Marah Kerana Cinta, Bukan Kerana Benci

The following article was posted in the comments section of a blog I found. At last count, the blog in question has had almost 10,000 page views. I will refrain from posting the blog link, till after you have read the following article, for reasons you might understand later.

Marah Kerana Cinta, Bukan Kerana Benci
Oleh: Pahrol Mohamad Juoi | www.fitrahperkasa.net

Saya masih ingat sikap `unik’ (aneh) sesetengah orang-orang tua kampung dulu-dulu. Ruang di bawah rumah mereka selalunya diperuntukkan untuk meletakkan barang usang yang `kurang’ atau tidak perlu. Selalunya botol-botol, tin-tin atau papan-papan buruk. Entah kenapa semua itu tidak dibuang. Hanya di letakkan begitu sahaja. Diguna tidak, dibuang pun tidak. Peliknya, apabila barang-barang `antik’ itu hendak diambil oleh orang lain, cepat-cepat pula mereka melarangnya. Tak boleh – nak guna, sayang, dan macam-macam alasan.

Itulah sebuah analogi yang terlintas di fikiran bila saya ditanya tentang kemarahan umat Islam terhadap penyiaran karikatur menghina nabi Muhammad s.a.w oleh akhbar-akhbar Eropah khususnya Denmark.

“Encik tidak marah?” tanya seorang siswa sehabis sahaja majlis diskusi tentang topik berkenaan.

“Marah,” akui saya perlahan.

“Tak cukup begitu sahaja. Esok kita berarak, bakar bendera Denmark!”

Saya senyum.

“Kita ada cara yang lebih baik. Ada senjata yang lebih hebat. Doa,” balas saya.

“Kita kena tunjuk kemarahan kepada mereka yang menghina Rasul.”

“Menunjukkan kecintaan kepada Rasul lebih utama.”

“Marah itulah tanda kecintaan kita…”

“Betul. Tetapi membuktikan kecintaan dengan mengamalkan sunnahnya jauh lebih utama.”

“Encik takut?”

Saya renung matanya.

“Mengamalkan sunnah Rasul memerlukan lebih keberanian… Tentangannya lebih hebat. Bahkan daripada orang Islam sendiri,” tusuk saya perlahan.

“Kita bakar bendera mereka!”

“Kita `bakar’ cara hidup mereka. Itu lebih relevan.”

Giliran dia pula yang diam. Mungkin siswa yang `terbakar’ ini mula mengunyah maksud kiasan saya. Lalu saya ceritakan analogi awal tadi. Alhamdulillah, dia mendengar teliti.

“Kita dengan sunnah, seperti orang tua-tua dahulu dengan barang-barang usang di bawah rumah. Nak digunakan tidak, nak dijunjung jauh sekali, tetapi bila ada orang lain nak mengambilnya, barulah heboh konon nak digunakan.”

“Bagaimana kita hendak tunjukkan perasaan marah?”

“Demontrasi depan manusia. Depan Allah, kita berdoa. Kita muhasabah, sejauh mana kecintaan kita kepada Rasul-Nya. Mungkin provokasi Barat membawa pengajaran tersirat.”

“Pengajaran tersirat?”

“Ya, tersirat dari Allah… agar kita menilai semula benar-benarkah kita mencintai sunnah Rasul-Nya selama ini.”

“Kemarahan ummah inilah buktinya,” ujarnya bersemangat.

“Kemarahan cuma bermusim. Hanya luapan sentimen berkala. Namun kegigihan, kebijaksanaan, perancangan dan ketabahan jangka panjang amat perlu.”

“Maksud encik?”

Jelas dia terpancing dengan kilasan dan kiasan kata-kata.

“Jangka panjang, sudahkah kita mendidik generasi muda mencintai Rasul dan keluarganya? Saya risau generasi muda yang mabuk hedonisme kini tidak akan punya kemarahan yang sama seperti yang saudara alami.”

“Saya ada kawan-kawan sebaya yang hidupnya lintang pukang, tapi masih marah bila Rasulullullah dipersendakan. Mereka akan turut berarak esok!”

