, via a co-operating media, in presenting text out of context. There are problems in all 240 countries of the world, but what is the point of importing the actions of a few to spread fear among the many? Albert Einstein said it best: "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition (instilling fear) from mediocre minds." Is the fear mongering done to access funds for self serving studies? Second, according to his group study, 82 per cent of imams in 100 mosques surveyed in the US espouse and promote violence. Much like Peter King's hearings concerning the radicalisation of Muslims in America, there was no "smoking gun" that appeared in Congress, and, we Muslims, would like the names of the 80 per cent of the imams so that they can be either "de-frocked" or deported. The mosque, much like a church or synagogue, is a sanctuary, to connect with God and find solace, and those that use the pulpit otherwise are "…buying the life of this world at the price of the hereafter…" (2:86). In the US, there is a cross section presence of Muslims from the 57 Muslim countries. American Muslims come in different colours, shapes, sizes and, yes, even "beliefs." There are different sects in Islam represented in the US by, say Sunnis, Shias, Ahmadis, Nation of Islam, etc; hence, put three Muslims in a room and get four opinions. Thus, the high-profile Imam Faisal Rauf, who is the face behind the Ground Zero mosque and State Department ambassador to the Muslim world, does not represent US Muslims, notwithstanding US government endorsement. Another example of Muslims' inability to get their "act" together is the Eid-il-Fitr celebration, marking the end of the holy month of Ramadan, which is (unfortunately) often held on different days. Sarah Palin's comment in the article, that it will be the downfall of America if Sharia law is adopted, is consistent with her misinformed musings. America has outlasted socialism, fascism, racism and communism, and is much stronger with its checks and balances. The "over-accommodation" of Muslims will not happen here and, more importantly, Muslims are not asking for over-accommodation but a level playing field where possible. For example, kosher law is well accepted in the US when it comes to food consumption. There are common areas between Jewish and Sharia law on food (kosher and halal), custody, divorce, and so on. Muslims are not looking to overturn the US Constitution. Try not paying taxes to the IRS, and see what happens, or overthrow the Constitution, a Sarah Palin moment! Are the recent remarks by New Jersey Republican Governor Chris Christie, who nominated a "Muslim judge to the state Superior Court against conservative critics who warned that the new judge will implement Sharia law," a signal that common sense is finally prevailing over fear mongering against Muslims/Islam? Christie goes on to say: "Sharia law has nothing to do with this at all. It's crazy… the guy's an American citizen who has been an admitted lawyer to practise in the state of New Jersey, swearing an oath to uphold the laws of New Jersey, the constitution of the state of New Jersey, and the Constitution of the United States of America... this Sharia law business is crap. It's just crazy. And I'm tired of dealing with the crazies." Third, the Islamic finance industry, via American banks offering funds, invests in companies deemed Sharia compliant, implying companies whose primary business may be inconsistent with American values and principles. If we look at the six index providers, from S&P to Dow Jones Indexes to MSCI to FTSE to Russell to Thomson Reuters, they all have Islamic indexes from which such funds are launched. The largest companies in today's Islamic indexes include Microsoft, IBM, Pfizer, ExxonMobil, Google, and so on. Islamic equity investing is like social-ethical investing, with the emphasis on negative screening. This is where most of the Islamic fund's money is invested. Additionally, Yerushalmi should reach out to the new IMF director Christine Lagarde as she, while France's finance minister, was instrumental in making Paris a hub for Islamic finance, or UK's FSA in authorising five Islamic banks, or even the central bank governor of Malaysia, Zeti Akhtar Aziz, as she would be happy to explain the principle of asset backed/based financing linked to the real economy. To date, not one Islamic financial institution has been convicted of financing terrorism. However, non-regulated money changers and charities are a different issue and must be scrutinised to the full extent of the law. I'm sure Yerushalmi, having lived in Israel, is familiar with the Jerusalem Post. In an editorial, "Ramadan in Israel", the paper encouraged further engagement with its largest minority of 1.4 million Muslims having 363 mosques (2003). "The celebration of Ramadan in Israel