FIRST and foremost, I am glad that MM is again back on the stage and grabs the spotlight and audiences to yet her another prejudicial remark against the stance of Islam which have been long hold.
Not to mention going against among the noblest and respectful Muslim figures that we have in this majestic Muslim- majority country, the Perak Mufti, which may have upheld the very same meaning and essence of what other Muftis and most of rightly guided Muslims understand and adopt in their daily lives, in this country or even throughout the globe, inshaAllah.
The Factual Statement
Before going on further on rebutting the points which have arouse out of the prejudicial remark by MM, and after going through the negative and misinformed comments on her page resulting from the said remark, let us go back to the origins; the original statement by the Perak Mufti on Sinar Harian as follows;
“Saya nasihati (mereka) jangan melampau. Islam berdasarkan kepada iman. Iman itu boleh diukur berdasarkan kenyataan yang dikeluarkan. Jadi, tidak boleh keluarkan kenyataan secara akal atau logik kerana ia adalah hukum Allah.
“Akal dikawal oleh nafsu dan ia dipengaruhi oleh syaitan. Jangan beraja dengan nafsu dan komen tidak tentu hala.
“Seorang menteri Islam wajib mengamalkan amar makruf nahi mungkar, atau dalam bahasa senang difahami menyuruh melakukan kebaikan dan mencegah kejahatan,”
Now, let us consider the statement purportedly made by Azalina which induced the Perak Mufti to give his response in such a manner, as follows;
“Isu ini dah jadi agak merepek kerana sesebuah drama atau filem merupakan industri kreatif dan apa yang dipaparkan di televisyen adalah sebuah lakonan.
“Kalau nak cakap babak-babak itu (berpelukan) boleh mengundang perlakuan tidak senonoh, rasanya tidak perlu medium televisyen, (kerana) di internet, hanya di hujung jari saja sudah boleh mempengaruhi masyarakat,” kata Azalina.
Denial of making reported statement
But, there is a complication. As confirmed on his page by Dr Asyraf Wajdi Dusuki, Azalina claimed that her statement is twisted by the media. The link is HERE
Whether or not Azalina actually makes that statement, we leave it to Allah. More importantly, let us focus on the substantive part of the issue considering the remark by MM, the comments on that particular post in conjunction with the essence and meaning of the statement intended by the Perak Mufti, and as reasonably understood by most rightly guided Muslims in this country.
Misleading title and article
Of course the title like any other titles in existence is and ought to be short, but why does it have to be selective yet insensitive of the issues or debates and prejudices that would arise? Especially when we cannot expect every reader to skim through the original article but willingly submit themselves to whatever their favourite portals are reporting on, the title is questionable as to its purpose and controversial as to its substantive part.
Let us understand the text and the context upon which it is made. Kindly consider the statement reportedly made by Azalina – which is denied – the issue is regarding the act of holding hands between non-mahram Muslims in dramas, movies or films inclusive of any television shows involving non-mahram Muslims with the same act or even more sensual.
The Perak Mufti gives his informed response, as what would other rightly guided Muslims would, pursuant to the decisive rulings as prescribed in the Quran and Hadiths that it is haram or impermissible for non-mahram Muslims to, simply say, hold hands.
Even if there is circumstances permitting such act, it is very limited and proof of such permission is not established and accepted when considering the ‘urgency’ or ‘immediate need’ of actors and actress to act upon the direction of their respective directors.
No place for religion in politics
I came across a comment made upon the remark by MM and the posting of the article with the misleading title, that there is and should be no place for religion in politics.
I would like to humbly and peacefully submit to you, as well understood by other rightly guided Muslims, that Islam is a way of life and more than the act of worship, the understanding of which adopted by Obama that religion is limited to only act of worship in his speech after the downfall of Mubarak in Egypt.
It is a religion that governs the individual Muslim and all mankind and it aims to expand its dominions throughout the globe not for power, but for the fulfilment of ‘rahmatan lil ‘alamin’.