“Hidup lintang-pukang? Macam mana tu?” tanya saya minta kepastian.

“Rock habis. Sembahyang tidak. Bergaul bebas biasalah… tapi cinta mereka terhadap Rasul tak luntur.”

“Ajak mereka sembahyang dulu. Tak berarak pun tak apa. Cinta dulu, marah kemudian. Bila ada cinta, pasti ada marah bila kecintaan dicela. Tapi kalau marah saja, belum tentu ada cinta… ”

Dia diam lagi. Kali ini diamnya lebih panjang.

“Agaknya orang tua tu marah tak kalau kita ambil barang-barang berharga di atas rumah?” tanyanya tiba-tiba.

“Orang tua mana?” tanya saya semula. Hairan.

“Orang tua dalam analogi encik tadi itulah!”

“Soalan tu kurang umph,” gurau saya.

“Habis soalan apa yang umph?”

“Agaknya orang berani tak hendak minta barang di atas rumah? Berbanding barang usang di bawah rumah?” balas saya.

Termenung lagi dia. Seronok rasanya `membimbing’ siswa ini berfikir. Terimbau luapan semangat saya sewaktu di kampus dulu. Beginilah pola berfikir saya.

Tiba-tiba dia bersuara, “tentu tak berani, kerana barang di atas rumah tentu lebih berharga.”

“Begitulah sunnah, jika dihayati, diamalkan dan diperjuangkan. Ia nampak sangat berharga di tangan pencintanya. Musuh tak kan berani mengusiknya, apalagi nak menghinanya…”

“Encik ni, tak sangka ke situ pula kiasannya.”

“Kita orang Islam mesti menghormati diri sendiri terlebih dahulu, barulah orang lain akan menghargai kita. Justeru, jika kita marahkan musuh yang mengecam Rasul, marahkanlah juga diri kita yang tidak benar-benar mencintainya!”

“Dan… bukti cinta amalkan sunnah Rasul. Itulah cara paling berkesan mempamerkan `kemarahan’ kepada musuh-musuh yang menghinanya.”

Alhamdulillah, saya yakin, kini marahnya kerana cinta bukan kerana benci. Dominasi cintakan Rasul bukan emosi bencikan musuhnya!

This article was posted in the comments section of this blog, which carries a scan of a photocopied flyer, written in Tamil, allegedly given out during the recent Thaipusam celebrations at Batu Caves. I hope you can understand why I chose to do this. I have reproduced part of the translation of the flyer below.

Banyak lagi perkara-perkara seperti perbuatan gali mayat selepas beberapa hari atau minggu dan dikebumikan semula di perkuburan Islam telah berlaku sebelum ini. Hanya satu agama sahaja yang tidak memberi kebebasan dan ketenangan ke atas mayat selepas mati iaitu agama Islam. Selepas kematian Moorthy, baru ramai orang sedar berhubung perkara ini. Masuk agama Islam sahaja dibenarkan tetapi keluar (murtad) Islam tidak dibenarkan. Sepatutnya pegawai agama yang mengislamkan mesti memberitahu keluarganya. Dalam kes Moorthy, terdapat 2 orang Melayu secara muslihat, menipu mendapatkan tandatangan daripada Moorthy ketika sakit. Mereka ini menunggu sehingga Moorthy meninggal (pengkhianat agama). Agama Hindu sahaja yang mengatakan semua agama adalah sama.

I have verified the translation given with 2 independent sources (2 mamak restaurant workers from India, that I am on good terms with) and they have agreed that the gist of the translation is correct. They can’t be 100% sure because their grasp of Bahasa Melayu revolves around Bahasa Melayu used in the day-to-day activities of a restaurant, but they are quite sure of the meaning of the document. Upon examination of the jpeg file, it seems that it was scanned from a photocopied document that had been folded several times.

First off, I can understand why a flyer like this would exist. Anger. And a lack of understanding. Maybe some unresolved issues. I can understand the anger that some Hindus feel regarding the M. Moorthy case.

