Damansara Kota.Blogspot.com: .jangan provok l

Tuesday, April 7, 2009

.jangan provok l

Mandrem Bomoh Tersampuk Zambry
cyberboron, Tuesday, May 05, 2009

Ditulis berdasarkan rakaman video sidang media Dato' Seri Dr. Zambry Abdul Kadir sebelum membuat laporan polis terhadap YB Drs. Khalil Idham Lim berhubung isu BN guna bomoh untuk hadapi Sidang DUN 7 Mei.

Video sidang media ini disiarkan dalam laman web resmi BN Perak. Seratus peratus perkataan DS Zambry dalam rakaman video ini disalin semula sepenuhnya, termasuk pengulangan sebutan perkataan dan bunyi-bunyi bukan perkataan.

.... aaa Idham Lim aaa dalam aaa saya ingat itu adalah aaa laporan akhbar ya tadi ya? kalau aaa sidang akhbar yang dipanggil oleh beliau pagi tadi, aaa, begitu menjijikkan sekali. Yang memualkan. Yang langsung tidak ada prinsip. Orang atas prinsip-prinsip agama kononnya yang dipegang oleh beliau yang bergelar dirinya sebagai seorang ustaz, aaaa yang membuat tuduhan yang yang keterlaluan dan melampau, ya, yang terlalu hina sifatnya, yang sepatutnya tidak keluar daripada seorang yang bergelar yang yang berhormat, apatah lagi aaa yang aaa yang menggelarkan dirinya sebagai seorang ustaz, aaa bayangkan aaa beliau boleh mengeluarkan aaa tuduhan aaa demikian rupa yang saya anggap aaa adalah satu tindakan aaa yang terlalu terdesak di saat-saat aaa mereka sedang menghadapi aaa pelbagai aaa cabaran ya. Tapi kalau, kalau apa pun suasananya bukan ini caranya untuk untuk bertindak aaa ya aaa begitu aaa suka hati dia sahaja dan aaa saya anggap ini adalah satu tindakan aaa yang keterlaluan dan saya telah pun aaa mengarahkan untuk aaa pegawai saya dan saya akan aaa membuat laporan polis aaa kepada beliau dan saya akan mengambil tindakan-tindakan susulan aaa berasaskan kepada peraturan-peraturan undang-undang .... ## video dipotong di sini dan disambung semula dengan kenyataan berikut ##

.... tindakan yang dibuat oleh beliau ini adalah satu tindakan jahat aaa yang aaa cuba mengapi-apikan rakyat aaa untuk aaa membuat persiapan-persiapan dan meningkatkan lagi aaa kebencian rakyat aaa kepada aaa saya dan juga aaa kepada aaa Barisan Nasional, dan aaa perkara-perkara fitnah, penipuan-penipuan yang begini aaa tidak boleh kita biarkan aaa maka menjadi tanggungjawab saya pada hari ini untuk aaa saya mengambil tindakan-tindakan perlu kepada beliau dan aaa saya sebenarnya pun aaa sudah aaa banyak bersabar aaa dengan aaa ceramah-ceramah mereka yang saya dengar aaa walau pun begitu saya tidak mengambil tindakan-tindakan .... ## video dipotong di sini dan disambung semula dengan kenyataan berikut ##

.... Seperkara lagi ialah apabila aaa tindakan beliau cuba mengheret sama aaa nama aaa yang berbahagia Dato' Seri Mufti yang selama ini aaa juga mereka mereka hina aaa dan aaa cuba membawa beliau untuk turut aaa sama aaa dalam hal yang sebegini, jadi aaa saya akan mengambil tindakan, tindakan perlu aaa ke atas aaa beliau .... ## video dipotong di sini dan disambung semula dengan kenyataan berikut ##

.... saya pergi aaa saya pegi ke apanama aaa kerusi speaker dan bomohkan di tempat perasap kemiyan di kerusi bomoh Speaker ni, aaa ya, dan aaa dan ini mungkin you take it likely but for certain community, for certain community, especially for aaa this is quite serious, aaa you talk to malay, indian community, this matter aaa aaa quite aaa quite serious, aaa I do not know for the Chinese community, for me quite serious right? because how could aaa you know aaa Menteri Besar went to the ha ha, ha ha, you know, pergi ke kerusi Speaker aaa memperasap dan aaa try to aaa apanama dipanggil ni aaa untuk untuk aaa mendram aaa macam-macam la .... # tamat #

Ada 3 ulasan terhadap kenyataan MB coup de' tat ini.