should be understood to be an expression of the freedom of worship that Israel grants its largest minority group. Burkas and minarets are not banned in Israel. It is important that Israeli leaders and society see Ramadan as a way to engage with the Muslim community… Ramadan can be used both as a time to work with leaders of the Muslim community, especially in mixed towns with a history of communal tensions, and as a time to discuss issues associated with extremism, xenophobia and irredentism." In fairness to Yerushalmi, he asks a good question in the article, about what Sharia is. Maybe the best way to answer it is in the negative; it's neither the covert fifth column nor overt mass conversions and world domination. It's about having the dignity to take care of one's family, looking after one's neighbours, and obeying the law of the land. One simple test question will flush out intent: What is the identity and ideology of those Muslims and non-Muslims who wish to establish perverted medieval laws in the US that oppress women, promote non-tolerance of other faiths and ethnicities, and, have as default, thinking and action of hate and violence? Answer: The discredited very few that is becoming smaller every day because their message failed the stress test of humanity. Typically, the longest lines in most countries are at the US Embassy, because America provides not only economic opportunities regardless of race, creed or colour, but also has all the virtues described in the holy books of the Bible, Quran, Torah, etc. The dollar bill says "In God, We Trust!" Enough said. Now, why would the hard-working American Muslims want the USA to stand for United Sharia of America? It's in America we are born or raised, and it's America we want to make great once again, and it's in America soil we want to be buried. The Jewish and Catholic people (allegations of a coup in the US by the Pope via President John Kennedy) have gone through what the Muslims are going through in the US; moments of mistrust and motives magnified by external events shown in real time. Time has vindicated the Jews, Catholics and it will also vindicate the Muslims and people like Yerushalmi will have contributed to it. * This is the personal opinion of the columnist. | |
| Takkan Melayu hilang di Malaysia Posted: 24 Feb 2013 03:51 PM PST
25 FEB — Hang Tuah yang khabarnya berketurunan Bugis dipercayai pernah berkata, "Takkan Melayu hilang di dunia". Dalam pada akur dan percaya kepada kata-kata itu, saya sebenarnya lebih risau memikirkan kemungkinan Perkara 160 Perlembagaan Persekutuan dimanipulasi golongan tertentu yang menjadi semacam "musuh dalam selimut" lalu "merampas" hak istimewa orang Melayu "secara sah".
Pemangku Raja Perak, Raja Dr Nazrin Shah semasa Majlis Syarahan Perdana Budaya di Petaling Jaya pada 7 November 2012 antara lain bertitah bahawa sesungguhnya wujud kebimbangan orang Melayu tentang kemasukan kaum imigran Cina dan India ke Tanah Melayu sejak kurun ke-19 hingga pertengahan kurun ke-20. "Demi memastikan orang Melayu tidak menjadi minoriti di bumi warisan pusaka bangsanya, Raja-raja Melayu menzahirkan saranan kepada pentadbiran Inggeris (sebelum merdeka) supaya tenaga kerja asing diimbangi dengan turut mengambil tenaga kerja dalam kalangan orang-orang Jawa," titah baginda dalam teks yang turut disiarkan di majalah Dewan Masyarakat (Januari 2013). Sejak kecil, sewaktu membesar di Taiping, Perak, saya ada rakan-rakan pelbagai kaum, agama, etnik dan latar belakang. Bagi saya, orang Melayu adalah orang yang benar-benar berdarah Melayu serta beragama Islam. Akan tetapi, menjelang usia remaja, saya menyedari bahawa tanggapan dan andaian saya salah; sekurang-kurangnya secara teknikal. Ada beberapa individu yang saya kenali sebenarnya kaum India dan Cina tetapi tiba-tiba menjadi "Melayu" apabila memeluk Islam. Sesungguhnya, Perkara 160 Perlembagaan Persekutuan mendefinisikan "orang Melayu" sebagai individu yang menganut agama Islam, bercakap bahasa Melayu dan mengamalkan adat Melayu. Anak-anak kepada individu terbabit juga secara automatik memenuhi definisi "orang Melayu". Tentu sahaja saya tidak sedikit pun berniat mempertikaikan apa-apa peruntukan dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan; khususnya Perkara 160 (definisi "orang Melayu") dan Perkara 153 (hak istimewa orang Melayu). Antara hak istimewa yang termaktub dalam Perlembagaan dan dilindungi menerusi Wasiat Raja-raja Melayu yang ditandatangani pada 5 Ogos 1957 adalah jawatan dalam kerajaan, peruntukan biasiswa dan bantuan ekonomi bagi kaum Melayu. Dalam konteks Malaysia, seorang Melayu secara automatik beragama Islam. Atas sebab itulah juga istilah "Melayu-Islam" digunakan. Walau bagaimanapun, perlu diingat bahawa tidak semua orang Islam di Malaysia terdiri daripada orang Melayu; dengan erti kata orang yang berdarah Melayu tulen.