I have resisted writing about M. Moorthy before. Not anymore.

Personally I felt it would’ve been better if Moorthy’s family had been allowed to have his body and to do with it as they saw fit. They knew him as a Hindu, and it would’ve reflected well on the Islamic Authorities, to be seen as benevolent and enlightened and sensitive in handling such cases.

In a letter to Malaysiakini, Usman Kadir, points this out.

Reflecting on their loss and the unnecessary suffering brought upon them, I cannot help but turn my thoughts to the motives of the instigators of this latest debacle. How could the Federal Territory Islamic Religious Affairs Council and the presiding syariah judge not have realised the trauma that this issue would inflict?

Usman Kadir goes on to explain the legalities of M. Moorthy case. His letter tells of hypocrisy in the implementation of Islamic law and I am inclined to agree.

The cases of M Moorthy and the Ayah Pin followers are polar opposites; yet at their hearts they share the issue of jurisdiction. Schedule IX, List II of the federal constitution limits the jurisdiction of state-defined syariah law to “persons professing the religion of Islam”. Clearly, these Ayah Pin followers and other self-declared apostates no longer fall under that category.

In Moorthy’s case, we find that the Syariah Court decided for itself whether he was a person “professing the religion of Islam”, and therefore under its jurisdiction. In doing so, the court extended its mandate far beyond constitutionally defined boundaries. Syariah courts are today acting ultra vires of the constitution.

Maybe Moorthy should’ve told his family. But at this point of time, M. Moorthy is beyond human reprimand. Another letter to Malaysiakini, by RS Ridz, points out possible repercussions.

Coming back to the issue in hand, I personally believe that the system failed to functions appropriately. Converts must declare their beliefs especially to the close family members. We are not living in hostile environment such as early days of Islam in Mecca. The Islamic religious authority possesses sufficient provisions, legally and financially to take care their welfare. Ostensibly, that is the primary role of the authority to the converts. In the case of Moorthy, definitely, Jakim would have come out with amicable solutions for all parties.

The continued absence of such procedures will result in more Moorthys and Mohamad Yas, increased inter-communal tension and, deservedly, an increase in negative international publicity for Malaysia. All of which, from both economic and social aspects, amount to a potentially calamitous recipe.

Chez1978 has a very detailed analysis of the M. Moorthy case.

M. Moorthy or Mohammad Abdullah clearly had ample opportunity to declare his conversion since according to some claims he was already a muslim on 11 October 2004. He only slipped into a coma after falling from his wheelchair on 11 November 2005. And apparently, the affidavit submitted to the Syariah Court mentioned about filed procedures to register the conversion. Was it ever registered? Has M. Moorthy, from a legal point of view, completed the process to Mohammad Abdullah? Does it matter if he is only a Muslim in name and not in practise?

The question now hangs in the air because the KL High Court decided it has no jurisdiction to hear this. That is assuming M. Moorthy is a Muslim, isn’t it? It is similar to the other old problem of Muslims converting out of Islam. Intent of conversion doesn’t constitute a legally recognized status. I need more information here, particularly from those who attended the hearing on Thursday. What exactly did Justice Md. Raud say? Will S. Kaliammal appeal? Can she?

M. Moorthy clearly did not inform his family about his intent of conversion. It was a rude shock to learn that your husband will be buried in another grave elsewhere and your prayers will, in effect, be null and void. S. Kaliammal can at least be comforted that she will not lose any of M. Moorthy or Mohammad Abdullah’s military pension and all other spousal rights as she is still the sole legal wife. But that is not what she is fighting for, isn’t it? This reminds me of the deathbed conversions, what kind of salvation presumes in robbing the family of their kin?

Apparently the Syariah judge was satisfied, which left no legal recourse to M.Moorthy’s family after having been told that they had no remedy in a civil court over the matter.

More in the news from the BBC and Bernama and a personal opinion by Nilesh Babu.

Hmm? What about the flyer, you ask? Ask Pahrol Mohamad Juoi.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: