Is Save Darfur a PR Scam to Justify U.S. Resource Wars in Africa
Bruce Dixon
http://www.islamicawakening.com/viewarticle.php?articleID=1344&
Article ID: 1344 | 225 Reads
The star-studded hue and cry to Save Darfur and “stop the genocide” has gained enormous traction in U.S. media along with bipartisan support in Congress and the White House. But the Congo, with ten to twenty times as many African dead over the same period, is not called a “genocide” and passes almost unnoticed. Sudan sits atop lakes of oil. It has large supplies of uranium and other minerals, significant water resources, and a strategic location near still more African oil and resources. The unasked question is whether the nation’s Republican and Democratic foreign policy elite are using claims of genocide and appeals for “humanitarian intervention” to grease the way for the next oil and resource wars on the African continent.
The regular manufacture and the constant maintenance of false realities in the service of U.S. empire is a core function of the public relations profession and the corporate news media. Whether it’s fake news stories about wonder drugs and how toxic chemicals are good for you or Hollywood stars advocating military intervention to save African orphans, it pays to take a close look behind the facade.
Among the latest false realities being pushed upon the American people are the simplistic pictures of Black vs. Arab genocide in Darfur and the proposed solution: a robust U.S.-backed or U.S.-led military intervention in Western Sudan. At long last, increasing scrutiny is being focused on the Save Darfur lobby and the Save Darfur Coalition—its founders, finances, methods and motivations, and truthfulness. Here are ten reasons to suspect that the Save Darfur campaign is a PR scam to justify U.S. intervention in Africa.
1. It wouldn’t be the first Big Lie our government and media elite have sold us to justify a war.
Elders among us can recall the Tonkin Gulf incident, which the U.S. government deliberately provoked to justify initiation of the war in Vietnam. This rationale was quickly succeeded by the need to help the struggling infant “democracy” in South Vietnam and the still useful “fight ’em over there so we don’t have to fight ’em over here” nonsense. More recently the bombings, invasions, and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq have been variously explained by people on the public payroll as necessary to “get Bin Laden” as revenge for 9-11, as measures to take “the world’s most dangerous weapons” from the hands of “the world’s most dangerous regimes,” as measures to enable the struggling Iraqi “democracy” to stand on its own two feet, and necessary because it’s still better to “fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here.”
2. It wouldn’t even be the first time the U.S. government and media elite used ”genocide prevention” as a rationale for military intervention in an oil-rich region.
The 1995 U.S. and NATO military intervention in Kosovo was supposedly a “peacekeeping” operation to stop a genocide. The lasting result of that campaign is Camp Bondsteel, one of the largest military bases on the planet. The U.S. is practically the only country in the world that maintains military bases outside its own borders. At just under 1,000 acres, Camp Bondsteel offers the U.S. military the ability to pre-position large quantities of equipment and supplies within striking distance of Caspian oil fields, pipeline routes, and relevant sea lanes.
3. If stopping genocide in Africa really was on the agenda, why the focus on Sudan with 200,000 to 400,000 dead, but not the Congo as well, with 5 million dead?
"The notion that a quarter million Darfuri dead are a genocide and five million dead Congolese are not is vicious and absurd,” according to Congolese activist Nita Evele. “What’s happened and what is still happening in the Congo is not a tribal conflict and it’s not a civil war. It is an invasion. It is a genocide with a death toll of five million, twenty times that of Darfur, conducted for the purpose of plundering Congolese mineral and natural resources.”
More than anything else, the selective and cynical application of the term “genocide” reveals the depth of hypocrisy around the Save Darfur campaign. In the Congo where local gangsters, mercenaries, and warlords—along with invading armies from Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, and Angola—engage in slaughter, mass rape, and regional depopulation on a scale that dwarfs anything happening in Sudan, all the players eagerly compete to guarantee the continued extraction of vital coltan for Western computers and cell phones, the export of uranium for Western reactors and nukes, along with diamonds, gold, copper, timber, and other Congolese resources.
Former UN Ambassador Andrew Young and George H.W. Bush both serve on the board of Barrick Gold, one of the largest and most active mining concerns in war-torn Congo. Evidently, with profits from the brutal extraction of Congolese wealth flowing to the West, there can be no Congolese “genocide” worth noting, much less interfering with. For their purposes, U.S. strategic planners may regard their Congolese model as the ideal means of capturing African wealth at minimal cost without the bother of official U.S. troops on the ground.
4. It’s about Sudanese oil.
Sudan, and the Darfur region in particular, sits atop a lake of oil. But Sudanese oil fields are not being developed and drilled by Exxon or Chevron or British Petroleum. Chinese banks, oil, and construction firms are making the loans, drilling the wells, and laying the pipelines to take Sudanese oil where they intend it to go, calling far too many shots for a 21st century in which the U.S. aspires to control the planet’s energy supplies. A U.S. and NATO military intervention will solve that problem for U.S. planners.
5. It’s about Sudanese uranium, gum arabic, and other natural resources.
Uranium is vital to the nuclear weapons industry and an essential fuel for nuclear reactors. Sudan possesses high quality deposits of uranium. Gum arabic is an essential ingredient in pharmaceuticals, candies and beverages like Coca-Cola and Pepsi. Sudanese exports of this commodity are 80 percent of the world’s supply. When U.S. sanctions against the Sudanese regime were being considered in 1997, industry lobbyists stepped up and secured an exemption in the sanctions bill to guarantee their supplies of gum arabic. But a U.S. and NATO military presence is a more secure guarantee that the extraction of Sudanese resources, like those of the Congo, flow westward to the U.S. and the European Union.
6. It’s about Sudan’s location.
Sudan sits opposite Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States where a large fraction of the world’s easily extracted oil will be for a few more years. Darfur also borders on Libya and Chad, each with its own vast oil resources, is within striking distance of West and Central Africa, and is a likely pipeline route. The Nile River flows through Sudan before reaching Egypt; Southern Sudan water resources have regional significance, too. With the creation of AFRICOM, the new Pentagon command for the African continent, the U.S. has made explicit its intention to plant a strategic footprint there. From permanent Sudanese bases, the U.S. military could influence the politics and economies of Africa for generations to come.
7. Many of the backers and founders of the Save Darfur movement are the well-connected and funded U.S. foreign policy elite.
According to a Washington Post story this summer, “The Save Darfur (Coalition) was created in 2005 by two groups concerned about genocide in the African country—the American Jewish World Service and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.... The coalition has a staff of 30 with expertise in policy and public relations. Its budget was about $15 million in the most recent fiscal year.... Save Darfur will not say exactly how much it has spent on its ads, which this week have attempted to shame China, host of the 2008 Olympics, into easing its support for Sudan. But a coalition spokeswoman said the amount is in the millions of dollars.”
Though the Save Darfur PR campaign employs viral marketing techniques, reaching out to college students, even to black bloggers, it is not a grassroots affair, as was the movement against apartheid and in support of African liberation movements in South Africa, Namibia, Angola, and Mozambique. Top heavy with evangelical Christians who preach the coming war for the end of the world, and with elements known for their uncritical support of Israeli rejectionism in the Middle East, the Save Darfur movement is dominated/controlled by the establishment with a propaganda campaign that spends millions of dollars each month to manufacture consent for U.S. military intervention in Africa under the cloak of stopping or preventing genocide.
8. None of the funds raised by the Save Darfur Coalition go to help needy Africans in Darfur.
According to stories in both the Washington Post and the New York Times, “None of the money collected by Save Darfur goes to help the victims and their families. Instead, the coalition pours its proceeds into advocacy efforts that are primarily designed to persuade governments to act.”
9. Most Save Darfur partisans in the U.S. are not interested in political negotiations to end the conflict.
President Bush has openly and repeatedly attempted to throw monkey wrenches at peace negotiations to end the war in Darfur. Even pro-intervention scholars and humanitarian organizations active on the ground have criticized the U.S. for endangering humanitarian relief workers and for effectively urging rebel parties in Darfur to refuse peace talks and hold out for U.S. and NATO intervention on their behalf.
The PR campaign that depicts the conflict as strictly a racial affair, in which Arabs are exterminating the black population of Sudan, is slick, seamless, and attractive. It seems to leave no room for negotiation. In fact, many of Sudan’s “Arabs,” even the Janjiweed, are also black. In any case, they were armed and unleashed by a government that has the power to disarm them if it chooses. Refusing to talk to that government’s negotiators is a sure way to avoid any settlement.
10. Blackwater and other U.S. mercenary contractors, the unofficial armed wings of the Republican party and the Pentagon, are eagerly pitching their services.
Chris Taylor, head of strategy for Blackwater, says his company has a database of thousands of former police and military officers for security assignments. He says Blackwater personnel could set up perimeters and guard Darfurian villages and refugee camps in support of the UN. Blackwater officials say it would not take many men to fend off the Janjiweed, a militia that is supported by the Sudanese government and attacks villages on camelback.
Apparently Blackwater doesn’t need to go to the Congo where hunger and malnutrition, depopulation, mass rape, and the disappearance of schools, hospitals, and civil society into vast lawless zones ruled by an ever-changing cast of African proxies (like the son of the late and unlamented Idi Amin), operate under a veil of complicit media silence.
Look for the adoption of the Congolese model across those wide areas of Africa that U.S. strategic planners call “ungoverned spaces.” Just don’t expect to see details on the evening news or hear about them from Oprah, George Clooney, or Angelina Jolie.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
ISLAM DARI CHINA
ISLAM DARI CHINA
http://www.geocities.com/tamadunislam/islam_dari_china.htm#8.5
[PENDAHULUAN][PERDAGANGAN][PENGSEKETAAN][BUKTI INSKRIPSI][PENAKLUKAN & PERKAHWINAN][DIPLOMATIK]
8. ISLAM DATANG DARI CHINA
Sarjana tempatan dan barat turut bersetuju dengan teori kedatangan Islam ke Alam Melayu adalah dari negara China. Ini kerana terdapatnya bukti yang menyokong pendapat tersebut. Antara bukti yang menyokong pendapat mereka adalah penemuan Batu Bersurat di Terengganu. Memandangkan Terengganu terletak di panati timur Tanah Melayu, maka dengan terjumpanya batu tersebut di situ menunjukkan bahawa Islam telah sampai dari arah Timur, dan sarjana setuju menyatakan ianya datang dari China, Hainan atau Champa. Walaupun pada batu bersurat itu tertera tulisan jawi, pendapat yang mengatakan bahawa ia datang dari Tanah Arab tidak dapat menyaingi pendapat yanag mengatakan ianya datang dari China. Ini kerana negara China telah pun menerima Islam lebih awal dari negara lain di Timur kerana pada zaman Kerajaan Islam, utusan telah pun dihantar ke China melalui jalan sutera bagi mengembangkan agama Islam.