Perbuatan selaras Perkara 160 Tee yang merupakan seorang mualaf keturunan Cina sering bercakap dan menulis mengenai Agenda Islam dan Agenda Melayu — kadang-kadang secara lebih bersemangat berbanding kaum Melayu tulen dan individu yang beragama Islam sejak lahir. Ramai juga individu mualaf berketurunan India yang turut mempunyai semangat seperti itu. Hinggalah ke tahap mereka lebih gemar menggelarkan diri mereka sebagai "orang Melayu" berbanding sebagai "India-Muslim" atau "mamak". Dari segi teknikal, perbuatan mereka tidak salah kerana selaras dengan peruntukan Perkara 160. Saya juga tidak berniat mahu mempersoalkan tindakan mereka kerana bimbang saya pula dilabel sebagai cuba mempersoalkan "hak orang Melayu". Sejak beberapa tahun lalu, timbul juga perkongsian maklumat berserta bahan bukti dalam kalangan pengguna laman rangkaian sosial Facebook bahawa keluarga mantan Perdana Menteri, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad sendiri tergolong dalam kelompok "India-Muslim" dan bukannya "Melayu" (berdarah Melayu tulen). Isu itu juga tidak mahu saya analisis secara terperinci di sini kerana jika terbukti "tuduhan" itu benar, maknanya selama 22 tahun, Malaysia pernah ditadbir oleh seorang politikus India-Muslim dan bukannya Melayu-Islam (berdarah Melayu tulen). Dalam keadaan ramai orang mengatakan bahawa hanya seorang politikus Melayu-Islam layak menjadi Perdana Menteri (khususnya selepas Pilihan Raya Umum Ke-13), tentulah perkara itu akan memberikan suatu tamparan maha hebat; jika terbukti benar. Berbalik pada topik perbincangan, bagi saya, seorang individu "Melayu" adalah orang yang dilahirkan "Melayu" (sekali gus beragama Islam sejak lahir). Jika seorang "Bukan Melayu" memeluk agama Islam, dia menjadi orang Islam (misalnya India-Muslim dan Cina-Muslim) tetapi bukan "Melayu-Islam". Secara logik, etnik, keturunan dan kaum seseorang tidak boleh diubah. Malangnya, sedikit kelonggaran dan "kekaburan definisi" dalam Perkara 160 boleh sahaja melayakkan individu India-Muslim dan Cina-Muslim di Malaysia mengaku dirinya "orang Melayu". Soal berhubung "bercakap bahasa Melayu" dan "mengamalkan adat Melayu" masih kabur/longgar dari segi pelaksanaan dan pemantauan. Sebelum sesiapa mula melenting dan melalak serta menyeru supaya saya ditahan polis kerana memperkatakan tentang "kekaburan definisi" dalam Perkara 160, biar saya tegaskan sekali lagi bahawa saya sedang cuba mempertahankan hak istimewa orang Melayu yang sepatutnya menjadi hak eksklusif kaum Melayu.