#1 - DS Zamry marah sangat terhadap perbuatan fitnah. Ia dianggap perbuatan jijik, memualkan, keterlaluan, melampau, hina, jahat, tipu dan tindakan terdesak. Status ustaz yang ada pada Drs. Khalil Idham dijadikan faktor yang lebih besar untuk mensabitkan dahsyatnya jenayah fitnah yang konon dilakukannya.

Ulasan : DS Zambry dan UMNO perlu menoleh ke belakang sepanjang sejarah negara ini sejak wujud UMNO. Pemimpin dan ahli UMNO adalah Maharaja fitnah sepanjang zaman. PAS ekstremis, PAS menyokong keganasan, negara Islam PAS akan menghapuskan kebebasan beragama, PAS menentang pembangunan, PAS anti kemajuan, PAS mahu rakyat Malaysia terus mundur, PAS parti ajaran sesat, PAS menyelewengkan ajaran Islam, PAS perosak agama, Anwar meliwat, Anwar berzina, Anwar agen asing, Anwar agen Yahudi, Anwar agen Israel, Anwar agen Amerika, Anwar nak menghapuskan institusi Raja-Raja Melayu, Anwar nak gadai hak dan maruah bangsa Melayu dan seribu satu macam lagi.

Bukti? Sepanjang memfitnah PAS, DSAI dan lain-lain parti atau pihak yang membangkang, UMNO tak pernah ada bukti. Kalau ada dua tiga bukti dikemukakan, semuanya bohong atau bukti yang direkacipta.

Bagi kes BN guna bomoh seperti yang dilaporkan, YB Drs. Khalil Idham bertegas ada bukti dan sanggup bekerjasama dengan pihak berkuasa yang mahu menyiasat sumber dan bukti amalan khurafat UMNO itu.

#2 - DS Zambry marah sangat kerana Drs. Khalil Idham dan sekelian penceramah PR mengapi-apikan rakyat supaya membencinya dan membenci Barisan Nasional.

Ulasan : Aduhai malang sungguh nasib rakyat negeri Perak kerana hanya manusia seperti ini yang dapat ditawarkan oleh UMNO untuk memimpin sebuah negeri. DS Zamry tiada upaya menilai keadaan di sekeliling bahkan yang terbentang di depan mata. Matanya tak dapat melihat. Akalnya tak dapat menilai bagaimana UMNO maha dahsyat mengapi-apikan rakyat supaya membenci seluruh pemimpin PR. UMNO melakukan segala macam kaedah untuk membangkitkan kebencian rakyat negeri Perak terhadap DS Nizar sejak hari pertama dia mengangkat sumpah sebagai MB kerajaan PR Perak. UMNO mencipta dan mengadun lagu boneka dan derhaka yang palsu dan tak bertamadun untuk mebangunkan kebencian rakyat terhadap DS Nizar sehingga ada yang sanggup melaungkan KILL NIZAR !!!

#3 - Kenapa bahasa seorang MB berterabur tak tentu hala? Terlalu banyak aaa dan aaa menyusuli setiap selepas dua tiga patah perkataan. Banyak kali juga aaa itu muncul selepas setiap satu perkataan berturut-turut hingga empat lima perkataan. Doktor Falsafah ini kerap tak menghabiskan ayat atau berhenti secara tergantung, kemudian memulakan ayat baru. Apakah tidak well prepared atau memang gagap atau susah menyusun ayat kerana akal nak menipu?

Kesian pada wartawan yang hadir sidang media itu. Mereka terpaksa menunggu habis ayat yang panjang lebar, tersangkut-sangkut dan berulang-ulang untuk point yang hanya sedikit.