Allah says in the Quran, “And We have not sent you, [O Muhammad], except as a mercy to the worlds.” (Al-Anbiya’ : 107)
It is a religion that is complete. It covers political, economic, social, cultural and natural aspects in this world that to separate religion from these non-exhaustive aspects would give rise to a realm of secularism which is totally against this understanding, not to mention the issue of secularism that is still highly debated even in the US.
Allah says in the Quran, “…This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion…” (Al-Maidah : 3)
Have you forgotten what Allah has mentioned in the Quran? Or through your intellectual and logical thinking you are unable to perceive what may be reasonably perceived by any rightly guided Muslims?
Furthermore, as remarked by a former American diplomat and leading authority on international religious freedom,
quote:
“No democratic Islamic political philosophy or practice can possibly be developed on the premise that religion is a private matter separate from the function of politics.”(1)
Islam as a Religion of the Federation
I also come across a comment that the idea of Islam as a religion of the Federation as contained in the Constitution is shoving the ideals to those who do not share the same beliefs.
Firstly, as explained previously, Islam is complete and for all mankind. In the eyes of Muslim, it is not shoving the ideals to those who do not share the same beliefs. We do not force non-Muslims to embrace Islam, but we promote persuasive precedence and values of Islam which are just and able to attain justice.
Secondly, the statement is disappointingly a mock to Islam’s position, and consequentially a mock to the Constitution which is a supreme law in this country, and a mock to our honourable founding fathers representing cross-section of our diverse communities, not to mention the representatives of the British government, the very Western entity that you are looking up to.
Thirdly, Malaysian Constitution promotes the establishment of Islam as the religion of the Federation. The provisions were inserted by our forefathers themselves and never did any of the members of the Commission say with any regards to giving effect of disestablishment of the religion, which is Islam. The provision of Islam as the religion of the Federation is contended to “cast upon the ‘Federation’ a positive obligation to protect, defend and promote the religion of Islam”.(2)
Think to be close to Him and His deen
There is also a comment made obviously narrative of what MM purports to suggest, that Allah asks men to think in the Quran, that is to use brain, intellect, logic and reason in their judgments.
I agree. Allah does say so, but you do not aptly put it into context. The matter in question is already decided and the ruling is decisive. My logical sense tells me that I should not question the rulings of my Creator, that is Allah, but He leaves us some discretion on matters which remain argumentatively debatable.
Islam has principles and guidance upon which we build our opinion and thoughts, and govern our way of thinking and deciding, and it is precedented that decisive rulings are not to be questioned, even by logic or intellect. This is what the Perak Mufti means but without reasonable justification is misunderstood.
I agree. Allah asks men to think, to think only to make us closer to Him and His deen, not close and become more obedient of our naughty minds, boundless desires and ulterior motives at the expense of the deen. Hereby I would like to pose a few questions;
Kindly prove to us that holding hands between non-Mahram is permissible and that it is ruled in the Quran or Hadiths that it is permissible and that the ruling is decisive; or
Kindly prove to us that holding hands willingly as in the career of acting falls under the limited circumstances that would permit such act; and
Kindly prove to us that holding hands between non-Mahram would not lead or open the opportunity or desire to hugging, kissing or any more sensual than these acts which are decisively and reasonably deemed as leading to zina;
or
Do you suggest the act of holding hands, hugging, kissing or any more sensual than these acts are not even leading to zina or not zina in itself, at all? Because, your intellect and logic may make you think so; or
Rather, do you suggest anyone should be allowed to act (baca: berlakon) to have sex and claim they are just acting, anyone can not wear hijab to cover their aurah because they are just acting, or do you suggest you are actually only acting like an ignorant Muslim woman who purportedly does not know of Islam and at least its decisive rulings, so these acts are permissible?
Yes, you played us. You’re a good actress.
Sources:
1. Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, “Religious Freedom and Discrimination in America – Then and Now: Lessons Learned for American Muslims and their Allies”.
2. Mohammad Imam, “Freedom of Religion under the Federal Constitution: A Reappraisal”.
Danial Ariff Bin Shaari
Bachelor of Laws (LLB)
The University of Adelaide
Australia
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of, and should not be attributed to, Isma or Ismaweb.