"Kami isytiharkan dan kami simpan untuk kamu dan kami benarkan kamu isytihar dan simpan untuk anak cucu kamu, selain gunung-ganang, tasik dan gutan simpan, Tanah Simpanan Melayu sehingga nisbah 50 peratus, selebihnya kamu rebutlah bersama-sama kaum lain." Perkara 89 Perlembagaan Persekutuan turut menjelaskan mengenai Tanah Simpanan Melayu iaitu Tanah Rizab Orang Melayu seperti berikut: "Mana-mana tanah di sesuatu negeri yang menjadi tanah rizab Melayu sebelum hari merdeka mengikut undang-undang yang ada, maka tanah itu boleh terus-menerus menjadi tanah rizab orang Melayu mengikut undang-undang itu sehingga selainnya diperuntukkan oleh Badan Perundangan Negeri dengan suatu Enakmen." Jangan sampai kampung tergadai Dalam pada itu, seperti ditegaskan oleh Raja Nazrin (Utusan Malaysia, 8 November 2012), terdapat sepuluh perkara yang termaktub dalam Perkara 2 (b), Perkara 38 (4) dan Perkara 159 (5) tidak boleh diluluskan dengan tiada persetujuan Majlis Raja-raja. "Adalah amat menyimpang jika Majlis Raja-raja dianggap sekadar institusi memenuhi keperluan ceremonial," titah baginda selain menegaskan bahawa pelbagai usaha diambil untuk "memastikan orang Melayu tidak menjadi minoriti di bumi warisan pusaka bangsanya." Walau bagaimanapun, apa yang saya bimbang adalah kemungkinan tiba suatu hari bilamana segala hak istimewa orang Melayu serta perkara-perkara yang termaktub dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan Wasiat Raja-Raja Melayu tidak lagi menjadi hak serta dinikmati secara eksklusif oleh orang Melayu-Islam. Jangan sampai ayam menang, kampung tergadai. Biar saya berikan suatu contoh paling mudah untuk menjelaskan kebimbangan ini. Bayangkan bahawa saya berjaya memujuk kaum-keluarga, suku-sakat, saudara-mara dan jurai keturunan saya memeluk agama Islam; tanpa perlu berkahwin dengan orang Melayu. Kemudian saya memujuk dan berjaya pula membawa masuk majoriti kaum India menjadi penganut Islam; juga tidak melalui perkahwinan dengan orang Melayu. (Ingat: Ini adalah contoh mudah sahaja sambil mengabaikan segala faktor sampingan lain.) Maka, akhirnya, jumlah penganut agama Islam akan bertambah. Bayangkan jika kelompok kaum India yang memeluk Islam ini tidak sekadar mengklasifikasikan diri sebagai "Mamak Malabari" atau "India-Muslim". Sebaliknya mula menjadi "orang Melayu" mengikut definisi Perkara 160. Bayangkan pula bahawa kaum Cina juga mula memeluk Islam secara beramai-ramai (tanpa perlu berkahwin dengan orang Melayu) serta menuntut hak untuk dikenali sebagai "orang Melayu" selaras peruntukan Perlembagaan.
Apakah pula hak istimewa seperti jawatan dalam kerajaan, peruntukan biasiswa dan bantuan ekonomi bagi orang Melayu akan kekal sebagai hak eksklusif kaum Melayu atau sudah terpaksa dikongsi bersama-sama kaum-kaum lain yang tetap berhak menuntut jawatan, biasiswa dan bantuan ekonomi itu mengikut definisi dalam Perkara 160? Tanah Simpanan Melayu diisytiharkan sehingga nisbah 50 peratus khusus untuk kaum Melayu dalam Wasiat Raja-raja Melayu. Akan tetapi, berdasarkan contoh mudah di atas, bukankah nisbah 50 peratus itu sebenarnya sudah pun terpaksa dikongsikan bersama-sama kaum-kaum lain yang bukan berdarah Melayu tulen? (Ingat bahawa dalam contoh di atas, tidak berlaku perkahwinan campur dengan orang Melayu.) Saya tidak berniat menuntut Perkara 160 Perlembagaan Persekutuan dipinda. Saya juga tidak menafikan bahawa "kepentingan sah kaum-kaum lain" dilindungi dalam Wasiat Raja-raja dan Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Sebaliknya saya sekadar meluahkan kebimbangan terhadap "nasib" hak istimewa orang Melayu yang sedang sama-sama kita pertahankan menerusi keluhuran Perlembagaan; tanpa terkeliru antara "Hak Melayu" dan "Ketuanan Melayu". Sesungguhnya saya berharap tanggapan, contoh dan analisis di atas adalah salah dan pincang. Semoga hak istimewa orang Melayu terus kekal menjadi milik abadi dan eksklusif bagi kaum Melayu-Islam seperti dihajati menerusi Wasiat Raja-raja Melayu; dengan izin Allah. * Uthaya Sankar SB adalah pemilik tunggal Perunding Media, Motivasi dan Penerbitan Uthaya. Beliau memblog di www.uthayasb.blogspot.com. * Ini adalah pandangan peribadi penulis. |
| You are subscribed to email updates from The Malaysian Insider :: Opinion To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
0 ulasan:
Catat Ulasan