Agak mengejutkan juga bila mendengar ayat Bahasa Inggeris seorang yang berkelulusan PhD luar negara :

" dan aaa dan ini mungkin you take it likely but for certain community, for certain community, especially for aaa this is quite serious, aaa you talk to malay, indian community, this matter aaa aaa quite aaa quite serious, aaa I do not know for the Chinese community, for me quite serious right? because how could aaa you know aaa Menteri Besar went to the ha ha, ha ha, you know, pergi ke kerusi Speaker aaa memperasap dan aaa try to aaa apanama dipanggil ni aaa untuk untuk aaa mendram aaa macam-macam la "

at 11:26 AM
Labels: analisis, cambah fikir, najis, rasuah, sampah, ulasan berita, umno

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May

people’s criticism should be heartily listened to, and only after free intellectual debate and discussion can efforts to reach a proper decision succeed. this, in turn, is related to the need for reviving ijtihad at the same time as it points to the hazards of remaining wedded to taqlid.

By muslim786malaysia

Categories: Uncategorized

Muslims today suffer from a bizarre sense of loss. Perhaps no other community faces this sort of predicament to the same extent. They have failed to make use of the myriad opportunities provided by modernity. One of these valuable opportunities is freedom. The ideologues of the French Revolution claimed that man is born free but everywhere is in chains. This became the slogan of the modern world, and now freedom has been accepted as the basic right of every human being. Everyone has the right to adopt what he or she thinks is right and to act accordingly. There is only one limit to this unfettered freedom: in the exercise of one’s right one should not harm someone else, and in the pursuance of one’s objectives one should seek to use peaceful, not violent, means.

300 years ago, when America won freedom from England, an American man, so the story goes, rushed out into the street to celebrate. He swung his arms up in the air in glee and as he brought them down he hit the nose of a passerby. The latter was, naturally, enraged, and demanded an apology. The first man said to him, ‘Now America is free and so I can do what I want’. The passerby retorted, ‘Undoubtedly you are free, but your freedom ends where my nose begins’.

This story very succinctly expresses the modern concept of democracy. Modernity provides us with freedom but on the condition that the exercise of this freedom does not entail violence against others. Gandhi was aware of this principle and used it in the course of the Indian freedom movement. In 1857, Muslim leaders launched a violent movement to oust the British from India, and Muslim-led militant anti-British uprisings continued thereafter for sixty years. However, these efforts all failed. Then, in 1919, Gandhi took over the leadership of the anti-colonial movement and changed its tactics to that of non-violent struggle, and, finally, India became independent in 1947.

What was the cause of the different fates that these violent and non-violent movements met? One major reason was that the Muslim leaders referred to above were conditioned by a taqlidi mindset, blindly adhering to the prescriptions of the established corpus of fiqh, and so they knew of only one method of struggle—that of armed jihad. The books of medieval fiqh have no conception of peaceful struggle. They speak of just one method—that of violent struggle, because they were written in a period when the only form of power that people knew of was that of the sword. This is reflected in the Arabic saying, ‘War can be stopped by war’, and in the Persian phrase, ‘Coins are struck in the name of he who wields the sword’.

This militant mindset remains deeply ingrained among most Muslims even today. Hardly any Muslims are free of it. This belief is expressed in different forms. The mental framework which is based on medieval fiqh is so deeply entrenched that even many so-called modern Muslim thinkers were and are influenced by it. For instance, Syed Jamaluddin Afghani, Syed Qutb, Muhammad Iqbal, Syed Abul Ala Maududi, and so on. This is the single major cause for the sacrifices of our leaders all going to waste.

The efficacy of non-violent, as opposed to violent, methods in today’s world can be understood from an instance from Gandhi’s life. Gandhi joined the Indian freedom struggle in 1919. Prior to this, the movement was characterized by violent mobilization, and the British responded to this by counter-violence to quash it. Then, when Gandhi announced that the movement would abide by non-violence, the British were confounded, because they had no moral argument that they could use to suppress a non-violent freedom movement. It is said that in the wake of Gandhi’s announcement a British collector sent a telegram to his superior officials, saying, ‘Kindly wire instructions as to how to kill a tiger non-violently’.

An Anachronistic Approach

Because of their taqlidi mindset, present-day Muslim leaders and intellectuals display what can be called an anachronistic approach. The ulema of the past who they strictly follow, because of being wedded to the notion of taqlid, had no conception of peaceful methods or peaceful struggle. This conception was clearly evident in the Quran and Hadith, but to directly derive rules from the Quran and Hadith ijtihad was needed, but the medieval Muslims had already firmly closed the doors of ijtihad.