Hubungan perdagangan antara orang Arab dengan China dikatakan telah berlaku sejak sebelum kelahiran Agama Islam lagi. Mereka membawa barang-barang dagangan seperti bau-bauan, mutiara, dan batu-batu yang berharga di samping membeli mutiara dan tembikar dari China. Perdagangan antara Arab dan China secara tidak langsung mewujudkan hubungan antara orang Arab dan China dengan Kepulauan Melayu.
Menurut laporan orang-orang China Islam, orang Arab-Islam telah pun datang ke negeri China sejak zaman pemerintahan Maharaja Tai Shiung dari Dinasti Pang (627 – 650M). Dikatakan pendakwah pertama datang ke China ialah Wahab bin Abi Kabsyah yang diutuskan oleh Rasulullah SAW, dan sesampainya di Canton beliau meninggal dunia dan dimakamkan disitu. Selain itu, pada zaman Khalifah Uthman bin Affan, Saad bin abi Waqas dikatakan telah pergi ke China dan telah meletakkan batu asas sebuah masjid di Canton yang terkenal dengan nama Wai Shin-Zi ( Masjid Kenangan Nabi).
Menurut Lui Tahich, seorang penulis China-Islam, melaporkan bahawa selepas Saad bin Abi Waqas pulang ke Tanah Arab, beliau telah tinggal untuk sekian waktu di Canton dan Khalifah Utman sekali lagi mengutusnya ke sana. Beliau dikatakan telah meninggal dunia di Canton dan dikuburkan di sana. Pendapat beliau diragui oleh kebanyakan sejarawan, namun mereka mengakui bahawa Saad bin Abi Waqsas ada melakukan lawatan dan dakwah di China.
Pada tahun 713 M, panglima perang Islam, Qutaibah ibni Muslim telah pun sampai ke sempadan negeri China dan merancang untuk menyerang negeri tersebut. Niatnya terpaksa dibatalkan kerana Maharaja China, Hsuan Tsung (713 – 756 M) memulakan perhubungan persahabatan dengannya, dan tambahan pula peristiwa kemangkatan Khalifah Al-Walid bin Abdul Malik yang membuatkan beliau membatalkan hasratnya itu. Walau bagaimanapun, kesan daripada hubungan tersebut, Islam telah tersebar di Barat dan Barat Daya negeri tersebut.
Terdapat pelbagai teori dan bukti yang menyokong pendapat yang menyatakan bahawa Islam tersebar ke Alam Melayu adalah dari negara China.
8.1. Melalui kegiatan perdagangan
Kegiatan perdagangan merupakan satu kegiatan ekonomi yang terpenting bagi memperkenalkan barangan negara mereka ke dunia antara bangsa. Melalui China, perdagangan Arab -China sudah lama wujud. Para pedagang China akan keluar mengembara dengan kapal ke negara-negara asing yang menjadi pusat perdagangan. Pada masa tersebut, Alam Melayu merupakan suatu tempat yang strategik kerana di situlah menjadi laluan kapal-kapal pedagang yang sering berualang-alik dari timur dan barat.
Pada masa tersebut, telah pun diketahui bahawa negara China telahpun menerima Islam sejak dari zaman Kerajaan Islam di Tanah Arab lagi. Maka kebanyakan yang mula-mula menerima Islam ialah para pedagang. Dengan itu, para pedagang inilah yang bertanggungjawab menyebarkan Islam ke tempat-tempat lain di dunia ini.
Disamping berdagang, mereka turut mengembangkan Islam ke tempat yang mereka singgah itu, termasuk Alam Melayu. Dengan keperibadian mereka yang tinggi serta akhlak mulia yang ditunjukkan, ini menarik minat masyarakat setempat untuk mendalami agama Islam dan seterusnya menerima Islam sebagai agama mereka.
Dr Abdul Jalil Hasssan,dalam catatan sejarah Chau-Ju-Kua 1225 masihi terdapatnegeri Islam yang disebut sebagai "Fo-Lo-An"iaitu Kuala Berang Terengganu yang menjalankan perniagaan dengan orang Arab di samping Srivijaya.Terdapat batu bersurat yang menunjukkan kedatangan berrah dari China ,ini menguatkan lagi bukti Fatimi dan Dr.Abdul Jalil, di Champa pada tahun 1039 masihi,di Brunei 1048 Masihi,di Leran Jawa 1082 ,di Terengganu 1303 masihi.
Dalam komteks sejarah Malaysia, teori kedatangan Islam dari China ini boleh dikaitkan dengan terjumpanya barang-barang sejarah di Terengganu. Sebenarnya apakah yang menyebabkan para pedagang Arab dari China bertumpu di Terengganu? Antaranya ialah dari segi jalan laut. Terengganu terletak di kawasan jalan laut yang menjadi laluan perdagangan mereka. Dari segi geografinya pula, kedudukan Kuala Berang di tiga kuala suangai amat strategik untuk dijadikan pusat kegiatan perdagangan. Menurut Paul Wheatley, Kuala Berang ini juga dikenali oleh masyarakat China sebagai Fo-Lo-An ( Menurut catatan sejarah Chua-Ju-Kua pada tahun 1225 M, ia hanya menyatakan kawasan Fo-Lo-An adalah sebuah pusat perdagangan yang terpenting di rantau Asia Tenggara).
8.2. Penghijrahan akibat persengketaan
Menurut Profesor Syed Naquib Al-Attas, telah berlaku pemberontakan di Canton pada 877 masihi yang mengorbankan kira-kira 120 000 hingga 200 000 pedagang yang kebanyakannya beragama Islam Arab dan Farsi. Untuk menyelamatkan diri, mereka telah keluar dari Canton dan membawa diri ke tempat yang lebih selamat. Ada yang dapat menyelamatkan diri dan berhijrah ke Kalah iaitu nama lama bagi Kedah. Peristiwa berdarah ini berlaku pada tahun 878 M, pada zaman perintahan Maharaja His Tsung.
Begitu juga pada akhir Dinasti T’ang (618 – 905 M) berlaku satu pemberontakan lain di wilayah Yang Chow, yang mengakibatkan seramai 5000 orang rakyat asing dibunuh.
Selain pemberontakan yang berlaku di Canton, yang melihat pengusiran orang Islam, penghijrahan orang Islam juga disebabkan oleh serangan oleh Kerajaan asing yang ingin menakluki sesuatu kawasan ataupun oleh Kerajaan yang membenci Islam. Penganut Syiah Alawiyah dari Damsyik telah melarikan diri dari negara asal mereka hingga ke Champa akibat tekanan oleh Kerajaan Islam pada masa itu telah melahirkan suatu masyarakat yang kemudiannya dikenali sebagai Bani Champa (1000 – 1471M). Walau bagaimanapun, kewujudan mereka di Champa tidak kekal lama apabila Kerajaan Annam menyerang mereka yang memaksa mereka melarikan diri sekali lagi. Kali ini mereka berjaya tiba ke Acheh. Maka, dengan itu, Islam berkembang pula di Acheh dan negeri-negeri sekitarnya.
Sehubungan dengan peristiwa itu menjadikan orang-orang Arab-Islam melarikan diri bagi kali keduanya berlindung di daerah-daerah Nusantara. Kedatangan mereka bukan sahaja mencari perlindungan, bahkan memperkenalkan dan mengembangkan agama Islam di rantau ini. Berpandukan kepada hakikat itulah yang mendorong para sejarawan mendakwa Islam itu datangnya dari Negara China.
8.3. Bukti-bukti inskripsi
Di Champa terdapat dua inskripsi yang menguatkan lagi dakwaan sesetengah ahli sejarah mengenai kedatangan Islam di bawa dari daerah tersebut.Terdapat sebuah batu nisan yang bertulis"Khat Kufi" bertarikh 1039 masihi dah sebuah Monument "tugu"bertarikh 1025 masihi .Pada Meonument tersebut terdapat catatan yang berhubung dengan hukum-hukum Islam
Selain itu, terdapat sebuah batu nisan yang dikatakan seorang wali Allah keturunan Arab, bertarikh 419 H / 1028M yang dijumpai di Pekan, Pahang. Batu Bersurat Terengganu yang dijumpai di Kuala Berang bertarikh 702 H / 1303 M juga dikatakan bukti yang kukuh. Antara kandungan pada batu bersurat itu ialah ayat Al-Quran dan arahan-arahan yang dikenakan ke atas orang Islam supaya mematuhi hukum Allah. Lebih-lebih lagi terdapat dalam catatan Dinasti Sung (960 – 1260 M) bahawa kedatangan Islam ke Nusantara melalui sepanjang pantai laut China dan dibawa oleh pedagang-pedagang Islam dari Tiongkok di awal tahun 977 M. Laporan ini menjadi pegangan kuat SQ Fatimi bagi membuktikan teori kedatangan Islam dari China selain dari dua batu nisan tersebut.
Bagi menguatkan lagi pernyataan teori tersebut ,Winsted telah mengesahkan tentang wujudnya persamaan mengenai cerita-cerita rakyat antara dua daerah tersebut(mengenai Champa dan Tanah Melayu).Berdasarkan laporan sejarah terutamanya catatan China sejak zaman Khulafa Al-Rasyidin .Kerajaan Bani Umaiyah dan juga Abbasiah jelas kelihatan bahawa orang Arab -Islam telah pun bermastautin.Begitu juga dengan Champa yang tidak kurang juga dengan laporan dan prasasti bagi membuktikan kebenarannya.
Selain itu, kisah perdagangan di antara saudagar Oman dengan saudagar China di Kedah tercatat dalam karangan seorang pelaut Arab yang bernama Sulaiman di dalam kitabnya Akhbar-Al-Sinwal-Hind (851 M). Di dalamnya tercatat nama-nama seperti Ramni (Lamiri), Barus (Fansur). Disamping itu, Ibn Khordadheh juga ada menyebut nama-nama pelabuhan yang dinyatkan di atas dalam kitabnya yang berjudul Kitab Al-Masalik Wal-Mamalik.
8.4. Penaklukan dan perkahwinan
Selain dari China ,ada pula teori yang mengatakan ianya dibawa dari Champa atau Kemboja.Menurut R.A Kern, orang-orang Islam di Nusantara berasal dari IndoChina dalam kurun ke-7 masihi. Perhubungan itu berdasarkan kepentingan penaklukan dan perkahwinan terutamannya di antara keluarga Diraja .Ada pula terdapat dalam sumber China,bahawa Phanrang telah pun menerima Islam sejak tahun 960 masihi lagi iaitu semasa pemerintahan Dinasti Sung.
8.5. Perkembangan melalui Diplomatik
Sumber-sumber dari China mencatatkan bahawa terdapat satu utusan dari negara Islam Nusantara yang dikenali sebagai P’o-ni pada tahun 977 M dan diketuai oleh P’u-A-Li. Dua orang pengkaji sejarah iaitu, Hirth dan Rockhill percaya bahawa utusan diraja yang dimaksudkan itu ialah Abu Ali dari Berunei.
Dalam buku “The History of Yuan Dynasty” pula ada menyebutkan tentang kedatangan Hassan dan Sulaiman dari Su-Mu-Ta (Samudra) yang menghadap Raja China pada tahun 1282. Bukti-bukti tersebut menunjukkan bahawa masyarakat Nusantara telah menerima Islam dalam tempoh yang awal daripada tarikh pengislaman Melaka kerana hasil dari hubungan rapat dengan China.
Bukti-bukti lain yang menunjukkan agama Islam di sini ada hubungannya dengan China ialah wujudnya hubungan yang erat antara negeri China dengan beberapa buah negeri Nusantara ini. Menurut Ensaiklopedia Islam ( Hal 261 – 462) dikatakan bahawa catatan China mengatakan semenjak kurun ke-7M. penduduk-penduduk China memanggil penganut agama Islam di Nusantara sebagai “Tachi” (Tashi)
Hasil daripada hubungan diplomatik inilah maka penduduk Islam di China merasakan bahawa Asia Tenggara adalah tempat yang paling selamat bagi mereka apabila kedudukan mereka terancam di China. Sebagai contohnya, pada tahun 748 M, ramai penduduk Parsi dan Arab di Hainan dan Canton telah merasa tidak puas hati dengan perintah mereka dan menyebabkan mereka memberontak dan keluar ke negeri-negeri di Asia Tenggara.
[PENDAHULUAN][PERDAGANGAN][PENGSEKETAAN][BUKTI INSKRIPSI][PENAKLUKAN & PERKAHWINAN][DIPLOMATIK]
http://www.geocities.com/tamadunislam/islam_dari_china.htm#8.5
[PENDAHULUAN][PERDAGANGAN][PENGSEKETAAN][BUKTI INSKRIPSI][PENAKLUKAN & PERKAHWINAN][DIPLOMATIK]
8. ISLAM DATANG DARI CHINA
Sarjana tempatan dan barat turut bersetuju dengan teori kedatangan Islam ke Alam Melayu adalah dari negara China. Ini kerana terdapatnya bukti yang menyokong pendapat tersebut. Antara bukti yang menyokong pendapat mereka adalah penemuan Batu Bersurat di Terengganu. Memandangkan Terengganu terletak di panati timur Tanah Melayu, maka dengan terjumpanya batu tersebut di situ menunjukkan bahawa Islam telah sampai dari arah Timur, dan sarjana setuju menyatakan ianya datang dari China, Hainan atau Champa. Walaupun pada batu bersurat itu tertera tulisan jawi, pendapat yang mengatakan bahawa ia datang dari Tanah Arab tidak dapat menyaingi pendapat yanag mengatakan ianya datang dari China. Ini kerana negara China telah pun menerima Islam lebih awal dari negara lain di Timur kerana pada zaman Kerajaan Islam, utusan telah pun dihantar ke China melalui jalan sutera bagi mengembangkan agama Islam.
Hubungan perdagangan antara orang Arab dengan China dikatakan telah berlaku sejak sebelum kelahiran Agama Islam lagi. Mereka membawa barang-barang dagangan seperti bau-bauan, mutiara, dan batu-batu yang berharga di samping membeli mutiara dan tembikar dari China. Perdagangan antara Arab dan China secara tidak langsung mewujudkan hubungan antara orang Arab dan China dengan Kepulauan Melayu.
Menurut laporan orang-orang China Islam, orang Arab-Islam telah pun datang ke negeri China sejak zaman pemerintahan Maharaja Tai Shiung dari Dinasti Pang (627 – 650M). Dikatakan pendakwah pertama datang ke China ialah Wahab bin Abi Kabsyah yang diutuskan oleh Rasulullah SAW, dan sesampainya di Canton beliau meninggal dunia dan dimakamkan disitu. Selain itu, pada zaman Khalifah Uthman bin Affan, Saad bin abi Waqas dikatakan telah pergi ke China dan telah meletakkan batu asas sebuah masjid di Canton yang terkenal dengan nama Wai Shin-Zi ( Masjid Kenangan Nabi).
Menurut Lui Tahich, seorang penulis China-Islam, melaporkan bahawa selepas Saad bin Abi Waqas pulang ke Tanah Arab, beliau telah tinggal untuk sekian waktu di Canton dan Khalifah Utman sekali lagi mengutusnya ke sana. Beliau dikatakan telah meninggal dunia di Canton dan dikuburkan di sana. Pendapat beliau diragui oleh kebanyakan sejarawan, namun mereka mengakui bahawa Saad bin Abi Waqsas ada melakukan lawatan dan dakwah di China.
Pada tahun 713 M, panglima perang Islam, Qutaibah ibni Muslim telah pun sampai ke sempadan negeri China dan merancang untuk menyerang negeri tersebut. Niatnya terpaksa dibatalkan kerana Maharaja China, Hsuan Tsung (713 – 756 M) memulakan perhubungan persahabatan dengannya, dan tambahan pula peristiwa kemangkatan Khalifah Al-Walid bin Abdul Malik yang membuatkan beliau membatalkan hasratnya itu. Walau bagaimanapun, kesan daripada hubungan tersebut, Islam telah tersebar di Barat dan Barat Daya negeri tersebut.
Terdapat pelbagai teori dan bukti yang menyokong pendapat yang menyatakan bahawa Islam tersebar ke Alam Melayu adalah dari negara China.
8.1. Melalui kegiatan perdagangan
Kegiatan perdagangan merupakan satu kegiatan ekonomi yang terpenting bagi memperkenalkan barangan negara mereka ke dunia antara bangsa. Melalui China, perdagangan Arab -China sudah lama wujud. Para pedagang China akan keluar mengembara dengan kapal ke negara-negara asing yang menjadi pusat perdagangan. Pada masa tersebut, Alam Melayu merupakan suatu tempat yang strategik kerana di situlah menjadi laluan kapal-kapal pedagang yang sering berualang-alik dari timur dan barat.
Pada masa tersebut, telah pun diketahui bahawa negara China telahpun menerima Islam sejak dari zaman Kerajaan Islam di Tanah Arab lagi. Maka kebanyakan yang mula-mula menerima Islam ialah para pedagang. Dengan itu, para pedagang inilah yang bertanggungjawab menyebarkan Islam ke tempat-tempat lain di dunia ini.
Disamping berdagang, mereka turut mengembangkan Islam ke tempat yang mereka singgah itu, termasuk Alam Melayu. Dengan keperibadian mereka yang tinggi serta akhlak mulia yang ditunjukkan, ini menarik minat masyarakat setempat untuk mendalami agama Islam dan seterusnya menerima Islam sebagai agama mereka.
Dr Abdul Jalil Hasssan,dalam catatan sejarah Chau-Ju-Kua 1225 masihi terdapatnegeri Islam yang disebut sebagai "Fo-Lo-An"iaitu Kuala Berang Terengganu yang menjalankan perniagaan dengan orang Arab di samping Srivijaya.Terdapat batu bersurat yang menunjukkan kedatangan berrah dari China ,ini menguatkan lagi bukti Fatimi dan Dr.Abdul Jalil, di Champa pada tahun 1039 masihi,di Brunei 1048 Masihi,di Leran Jawa 1082 ,di Terengganu 1303 masihi.
Dalam komteks sejarah Malaysia, teori kedatangan Islam dari China ini boleh dikaitkan dengan terjumpanya barang-barang sejarah di Terengganu. Sebenarnya apakah yang menyebabkan para pedagang Arab dari China bertumpu di Terengganu? Antaranya ialah dari segi jalan laut. Terengganu terletak di kawasan jalan laut yang menjadi laluan perdagangan mereka. Dari segi geografinya pula, kedudukan Kuala Berang di tiga kuala suangai amat strategik untuk dijadikan pusat kegiatan perdagangan. Menurut Paul Wheatley, Kuala Berang ini juga dikenali oleh masyarakat China sebagai Fo-Lo-An ( Menurut catatan sejarah Chua-Ju-Kua pada tahun 1225 M, ia hanya menyatakan kawasan Fo-Lo-An adalah sebuah pusat perdagangan yang terpenting di rantau Asia Tenggara).
8.2. Penghijrahan akibat persengketaan
Menurut Profesor Syed Naquib Al-Attas, telah berlaku pemberontakan di Canton pada 877 masihi yang mengorbankan kira-kira 120 000 hingga 200 000 pedagang yang kebanyakannya beragama Islam Arab dan Farsi. Untuk menyelamatkan diri, mereka telah keluar dari Canton dan membawa diri ke tempat yang lebih selamat. Ada yang dapat menyelamatkan diri dan berhijrah ke Kalah iaitu nama lama bagi Kedah. Peristiwa berdarah ini berlaku pada tahun 878 M, pada zaman perintahan Maharaja His Tsung.
Begitu juga pada akhir Dinasti T’ang (618 – 905 M) berlaku satu pemberontakan lain di wilayah Yang Chow, yang mengakibatkan seramai 5000 orang rakyat asing dibunuh.