The Quran describes an eternal law in the following words: ‘such settlement is best’ (Surah al-Nisa, 128). This means that the method of adjustment, reconciliation and making peace is better than the confrontational approach. This clearly indicates the importance of non-violence as compared to violence. Likewise, according to a Hadith report, the Prophet is said to have declared that God gives softness that which he does not give to harshness. This clearly means that peaceful methods are more efficacious than violent ones. Thus, although the Quran and Hadith contain such explicit teachings in support of peaceful methods, modern-day Muslim leaders and intellectuals, owing to their taqlidi approach, failed to discern these teachings. Instead, they uselessly engaged in conflict and thought to themselves that they were, in this way, setting great examples of sacrifice and martyrdom.

This taqlidi mindset has caused considerable harm and destruction for Muslims themselves, without bringing them any gain whatsoever. If the Palestinians knew this they would not have unleashed a destructive and violent movement after 1948. Instead, using peaceful methods, they would have made use of the opportunities that were available to them. In that way, they could have gained that position of strength in Palestine that the Jews acquired in America by using peaceful means and taking advantage of the opportunities opened up by modernity. Likewise, if the Muslims of Kashmir had realized this they would not have resorted to violent struggle. Using peaceful means, they could have gained such an influential position in India that would have been a hundred times better for them than what the people of the so-called Azad Kashmir presently enjoy. In the same way, if Muslim leaders in various countries who are engaged in violent movements in order to capture political power had adopted peaceful means they could have transformed their countries in the direction of truly Islamic societies. But this they could not do, and by resorting to violence instead they caused massive destruction.

The way to win other people’s hearts is through promotion of close peaceful social interaction with them. In this way, one can influence others through their morals and personal example. It was this that drew the Qureish towards Islam in the wake of the treaty of Hudaibiyah. On the other hand, promoting conflict with others can only further reinforce their hatred and opposition. But only those with an ijtihadi mindset can truly appreciate this fact.

Criticism and Ijtihad

Criticism and taqlid are opposites of each other. Where taqlid reigns, there can be no criticism. Contrarily, where criticism is allowed, taqlid cannot reign. The matter with ijtihad is the opposite of this. Ijtihad requires criticism. Where criticism is not allowed, ijtihad cannot happen.

Criticism is not a bad thing per se. Rather, it is a means for intellectual development. Without criticism intellectual advancement is not possible. The choice before us is not one between criticism and the lack of it, but, rather, that between criticism and intellectual stagnation. If criticism is stopped our intellectual progress shall cease.

Ijtihad proceeds through discussion and exchange of views. Ijtihad is a process of moving from what is known to what is as yet unknown. When we are faced with some problems or issues that need to be answered and if we are free to express our views on it, naturally out of this exchange new aspects or dimensions of the issue will emerge before us. This leads to the clearing of doubt, and then to the emergence of a well-researched opinion or position on the issue, which is the objective of our intellectual quest. This intellectual activity is known as ijtihad.

Ijtihad appears, from both the ideological as well as practical points of view, to be an indispensible necessity of life. It is the means for the progress of human communities. A community that does not allow for ijtihad will cease to progress. Proper ijtihad, as mentioned earlier, cannot happen in the absence of the freedom to criticize. Only those can benefit from ijtihad who are able to take or accept criticism. Those who are unwilling or unable to accept criticism cannot benefit from it.

Let me cite two examples to illustrate my point. The battle of Badr took place in the second year of the Islamic century. The Prophet was then in Madinah, and he heard that the army of the Qureish was advancing on the town. Accordingly, he gathered his forces and moved in the direction from where the Qureish were coming. He and his companions halted at a place before Badr. Had they stayed on there they would have confronted the Qureish army at that spot. A companion of the Prophet, Hazrat Khabab bin Manzar, approached the Prophet and asked him if he had chosen to halt at that place because God had instructed him to do so or was it because he had decided this on his own. The Prophet replied that this was his own opinion. In response, Hazrat Khabab bin Manzar said that the place was not appropriate.

Now, this response might appear as a sort of criticism. However, the Prophet did not take this amiss, but simply asked Hazrat Khabab bin Manzar why he did not feel that the place was an appropriate one to halt at. In reply, this companion of the Prophet noted that there were several wells located between the Muslims and the Qureish army. If the Muslims halted at that spot, it would allow the Qureish to capture all these wells. He, therefore, suggested that they should move ahead till they had gone beyond all the wells and then make a halt. This would have cut off the water supply to the enemy army. Hearing this, the Prophet said that Hazrat Khabab bin Manzar’s advice was indeed good.

Now, this entire conversation between the Prophet and Hazrat Khabab bin Manzar was conducted in a very balanced way. In the end, the Prophet accepted Hazrat Khabab bin Manzar’s opinion and acted accordingly. And the Muslims won a decisive victory in the battle.

This example clearly indicates how important is the freedom of expression for arriving at a proper position or stance. It shows how, through exchanging different, even contradictory, views, new aspects and dimensions of problems can be highlighted, and how this is necessary to come to a proper decision on a particular matter. In fact, this is so invaluable that even if conflict of opinions becomes heated and aggressive it must be cheerfully accepted.

The Harm of Not Accepting Criticism

In 1831 Syed Ahmad Shahid Barelvi gathered an army of Muslims and launched a jihad against Maharaja Ranjit Singh, the Sikh ruler of Punjab. The two armies met at a place called Balakot, and in this battle Syed Ahmad and most of his companions were slain. And so this zealous jihad ended in complete failure.

Most of the men in Syed Ahmad Shahid Barelvi’s army were those who had taken baiat or the oath of spiritual allegiance to him. One of these men was Maulana Mir Mahbub Ali of Delhi, who was considered to be an accomplished Islamic scholar. He was part of the army of Syed Ahmad Shahid that was advancing to meet the forces of Ranjit Singh. When this army reached a place called Charsadda he asked Syed Ahmad on what basis he had declared jihad against the Sikhs. Syed Ahmad replied that he had done so on the basis of divine illumination (kashf) and dreams that he claimed to have seen. Maulana Mir Mahbub Ali responded that jihad could not be declared on these bases. He cited the Quran as mentioning about the need for conducting affairs by mutual consultation (al-Shura 38). He also added that the Prophet engaged in jihad on the basis of consulting his followers. Hence, he argued, Syed Ahmad should do the same, and that, before launching a jihad, must properly study the then prevailing conditions.

However, Syed Ahmad Shahid did not accept his advice. Instead, he accused him of creating hurdles in his path with his criticism. He told him that his role, as his follower, was to silently accept what he was told—to be, in fact, as silent as the mountain ahead of them. Maulana Mir Mahbub Ali then left Syed Ahmad’s army and returned to Delhi.

This incident is presented in some books [of Syed Ahmad Shahid’s supporters] as a case of Mir Mahbub Ali allegedly ‘going astray’. Maulana Syed Abdul Haye, former rector of the Nadwat ul-Ulema, Lucknow, wrote that Maulana Mir Mahbub Ali was a great Islamic scholar of his times, but that ‘the devil had put an evil suggestion in his heart’ and so he abandoned Syed Ahmad Shahid and returned to India.

However, the fact of the matter is that Syed Ahmad Shahid Barelvi did not consult others about the step that he was taking. He did not even investigate how far the reports that he had heard about the disrespect of the shariah [at the hands of the Sikhs] in Punjab were true. He did not even try to gauge the strength of Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s army and to find out how his untrained forces could battle it. Instead, he simply entered Ranjit Singh’s territory without even proper knowledge of its geographical conditions. Naturally, then, he and most of his companions were easily killed by Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s army. And so his movement ended with a one-sided orgy of destruction that the Muslims had to face.

From this example one can discern how important it is for different, including conflicting, viewpoints to be able to be freely expressed in order to arrive at a proper position on collective affairs. People’s criticism should be heartily listened to, and only after free intellectual debate and discussion can efforts to reach a proper decision succeed. This, in turn, is related to the need for reviving ijtihad at the same time as it points to the hazards of remaining wedded to taqlid.
———————————————————————–

This is a translation of a portion of a chapter titled Taqlid Aur Ijtihad in Maulana Wahiduddin Khan’s book Din-o-Shariat: Din-e Islam Ka Ek Fikri Muta‘ala [Goodword Books, New Delhi, 2003, pp.228-240].

Do Malaysians really need the ISA? Political power crazy or security

TRIBUTE TO INDIAN MOTHERS

-----------------------------------------------------------

TRIBUTE TO INDIAN MOTHERS