Selain pemberontakan yang berlaku di Canton, yang melihat pengusiran orang Islam, penghijrahan orang Islam juga disebabkan oleh serangan oleh Kerajaan asing yang ingin menakluki sesuatu kawasan ataupun oleh Kerajaan yang membenci Islam. Penganut Syiah Alawiyah dari Damsyik telah melarikan diri dari negara asal mereka hingga ke Champa akibat tekanan oleh Kerajaan Islam pada masa itu telah melahirkan suatu masyarakat yang kemudiannya dikenali sebagai Bani Champa (1000 – 1471M). Walau bagaimanapun, kewujudan mereka di Champa tidak kekal lama apabila Kerajaan Annam menyerang mereka yang memaksa mereka melarikan diri sekali lagi. Kali ini mereka berjaya tiba ke Acheh. Maka, dengan itu, Islam berkembang pula di Acheh dan negeri-negeri sekitarnya.
Sehubungan dengan peristiwa itu menjadikan orang-orang Arab-Islam melarikan diri bagi kali keduanya berlindung di daerah-daerah Nusantara. Kedatangan mereka bukan sahaja mencari perlindungan, bahkan memperkenalkan dan mengembangkan agama Islam di rantau ini. Berpandukan kepada hakikat itulah yang mendorong para sejarawan mendakwa Islam itu datangnya dari Negara China.
8.3. Bukti-bukti inskripsi
Di Champa terdapat dua inskripsi yang menguatkan lagi dakwaan sesetengah ahli sejarah mengenai kedatangan Islam di bawa dari daerah tersebut.Terdapat sebuah batu nisan yang bertulis"Khat Kufi" bertarikh 1039 masihi dah sebuah Monument "tugu"bertarikh 1025 masihi .Pada Meonument tersebut terdapat catatan yang berhubung dengan hukum-hukum Islam
Selain itu, terdapat sebuah batu nisan yang dikatakan seorang wali Allah keturunan Arab, bertarikh 419 H / 1028M yang dijumpai di Pekan, Pahang. Batu Bersurat Terengganu yang dijumpai di Kuala Berang bertarikh 702 H / 1303 M juga dikatakan bukti yang kukuh. Antara kandungan pada batu bersurat itu ialah ayat Al-Quran dan arahan-arahan yang dikenakan ke atas orang Islam supaya mematuhi hukum Allah. Lebih-lebih lagi terdapat dalam catatan Dinasti Sung (960 – 1260 M) bahawa kedatangan Islam ke Nusantara melalui sepanjang pantai laut China dan dibawa oleh pedagang-pedagang Islam dari Tiongkok di awal tahun 977 M. Laporan ini menjadi pegangan kuat SQ Fatimi bagi membuktikan teori kedatangan Islam dari China selain dari dua batu nisan tersebut.
Bagi menguatkan lagi pernyataan teori tersebut ,Winsted telah mengesahkan tentang wujudnya persamaan mengenai cerita-cerita rakyat antara dua daerah tersebut(mengenai Champa dan Tanah Melayu).Berdasarkan laporan sejarah terutamanya catatan China sejak zaman Khulafa Al-Rasyidin .Kerajaan Bani Umaiyah dan juga Abbasiah jelas kelihatan bahawa orang Arab -Islam telah pun bermastautin.Begitu juga dengan Champa yang tidak kurang juga dengan laporan dan prasasti bagi membuktikan kebenarannya.
Selain itu, kisah perdagangan di antara saudagar Oman dengan saudagar China di Kedah tercatat dalam karangan seorang pelaut Arab yang bernama Sulaiman di dalam kitabnya Akhbar-Al-Sinwal-Hind (851 M). Di dalamnya tercatat nama-nama seperti Ramni (Lamiri), Barus (Fansur). Disamping itu, Ibn Khordadheh juga ada menyebut nama-nama pelabuhan yang dinyatkan di atas dalam kitabnya yang berjudul Kitab Al-Masalik Wal-Mamalik.
8.4. Penaklukan dan perkahwinan
Selain dari China ,ada pula teori yang mengatakan ianya dibawa dari Champa atau Kemboja.Menurut R.A Kern, orang-orang Islam di Nusantara berasal dari IndoChina dalam kurun ke-7 masihi. Perhubungan itu berdasarkan kepentingan penaklukan dan perkahwinan terutamannya di antara keluarga Diraja .Ada pula terdapat dalam sumber China,bahawa Phanrang telah pun menerima Islam sejak tahun 960 masihi lagi iaitu semasa pemerintahan Dinasti Sung.
8.5. Perkembangan melalui Diplomatik
Sumber-sumber dari China mencatatkan bahawa terdapat satu utusan dari negara Islam Nusantara yang dikenali sebagai P’o-ni pada tahun 977 M dan diketuai oleh P’u-A-Li. Dua orang pengkaji sejarah iaitu, Hirth dan Rockhill percaya bahawa utusan diraja yang dimaksudkan itu ialah Abu Ali dari Berunei.
Dalam buku “The History of Yuan Dynasty” pula ada menyebutkan tentang kedatangan Hassan dan Sulaiman dari Su-Mu-Ta (Samudra) yang menghadap Raja China pada tahun 1282. Bukti-bukti tersebut menunjukkan bahawa masyarakat Nusantara telah menerima Islam dalam tempoh yang awal daripada tarikh pengislaman Melaka kerana hasil dari hubungan rapat dengan China.
Bukti-bukti lain yang menunjukkan agama Islam di sini ada hubungannya dengan China ialah wujudnya hubungan yang erat antara negeri China dengan beberapa buah negeri Nusantara ini. Menurut Ensaiklopedia Islam ( Hal 261 – 462) dikatakan bahawa catatan China mengatakan semenjak kurun ke-7M. penduduk-penduduk China memanggil penganut agama Islam di Nusantara sebagai “Tachi” (Tashi)
Hasil daripada hubungan diplomatik inilah maka penduduk Islam di China merasakan bahawa Asia Tenggara adalah tempat yang paling selamat bagi mereka apabila kedudukan mereka terancam di China. Sebagai contohnya, pada tahun 748 M, ramai penduduk Parsi dan Arab di Hainan dan Canton telah merasa tidak puas hati dengan perintah mereka dan menyebabkan mereka memberontak dan keluar ke negeri-negeri di Asia Tenggara.
[PENDAHULUAN][PERDAGANGAN][PENGSEKETAAN][BUKTI INSKRIPSI][PENAKLUKAN & PERKAHWINAN][DIPLOMATIK]
Melayu Putus Sejarah dan Hilang Identiti
Melayu Putus Sejarah dan Hilang Identiti
http://sejarahnagarakedah.blogspot.com/2007/04/50-tahun-merdeka-tapi-buta-sejarah.html
[Komen Penulis: Martabatkan Kembali Sejarah Bangsa!
Jika kita boleh menerima bulat-bulat sejarah karangan penjajah Inggeris, apa salahnya kita membuka fikiran dan memberi ruang kepada sejarah alternatif yang lebih logik dan tegas faktanya. Lebih-lebih lagi hasil usaha anak tempatan!
Mari keluar dari paradigma lama.
Sekian.]
Artikel dibawah ini adalah 'self explainatory' dan amat mudah difahami.Penulis hanya menyedut dan membuat komen pada bahagian yang perlu sahaja. Komen penulis dibuat untuk pemahaman penulis sendiri berasaskan sumber sejarahnagarakedah.blogspot.com dan juga buku2 sejarah tempatan.
Artikel penuh tanpa edit boleh diambil dari : Sejarahnagarakedah.blogspot.com
---------------------------
50 Tahun Merdeka, Tapi Lupa Sejarah Bangsa.
Saya merujuk kepada Tulisan Tuan Nai Long Kassim Nai Long Ahmad bertajuk “Kewujudan Kedah bukan pada 1136 Masihi” yang disiarkan oleh akhbar Utusan Malaysia pada 13 Februari 2007 .
Sebelum ini kita semua menyangkakan Empayar Ayuthia (1350 - 1767) yang tinggi peradabannya di Thailand itu sebagai Empayar yang beragama Buddha. Tanggapan ini adalah salah sama sekali. Thailand, asalnya adalah dari bangsa Sukhothai (suku thai@puak Thai) yang berasal dari Lannathai.
Mereka memang sudah berkali-kali cuba menyerang Ayuthia dan akhirnya berjaya menakluki Ayuthia pada tahun 1767,di ketuai oleh ketuanya bernama Alaungpaya.
Akan tetapi siapa sebenarnya yang memerintah Ayuthia sebelum ia ditawan? Pemerintah Ayuthia menunaikan Haji ke Tanah Suci Mekah, melaksanakan hukum-hukum Islam dan pentadbiran dibahagikan kepada 2 kementerian, untuk Islam dan bukan Islam.
Mereka menjalin hubungan dengan Perancis dan sempena lawatan itu dinamakan sebatang jalan di Perancis sebagai Jalan Ayuthia. Mereka ini adalah dari keturunan Siam bukan Thai. Dalam erti lain Siam itu beragama Islam, Thai itu beragama Buddha.
Orang-orang Melayu inilah berbangsa Siam, ia itu asal usul keturunan bangsa Melayu yang menjadi rakyat Nagara Benua Siam Dinasti Ayuthia dahulu dan Empayar ini meliputi seluruh Nusantara, Champa, termasuk sebahagian India.
Manuskrip Undang-Undang Kedah.
Dalam manuskrip Undang-Undang Kedah, yang mula diitulis pada tahun 220 Hijrah (799 masihi) adat Siam ini telah pun lama diguna pakai oleh raja-raja Melayu zaman dahulu.
Manuskrip ini dirampas oleh Inggeris di Istana Kota Beruas dahulu dan baru dipulangkan kepada kita sekitar tahun 2003/04.
Diantaranya penggunaan sirih pinang sewaktu meminang, bekas meminang, cincin emas sebentuk, kain. Sebagai contoh, didalam buku Undang-undang Kedah, mengenai pakaian dalam Adat Raja Johor,
“Maka adat ini turut adat raja-raja Kedah ini, yang kerajaan itu kuning juga”. (ms 34)
“Demikianlah zaman raja-raja dahulu-dahulu itu. Pada adat raja-raja dibenua Siam gelar demikian itu bahasa Siam Cau Phaya Kersan”. (ms 36)
Tidak teragak jika dikatakan bahawa asal keturunan bangsa Melayu ialah Siam kerana raja-raja Melayu yang menjadi tunggak adat istiadat bangsa Melayu telah pun menggunakan adat tersebut. Seterusnya, dimuka surat yang sama, perihal pemerintah Johor,
“Maka pada Bahasa Melayu Bendahara itu panglima negeri.Pada segala negeri yang kecil-kecil bendahara itu dikatanya lambat pada adat Siam”.
[Komen Penulis: Kedudukan panglima atau bendahara adalah antara yang paling kanan dalam sistem pemerintahan Raja Daerah - jawatan itu harus bukan seperti yang kita faham hari ini, iaitu lantikan daripada pesilat2 yang mahir dan sebagainya. Raja2 dahulu memang handal2 berperang bukan seperti Raja2 hari ini]
Asal Melayu-Siam mengikut Hikayat Merong Mahawangsa.
Sebelum naik kerajaan pada tahun 1350,pemerintah Ayuthia ini berasal dari Kesultanan Kedah, dimana keturunan mereka tiba dari Cina dan membuka Kota di Kuala Muda. Ketua rombongan dari Cina dan pengikutnya diketuai oleh Putera Waran Wong Ser (Mahawangsa), cucu kepada Maharaja Cina bernama Sai Tee Sung dari Dinasti Tang. (rujuk kepada Hikayat Merong Mahawangsa)
Maharaja Sai Tee Sung telah diislamkan oleh utusan Baginda Rasullullah SAW bernama Saad bin Waqqas.Baginda pula telah memberi surat watikah kepada cucunya untuk menyebarkan Islam di Nusantara.
Apabila naik Kerajaan, Baginda Wa Ren Wong Ser (bermaksud Naga Laut Puak Tentera) memakai gelaran Sultan Madzafar Syah I (222H, 812 M) dan berkahwin dengan Sharifah Mariam ibni Syed Jamal Al Jefri dari keturunan Bani Hashim. Sharifah Maryam berketurunan Arab dan baginda juga di panggil Tok Soh.
Mereka mendirikan kota dengan penduduk tempatan di Kuala Muda (Muadat bermaksud belerang), Kedah dan menjalankan pelabagai perniagaan pembuatan senjata yang menggunakan belerang.
Contoh dua meriam yang dijumpai didalam sungai dan telah dihasilkan oleh orang Melayu Saimen boleh dilihat di Muzium Negeri Kedah.
[Komen penulis: Jika meriam dan belerang sudah dicipta untuk pertahanan dan peperangan apatah lagi kombat tangan kosong contohnya silat. Sudah semestinya Raja Siam Islam tidak menjadikan Muay Thai Sang kera Hanuman sebagai amalan - kerana mereka seteru! Manakala keris yang menjadi senjata Melayu hari ini juga dikatakan berasal dari kerajaan Siam Islam.
Jangan lupa pihak Thai jugalah yang membuka jalan kepada tentera Jepun supaya masuk ke Semenanjung Emas ini semasa Perang Dunia ke 2, asalkan jangan menjajah mereka sudah - nampak boleh pakai ke puak Kafir Thai ini?]
Melaka dan Patani sebenarnya dibawah empayar Ayuthia.
Yang menarik sekali ialah pemerintah ke 11 Negara Kedah iaitu Sultan Madzafar Syah III yang juga bergelar Rama Tibodi I (@ Sheikh Ahmad Qomi). Baginda menjadi Maharaja pertama Benua Islam Siam Ayuthia Kedah Pasai Ma.
Semasa upacara mengangkat sumpah, Melaka tersurat dan disebut baginda sebagai salah satu tanah jajahan Ayuthia. Pada masa itu Melaka termasuklah Johor dan Kepulauan Riau.
Pemerintah Kedua Ayuthia ialah Naresuan yang berkahwin dengan Ratu Iman, Acheh. Pada Makam Baginda, tertulis dlm Bahasa Kawi, Gusta Barubasa empu Kedah Pasai Ma bermaksud, Keluarga yang memeluk Islam menguasai Kedah Pasai Ma.
Kerajaan ini lah yang mana Pattani, Ligor, Singgora, Kesultanan Melaka dan Acheh turut berada dibawah kawalannya.
Sebab itu lah bila mencari kesan Sejarah Kesultanan Melaka sukar mendapat buktinya kerana nama mereka juga tersenarai dalam senarai Raja-raja Ayuthia dalam bahasa Siam !
Siapa Long Jaafar yang sebenarnya?
Tahukah pembaca semua siapakah yang menjadi Raja Benua Siam Islam Nagara Kedah Pasai Ma yang terakhir. Tak lain dan tak bukan iaitu Sultan Jaafar Muadzam Syah atau lebih dikenali sebagai Long Jaafar.
[Komen Penulis: Long Jaafar dan sedaranya Ngah Ibrahim dalam buku sejarah karangan British hari ini hanya dikenali sebagai Raja Larut Matang - Sejarah sebenar baginda dipadamkan]
Sebelum itu Ayahanda baginda, Syed Alang Alauddin yang juga bergelar Panglima Bukit Gantang menjadi Sultan Benua Siam Islam, Nagara Kedah Pasai Ma.
Baginda melantik puteranya Long Jaafar menjadi menteri di Larut Perak untuk menguruskan lombong bijih kerajaan Nagara Kedah disana.
Apabila ayahanda baginda mangkat dalam tahun 1862, baginda [Long Jaafar] ditabal di Berahman Indra (sekarang Balai Besar) Alor Setar bergelar Sultan Jaafar Madzam Syah.
Dalam rangka lawatan ke Merbok, baginda [diperdaya] ditangkap oleh Thai dan Inggeris dalam tahun 1876, disiksa di Yan, sebelum dipijak dengan gajah hingga mati di belakang Balai Polis Gurun dalam tahun 1876.
Peristiwa ini benar berlaku... pengkaji sejarah tempatan dicabar untuk mengkaji maklumat ini.
[Komen Penulis: Tertangkapnya Baginda akibat khianat Paduka Seri Sultan Abdul Hamid (Raja Kuala Muda)+ Thai + Inggeris pd tahun 1876. Tahun 1881 Thai melantik S.Abd. Hamid menjadi Sultan Kedah]
...dengan terbunuhnya Long Jaafar, orang-orang Melayu hilang segala-galanya meliputi sastera, senibina, manuskrip-manuskrip,syair, industri pembuatan belerang, sajak, puisi dll.
[Komen Penulis:
Mengikut faham penulis, pada waktu inilah semua kerabat dan waris mutlak Maharaja Benua Siam Islam lari menyembunyikan diri dari dibunuh. Segala pangkat dibuang.
Segala maklumat sensitif dan warisan yang mahal harganya disorok-dibawa lari-atau diserahkan pada orang lain sebagai pemegang amanah supaya tidak dijumpai pihak musuh.
Dengan wasiat hanya akan dikembalikan kepada anak cucu yang berhak (boleh jadi dari Kedah) bila sampai masanya.
(Spt wasiat yang disampaikan oleh TNL Kassim yang diterima dari ayahandanya hanya melalui hafalan - tapi kerana waris yang hak maka ia sudah menjadi spt darah daging).
Waktu itu perang sedang berkecamuk, semua identiti pembesar negeri termasuklah Penghulu Kayang yang warisnya menjadi Raja Perlis hari ini terpaksa ditutup.
Dengan wasiat yang ditinggalkan buat kita hari ini menunjukkan betapa sayang pejuang-pejuang dan datuk nenek kita dahulu kepada anak bangsanya. Sedaya upaya mereka menyelamat dan meninggalkan warisan yang sangat tinggi nilainya. Cuma kita yang tidak tahu menilai!
Cuba bayangkan jika segala kepakaran dan tamadun kita semua dapat dipihak musuh?]
Penjajah Inggeris Menipu.
Penjajah Inggeris telah menipu kita dimana mereka berpakat dengan Thai lalu menyerahkan peradaban itu kepada Thai...agar mereka dapat, menjatuhkan Islam, menjajah Semenanjong dan mengutip hasil bumi seperti bijih timah,emas,rempah ratus dll.
Sejarah yang ditinggalkan adalah versi mereka, bukan versi kita. Kita terpaksa bermula dari bawah untuk memertabatkan bangsa. Kita berjaya melakukannya dalam masa 50 tahun saja.
Bayangkanlah sekiranya kita bangsa Melayu keturunan Siam ini memerintah Ayuthia dulu selama 417 Tahun, betapa hebatnya peradaban itu! Pasti ia di cemburui dan dingini/diidamkan oleh bangsa lain.
Semua ini berlaku kerana mereka benci bangsa Siam ini ujud lebih dahulu dari bangsa Tai lalu dibakarnya manuskrip Al Quran, Hikayat Merong Mahawangsa, Sejarah Melayu dll sewaktu berjaya menawan Ayuthia dalam tahun 1767.
[Komen Penulis: Kerja menipu ni memang menjadi kesukaan Inggeris, seperti mana mereka menipu waris bani Hasyim - Raja Hussein dalam perjanjian Belfour yang menyebabkan Zionis mendapat Palestin)
Thai melupus bukti sejarah Siam Islam.
Sewaktu Thai (bukan Siam) menjajah Kedah selama 5 tahun (1876-1881) dengan pertolongan Inggeris mereka membakar istana-istana lama (17,mungkin lebih) milik Raja Benua Siam Islam, Nagara Kedah Pasai Ma.
Termasuk di Bukit Cho Ras (istana Sayyidina Ali, Sultan Alirah Shah, Perlak).
Diserang dan dibunuh orang-orang Siam Islam Pattani, Kedah, Majapahit dan tentera Cina Manchu (Islam).
[Komen Penulis: Orang2 Melayu bersama para ulama nusantara sewaktu pemerintahan Syed Alang Alaudin dan Long Jaafar- inilah yang berperang fisabillah menentang Kafir Thai tapi mereka menggelarnya Siam kerana asal dari negara Siam - boleh cross-chek dengan senarai ulama dari tulisan Allahyarham Wan Mohd Saghir al-Fatani berkenaan tarikh dan nama]
Wilayah Selatan Thai tertinggal sewaktu merdeka.
...[sewaktu hendak merdeka] Inggeris ingin menyerahkan Pattani, Satun,Yala, Ligor dan Songkhala untuk merdeka bersama kita dalam tahun 1957 dahulu tetapi ditolak oleh TAR kerana datuknya Raja Chulalongkorn tidak mengizinkannya (TAR cucu raja Thai itu).
[Komen Penulis : TAR adalah keturunan Paduka Seri Sultan Abdul Hamid - Paduka Seri Sultan Ahmad Tajuddin dan seterusnya sampai ke Raja Sulaiman @ Raja Bersiong dan terlibat sepenuhnya dengan pembikinan filem Raja Bersiong, terbitan Shaw Malay Film Production, 1967.
Kaitan TAR dengan Raja Thailand adalah melalui ibunya Cik Manjalara. Dalam filem Raja Bersiong, TAR mendapat bantuan rapat dari Raja Thai.
Barulah penulis faham kenapa beria-ia benar TAR terlibat produksi filem itu dan begitu teliti memastikan jalan cerita itu sesuai dengan sejarah Kedah yang baru (Ghulam JMKhan, 2000, Rekod Malaysia, edisi 2)
[Akhir Komen Penulis: Begitulah alkisahnya sejarah kita yang penuh liku ranjau. Terima kasih pada penulis asal cerita ini lebih2 lagi TNL Kassim sebagai waris mutlak kerajaan Negara Kedah Pasai Ma]
end.
Dicatat oleh Herman Abdullah di 13:12
Label: Artikel Pilihan, Siasat Sejarah Bangsa dan Negara, The Malay Press
http://sejarahnagarakedah.blogspot.com/2007/04/50-tahun-merdeka-tapi-buta-sejarah.html
[Komen Penulis: Martabatkan Kembali Sejarah Bangsa!
Jika kita boleh menerima bulat-bulat sejarah karangan penjajah Inggeris, apa salahnya kita membuka fikiran dan memberi ruang kepada sejarah alternatif yang lebih logik dan tegas faktanya. Lebih-lebih lagi hasil usaha anak tempatan!
Mari keluar dari paradigma lama.
Sekian.]
Artikel dibawah ini adalah 'self explainatory' dan amat mudah difahami.Penulis hanya menyedut dan membuat komen pada bahagian yang perlu sahaja. Komen penulis dibuat untuk pemahaman penulis sendiri berasaskan sumber sejarahnagarakedah.blogspot.com dan juga buku2 sejarah tempatan.
Artikel penuh tanpa edit boleh diambil dari : Sejarahnagarakedah.blogspot.com
---------------------------
50 Tahun Merdeka, Tapi Lupa Sejarah Bangsa.
Saya merujuk kepada Tulisan Tuan Nai Long Kassim Nai Long Ahmad bertajuk “Kewujudan Kedah bukan pada 1136 Masihi” yang disiarkan oleh akhbar Utusan Malaysia pada 13 Februari 2007 .
Sebelum ini kita semua menyangkakan Empayar Ayuthia (1350 - 1767) yang tinggi peradabannya di Thailand itu sebagai Empayar yang beragama Buddha. Tanggapan ini adalah salah sama sekali. Thailand, asalnya adalah dari bangsa Sukhothai (suku thai@puak Thai) yang berasal dari Lannathai.
Mereka memang sudah berkali-kali cuba menyerang Ayuthia dan akhirnya berjaya menakluki Ayuthia pada tahun 1767,di ketuai oleh ketuanya bernama Alaungpaya.
Akan tetapi siapa sebenarnya yang memerintah Ayuthia sebelum ia ditawan? Pemerintah Ayuthia menunaikan Haji ke Tanah Suci Mekah, melaksanakan hukum-hukum Islam dan pentadbiran dibahagikan kepada 2 kementerian, untuk Islam dan bukan Islam.
Mereka menjalin hubungan dengan Perancis dan sempena lawatan itu dinamakan sebatang jalan di Perancis sebagai Jalan Ayuthia. Mereka ini adalah dari keturunan Siam bukan Thai. Dalam erti lain Siam itu beragama Islam, Thai itu beragama Buddha.
Orang-orang Melayu inilah berbangsa Siam, ia itu asal usul keturunan bangsa Melayu yang menjadi rakyat Nagara Benua Siam Dinasti Ayuthia dahulu dan Empayar ini meliputi seluruh Nusantara, Champa, termasuk sebahagian India.
Manuskrip Undang-Undang Kedah.
Dalam manuskrip Undang-Undang Kedah, yang mula diitulis pada tahun 220 Hijrah (799 masihi) adat Siam ini telah pun lama diguna pakai oleh raja-raja Melayu zaman dahulu.
Manuskrip ini dirampas oleh Inggeris di Istana Kota Beruas dahulu dan baru dipulangkan kepada kita sekitar tahun 2003/04.
Diantaranya penggunaan sirih pinang sewaktu meminang, bekas meminang, cincin emas sebentuk, kain. Sebagai contoh, didalam buku Undang-undang Kedah, mengenai pakaian dalam Adat Raja Johor,
“Maka adat ini turut adat raja-raja Kedah ini, yang kerajaan itu kuning juga”. (ms 34)
“Demikianlah zaman raja-raja dahulu-dahulu itu. Pada adat raja-raja dibenua Siam gelar demikian itu bahasa Siam Cau Phaya Kersan”. (ms 36)
Tidak teragak jika dikatakan bahawa asal keturunan bangsa Melayu ialah Siam kerana raja-raja Melayu yang menjadi tunggak adat istiadat bangsa Melayu telah pun menggunakan adat tersebut. Seterusnya, dimuka surat yang sama, perihal pemerintah Johor,
“Maka pada Bahasa Melayu Bendahara itu panglima negeri.Pada segala negeri yang kecil-kecil bendahara itu dikatanya lambat pada adat Siam”.
[Komen Penulis: Kedudukan panglima atau bendahara adalah antara yang paling kanan dalam sistem pemerintahan Raja Daerah - jawatan itu harus bukan seperti yang kita faham hari ini, iaitu lantikan daripada pesilat2 yang mahir dan sebagainya. Raja2 dahulu memang handal2 berperang bukan seperti Raja2 hari ini]
Asal Melayu-Siam mengikut Hikayat Merong Mahawangsa.
Sebelum naik kerajaan pada tahun 1350,pemerintah Ayuthia ini berasal dari Kesultanan Kedah, dimana keturunan mereka tiba dari Cina dan membuka Kota di Kuala Muda. Ketua rombongan dari Cina dan pengikutnya diketuai oleh Putera Waran Wong Ser (Mahawangsa), cucu kepada Maharaja Cina bernama Sai Tee Sung dari Dinasti Tang. (rujuk kepada Hikayat Merong Mahawangsa)
Maharaja Sai Tee Sung telah diislamkan oleh utusan Baginda Rasullullah SAW bernama Saad bin Waqqas.Baginda pula telah memberi surat watikah kepada cucunya untuk menyebarkan Islam di Nusantara.
Apabila naik Kerajaan, Baginda Wa Ren Wong Ser (bermaksud Naga Laut Puak Tentera) memakai gelaran Sultan Madzafar Syah I (222H, 812 M) dan berkahwin dengan Sharifah Mariam ibni Syed Jamal Al Jefri dari keturunan Bani Hashim. Sharifah Maryam berketurunan Arab dan baginda juga di panggil Tok Soh.
Mereka mendirikan kota dengan penduduk tempatan di Kuala Muda (Muadat bermaksud belerang), Kedah dan menjalankan pelabagai perniagaan pembuatan senjata yang menggunakan belerang.
Contoh dua meriam yang dijumpai didalam sungai dan telah dihasilkan oleh orang Melayu Saimen boleh dilihat di Muzium Negeri Kedah.
[Komen penulis: Jika meriam dan belerang sudah dicipta untuk pertahanan dan peperangan apatah lagi kombat tangan kosong contohnya silat. Sudah semestinya Raja Siam Islam tidak menjadikan Muay Thai Sang kera Hanuman sebagai amalan - kerana mereka seteru! Manakala keris yang menjadi senjata Melayu hari ini juga dikatakan berasal dari kerajaan Siam Islam.
Jangan lupa pihak Thai jugalah yang membuka jalan kepada tentera Jepun supaya masuk ke Semenanjung Emas ini semasa Perang Dunia ke 2, asalkan jangan menjajah mereka sudah - nampak boleh pakai ke puak Kafir Thai ini?]
Melaka dan Patani sebenarnya dibawah empayar Ayuthia.
Yang menarik sekali ialah pemerintah ke 11 Negara Kedah iaitu Sultan Madzafar Syah III yang juga bergelar Rama Tibodi I (@ Sheikh Ahmad Qomi). Baginda menjadi Maharaja pertama Benua Islam Siam Ayuthia Kedah Pasai Ma.
Semasa upacara mengangkat sumpah, Melaka tersurat dan disebut baginda sebagai salah satu tanah jajahan Ayuthia. Pada masa itu Melaka termasuklah Johor dan Kepulauan Riau.
Pemerintah Kedua Ayuthia ialah Naresuan yang berkahwin dengan Ratu Iman, Acheh. Pada Makam Baginda, tertulis dlm Bahasa Kawi, Gusta Barubasa empu Kedah Pasai Ma bermaksud, Keluarga yang memeluk Islam menguasai Kedah Pasai Ma.
Kerajaan ini lah yang mana Pattani, Ligor, Singgora, Kesultanan Melaka dan Acheh turut berada dibawah kawalannya.
Sebab itu lah bila mencari kesan Sejarah Kesultanan Melaka sukar mendapat buktinya kerana nama mereka juga tersenarai dalam senarai Raja-raja Ayuthia dalam bahasa Siam !
Siapa Long Jaafar yang sebenarnya?
Tahukah pembaca semua siapakah yang menjadi Raja Benua Siam Islam Nagara Kedah Pasai Ma yang terakhir. Tak lain dan tak bukan iaitu Sultan Jaafar Muadzam Syah atau lebih dikenali sebagai Long Jaafar.
[Komen Penulis: Long Jaafar dan sedaranya Ngah Ibrahim dalam buku sejarah karangan British hari ini hanya dikenali sebagai Raja Larut Matang - Sejarah sebenar baginda dipadamkan]
Sebelum itu Ayahanda baginda, Syed Alang Alauddin yang juga bergelar Panglima Bukit Gantang menjadi Sultan Benua Siam Islam, Nagara Kedah Pasai Ma.
Baginda melantik puteranya Long Jaafar menjadi menteri di Larut Perak untuk menguruskan lombong bijih kerajaan Nagara Kedah disana.
Apabila ayahanda baginda mangkat dalam tahun 1862, baginda [Long Jaafar] ditabal di Berahman Indra (sekarang Balai Besar) Alor Setar bergelar Sultan Jaafar Madzam Syah.
Dalam rangka lawatan ke Merbok, baginda [diperdaya] ditangkap oleh Thai dan Inggeris dalam tahun 1876, disiksa di Yan, sebelum dipijak dengan gajah hingga mati di belakang Balai Polis Gurun dalam tahun 1876.
Peristiwa ini benar berlaku... pengkaji sejarah tempatan dicabar untuk mengkaji maklumat ini.
[Komen Penulis: Tertangkapnya Baginda akibat khianat Paduka Seri Sultan Abdul Hamid (Raja Kuala Muda)+ Thai + Inggeris pd tahun 1876. Tahun 1881 Thai melantik S.Abd. Hamid menjadi Sultan Kedah]
...dengan terbunuhnya Long Jaafar, orang-orang Melayu hilang segala-galanya meliputi sastera, senibina, manuskrip-manuskrip,syair, industri pembuatan belerang, sajak, puisi dll.
[Komen Penulis:
Mengikut faham penulis, pada waktu inilah semua kerabat dan waris mutlak Maharaja Benua Siam Islam lari menyembunyikan diri dari dibunuh. Segala pangkat dibuang.
Segala maklumat sensitif dan warisan yang mahal harganya disorok-dibawa lari-atau diserahkan pada orang lain sebagai pemegang amanah supaya tidak dijumpai pihak musuh.
Dengan wasiat hanya akan dikembalikan kepada anak cucu yang berhak (boleh jadi dari Kedah) bila sampai masanya.
(Spt wasiat yang disampaikan oleh TNL Kassim yang diterima dari ayahandanya hanya melalui hafalan - tapi kerana waris yang hak maka ia sudah menjadi spt darah daging).
Waktu itu perang sedang berkecamuk, semua identiti pembesar negeri termasuklah Penghulu Kayang yang warisnya menjadi Raja Perlis hari ini terpaksa ditutup.
Dengan wasiat yang ditinggalkan buat kita hari ini menunjukkan betapa sayang pejuang-pejuang dan datuk nenek kita dahulu kepada anak bangsanya. Sedaya upaya mereka menyelamat dan meninggalkan warisan yang sangat tinggi nilainya. Cuma kita yang tidak tahu menilai!
Cuba bayangkan jika segala kepakaran dan tamadun kita semua dapat dipihak musuh?]
Penjajah Inggeris Menipu.
Penjajah Inggeris telah menipu kita dimana mereka berpakat dengan Thai lalu menyerahkan peradaban itu kepada Thai...agar mereka dapat, menjatuhkan Islam, menjajah Semenanjong dan mengutip hasil bumi seperti bijih timah,emas,rempah ratus dll.
Sejarah yang ditinggalkan adalah versi mereka, bukan versi kita. Kita terpaksa bermula dari bawah untuk memertabatkan bangsa. Kita berjaya melakukannya dalam masa 50 tahun saja.
Bayangkanlah sekiranya kita bangsa Melayu keturunan Siam ini memerintah Ayuthia dulu selama 417 Tahun, betapa hebatnya peradaban itu! Pasti ia di cemburui dan dingini/diidamkan oleh bangsa lain.
Semua ini berlaku kerana mereka benci bangsa Siam ini ujud lebih dahulu dari bangsa Tai lalu dibakarnya manuskrip Al Quran, Hikayat Merong Mahawangsa, Sejarah Melayu dll sewaktu berjaya menawan Ayuthia dalam tahun 1767.
[Komen Penulis: Kerja menipu ni memang menjadi kesukaan Inggeris, seperti mana mereka menipu waris bani Hasyim - Raja Hussein dalam perjanjian Belfour yang menyebabkan Zionis mendapat Palestin)
Thai melupus bukti sejarah Siam Islam.
Sewaktu Thai (bukan Siam) menjajah Kedah selama 5 tahun (1876-1881) dengan pertolongan Inggeris mereka membakar istana-istana lama (17,mungkin lebih) milik Raja Benua Siam Islam, Nagara Kedah Pasai Ma.
Termasuk di Bukit Cho Ras (istana Sayyidina Ali, Sultan Alirah Shah, Perlak).
Diserang dan dibunuh orang-orang Siam Islam Pattani, Kedah, Majapahit dan tentera Cina Manchu (Islam).
[Komen Penulis: Orang2 Melayu bersama para ulama nusantara sewaktu pemerintahan Syed Alang Alaudin dan Long Jaafar- inilah yang berperang fisabillah menentang Kafir Thai tapi mereka menggelarnya Siam kerana asal dari negara Siam - boleh cross-chek dengan senarai ulama dari tulisan Allahyarham Wan Mohd Saghir al-Fatani berkenaan tarikh dan nama]
Wilayah Selatan Thai tertinggal sewaktu merdeka.
...[sewaktu hendak merdeka] Inggeris ingin menyerahkan Pattani, Satun,Yala, Ligor dan Songkhala untuk merdeka bersama kita dalam tahun 1957 dahulu tetapi ditolak oleh TAR kerana datuknya Raja Chulalongkorn tidak mengizinkannya (TAR cucu raja Thai itu).
[Komen Penulis : TAR adalah keturunan Paduka Seri Sultan Abdul Hamid - Paduka Seri Sultan Ahmad Tajuddin dan seterusnya sampai ke Raja Sulaiman @ Raja Bersiong dan terlibat sepenuhnya dengan pembikinan filem Raja Bersiong, terbitan Shaw Malay Film Production, 1967.
Kaitan TAR dengan Raja Thailand adalah melalui ibunya Cik Manjalara. Dalam filem Raja Bersiong, TAR mendapat bantuan rapat dari Raja Thai.
Barulah penulis faham kenapa beria-ia benar TAR terlibat produksi filem itu dan begitu teliti memastikan jalan cerita itu sesuai dengan sejarah Kedah yang baru (Ghulam JMKhan, 2000, Rekod Malaysia, edisi 2)
[Akhir Komen Penulis: Begitulah alkisahnya sejarah kita yang penuh liku ranjau. Terima kasih pada penulis asal cerita ini lebih2 lagi TNL Kassim sebagai waris mutlak kerajaan Negara Kedah Pasai Ma]
end.
Dicatat oleh Herman Abdullah di 13:12
Label: Artikel Pilihan, Siasat Sejarah Bangsa dan Negara, The Malay Press
WWI Penutup Perang Salib?
WW1-Penutup perang salib?
Menurut Hamka didalam bukunya yang bertajuk Sejarah Umat Islam (1994:649) setelah habis dihalau saki baki tentera muslimin Turki dari bumi Palestin , maka tekeluarlah kata-kata dari perut Edmund Henry Hynman Allenby pemimpin tentera British ketika itu " Sekarang baru selesai perang salib".
Arakian terlunaslah sudah dendam yang bersarang didada bangsa Eropah sejak beratus tahun lamanya. Jadi bagi pihak Eropah, WWI adalah pemutus kepada perang salib. Benarkah?
Tersilap percaturan.
Kesilapan pemimpin Arab pada WWI adalah kerana terlalu mempercayai bangsa Eropah. Manakala fahaman assabiah yang tebal dikalangan puak badwi Arab pula berjaya dimanipulasi oleh Lawrence of Arabia untuk memecah-belahkan kesatuan empayar Islam Ottoman di Semenanjung Tanah Arab.
Menurut sumber risikan, Lawrence dalam diarinya yang bertarikh Januari 1916, menggambarkan pemberontakan Arab (Arab Revolt) seperti berikut:
"pemberontakan Arab ini amat berguna buat kita. Bersuaian dengan matlamat kita untuk memecahkan blok Islam dan seterusnya mengalahkan Empire Ottoman, dan sebab negara yang akan ditubuhkan oleh Sharif Hussein...tidak akan merbahaya kepada kita.
...orang Arab ini lemah dari orang Turki. Jika dikawal dengan betul, mereka ini hanya akan menjadi negara yang pecah-berketak (mosaic), penuh dengan dengki-cemburu di antara satu sama lain dan sememangnya tidak akan bersatu"(Hussein-McMahon Correspondence 1915 and The Arab Revolt)
Tambah lagi dengan kelesuan sistem pemerintahan Khalifah Islam di Turki ketika itu (Hamka, 1994, p649). Saban hari diracun oleh idealogi sekular 'Young Turk' tajaan Freemason, Yahudi dan Bahai yang sememangnya bertujuan untuk menjahanamkan sistem pemerintahan Khalifah Islam Turki. Maka makin mudahlah jarum mereka berjalan.
Kemuncak kepada kehancuran pemerintahan Ottoman adalah apabila gerakan Freemasonry berjaya menyelinap masuk dan mempengaruhi pihak atasan angkatan tenteranya, tidak lain dan tidak bukan iaitu melalui Mustafa Kemal.
Apa cerita Syerif Mekah dan Ibnu Saud?
Secara ringkasnya, Amir Faisal ( anak Syerif Hussein) yang dilantik oleh British untuk menentang tentera Turki setelah dijanjikan pangkat 'King of Syria' dalam 'Dasmascus Protocol 1915-1916' telah berjaya dipermainkan.
Keputusan pihak Syerif Mekah untuk bersepakat dengan puak British diambil setelah Ali bin Hussain (anak sulong Syarif Hussain) mengetahui yang pemerintah Ottoman ingin menggantikan bapanya dengan Ali Haidar (juga dari Bani Hashim) sebagai Syarif Mekah yang baru.
Walaupun telah dinasihati oleh pihak yang mencurigai kejujuran British Kristian, mereka teruskan juga kesepakatan itu. Adalah juga dipercayai, peperangan itu adalah berlandaskan nasionalisma bangsa Arab dan bukan peperangan fisabillillah..
Boleh jadi kerajaan Ottoman ingin menggantikan Syarif Hussain setelah mendapat maklumat tentang niat pemberontakan Syarif Hussain ini sejak awal lagi. Buat pengetahuan pembaca, semasa Khalifah Ottoman memerintah dunia Islam, kepentingan Bani Hashim tetap di jaga malah pemerintahan autonomi di Mekah dan Madinah adalah dibawah seliaan Bani Hashim.
Tetapi malangya, setelah berjaya mengalahkan tentera Ottoman dari tanah Hejaz, baginda Amir Faisal akhirnya disepak keluar oleh British dan Perancis dari Syria lalu dijadikan 'King of Iraq'.
Mengikut cerita, Syerif Mekah ini pada mulanya berperang disamping tentera Ottoman untuk mengusir puak Saud dari Hejaz pada tahun 1910 iaitu sebelum WWI, tetapi kemudian menentang pula kerajaan Ottoman pada WWI disamping tentera British. Satu tindakan politik yang amat sukar difahami.
(Adakah baginda Syarif Hussain sudah dapat meramalkan tentang kejatuhan Khalifah Ottoman ditangan sekular 'Young Turks' ? maka dengan itu baginda ingin berpecah?)
Selepas itu, tanpa sokongan British, bani Hashim dapat dikalahkan kembali oleh musuh utama mereka dari puak Saud. Menyebabkan mereka terhalau keluar dari Mekah pada tahun 1924. Oleh itu berakhirlah sudah pemerintahan Syerif Mekah dari Semenanjung Tanah Arab...kemana mereka?
Apabila sudah tiada penentangan dari pihak Syarif Mekah, maka ibnu Saud diangkat menjadi Raja Hejaz dengan gelaran 'Al-Malik'. Tiada lagi mereka memakai gelaran Sultan.
Lalu ditukar nama kerajaannya yang baru kepada Kerajaan Arabiyah Sa'udiyah. Kerajaan ini diakui 100% kemerdekaannya oleh British, Belanda, Perancis, Italia, Rusia, Turki dan lain-lain. (Hamka, 1994).
Pengiktirafan pihak Eropah inilah titik mulanya kekuasan mutlak ibnu Saud ditanah Arab. Turki waktu itu sudahpun dibawah pengaruh sekular.
Di dalam tahun 1936M terjumpa pula minyak dikawasan Al-Ahsa dan Zahran oleh syarikat Amerika. Sekelip mata kawasan kering-kontang itu mendapat nikmat. Oleh itu raja Badwi - Raja Ibnu Saud menjadi raja terkaya didunia dalam beberapa tahun sahaja. Tidak kurang gembira syarikat-syarikat minyak Amerika-British dan Eropah kerana mendapat laba dari hasil minyak tersebut.
Tidak hairanlah mengapa hubungan raja-raja ibnu Saud ini terlalu akrab dengan Amerika dan British. Boleh jadi termakan budi agaknya.
Seperkara lagi yang patut direnungkan adalah, setelah habisnya WWI, kebanyakkan pemerintahan di negara-negara Islam adalah dengan perkenan dan restu British, bukan lagi berlandaskan sistem pengisytiharan khalifah yang sebenar.
British mungkir janji.
Antara punca sebenar keadaan ini adalah apabila British mungkir janji. Status 'King of Hejaz' seperti yang dijanjikan kepada Syarif Hussein tidak dilunaskan. Rupanya mereka sudahpun berkira-kira dengan Perancis dalam rancangan Skykes-Picot 1915 untuk membahagikan Palestin dan Lebanon jika mereka berjaya mengalahkan Khalifah Ottoman.
Setelah segala perancangan mereka berhasil, British dengan secara licik membawa pihak Amerika menjadi orang tengah untuk menyelesaikan kekalutan dan pertikaian mengenai pembahagian tanah Lebanon dan Palestin. Ternyata puak Arab yang tanpa ketua ini terpaksa menerima apa sahaja cadangan pihak British-France-Amerika tanpa banyak bicara.
Kali ini mereka dibentangkan pula dengan satu pungutan suara menipu yang dinamakan 'King- Crane Commission 1919', yang menyebabkan wilayah Syam terbahagi dua, iaitu Palestin dibawah pemerintahan British manakala Syria Labanon dibawah Perancis. (Hamka, 1994:650).
Apabila British mendapat mandat untuk memerintah Palestin maka mereka pun terus melaksanakan apa yang terkandung dalam 'Deklarasi Belfaour 1917'.
Yang mana dalam deklarasi tersebut, dengan hanya lebih kurang 150 patah perkataan, James Belfaour dengan persetujuan Kabinet Perang England dan dengan perkenan Permaisuri England telah mengiktiraf kewujudan Persekutuan Zionis yang akhirnya menjadi Negara Yahudi.
Sejak itu berduyun-duyunlah Yahudi seluruh Eropah turun berkampung di Palestin. Mereka membuat penempatan haram dan membuat kacau sehingga mengocak kerharmonian yang selama ini dirasai dibawah kepimpinan kerajaan Islam Ottoman.
Tanah Palestin bertukar tangan.
Deklarasi Belfour dan pemberian mandat kepada British menyebabkan kerakyatan negara Palestin bertukar tangan. 90 peratus penduduk asal Palestin yakni bangsa Arab dianggap sebagai rakyat asing manakala pendatang haram Yahudi pula mendapat status peribumi. Ini membuatkan pihak seluruh warga Arab ternganga.
Setelah itu bermulalah pemberontakan demi pemberontakan sehingga membawa kepada peperangan Arab-Israel 1948 yang mengukuhkan lagi cengkaman Zionis dibumi Palestin.
Begitulah cara puak Yahudi merompak tanah Arab palestin. Jadi siapa sebenarnya yang menipu dan pengganas sekarang?
Bangsa Arab tertipu dan tertipu lagi buat selamanya.
Tertubuhnya negara Zionis melalui penipuan terancang inilah yang menjadi musabab yang membawa kepada Perang Enam Hari (P6H) disamping peperangan lain yang tidak pernah kunjung padam sehingga ke hari ini.
Jadi apakah perjanjian damai yang dimetrai oleh pemimpin-pemimpin Arab dan Yahudi selama ini dijamin keihklasannya atau hanya gula-gula sahaja?
Kesimpulan awal.
Perancangan Yahudi dengan proksinya pada WWI akhirnya menjadi iaitu:-
1. Melemahkan pemerintahan Khalifah Islam Ottoman dari dalam dan seterusnya dari dunia Islam,
2. Memperdaya puak-puak Arab untuk memberontak,
3. Secara terancang memadam dominasi Syerif Mekah Bani Hashim dari Tanah Haram,
4. Melantik puak badwi Saud sebagai proksi atau wakil dunia Islam bagi mengganti Syerif Mekah (1924),
5. Menubuhkan negara Zionis ditengah-tengah dunia Arab.
6. Tidak akan sesekali membenarkan umat Islam mengumpul kekuatan untuk bangun semula.
Selanjutnya kisah Perang Enam Hari (P6H)...cubaan Pak Arab mengganyang si Zionis.
Dicatat oleh Herman Abdullah di 19:51 0 ulasan Pautan pada catatan ini
Label: Artikel, Perspektif, Sejarah Perang, The Malay Press
Menurut Hamka didalam bukunya yang bertajuk Sejarah Umat Islam (1994:649) setelah habis dihalau saki baki tentera muslimin Turki dari bumi Palestin , maka tekeluarlah kata-kata dari perut Edmund Henry Hynman Allenby pemimpin tentera British ketika itu " Sekarang baru selesai perang salib".
Arakian terlunaslah sudah dendam yang bersarang didada bangsa Eropah sejak beratus tahun lamanya. Jadi bagi pihak Eropah, WWI adalah pemutus kepada perang salib. Benarkah?
Tersilap percaturan.
Kesilapan pemimpin Arab pada WWI adalah kerana terlalu mempercayai bangsa Eropah. Manakala fahaman assabiah yang tebal dikalangan puak badwi Arab pula berjaya dimanipulasi oleh Lawrence of Arabia untuk memecah-belahkan kesatuan empayar Islam Ottoman di Semenanjung Tanah Arab.
Menurut sumber risikan, Lawrence dalam diarinya yang bertarikh Januari 1916, menggambarkan pemberontakan Arab (Arab Revolt) seperti berikut:
"pemberontakan Arab ini amat berguna buat kita. Bersuaian dengan matlamat kita untuk memecahkan blok Islam dan seterusnya mengalahkan Empire Ottoman, dan sebab negara yang akan ditubuhkan oleh Sharif Hussein...tidak akan merbahaya kepada kita.
...orang Arab ini lemah dari orang Turki. Jika dikawal dengan betul, mereka ini hanya akan menjadi negara yang pecah-berketak (mosaic), penuh dengan dengki-cemburu di antara satu sama lain dan sememangnya tidak akan bersatu"(Hussein-McMahon Correspondence 1915 and The Arab Revolt)
Tambah lagi dengan kelesuan sistem pemerintahan Khalifah Islam di Turki ketika itu (Hamka, 1994, p649). Saban hari diracun oleh idealogi sekular 'Young Turk' tajaan Freemason, Yahudi dan Bahai yang sememangnya bertujuan untuk menjahanamkan sistem pemerintahan Khalifah Islam Turki. Maka makin mudahlah jarum mereka berjalan.
Kemuncak kepada kehancuran pemerintahan Ottoman adalah apabila gerakan Freemasonry berjaya menyelinap masuk dan mempengaruhi pihak atasan angkatan tenteranya, tidak lain dan tidak bukan iaitu melalui Mustafa Kemal.
Apa cerita Syerif Mekah dan Ibnu Saud?
Secara ringkasnya, Amir Faisal ( anak Syerif Hussein) yang dilantik oleh British untuk menentang tentera Turki setelah dijanjikan pangkat 'King of Syria' dalam 'Dasmascus Protocol 1915-1916' telah berjaya dipermainkan.
Keputusan pihak Syerif Mekah untuk bersepakat dengan puak British diambil setelah Ali bin Hussain (anak sulong Syarif Hussain) mengetahui yang pemerintah Ottoman ingin menggantikan bapanya dengan Ali Haidar (juga dari Bani Hashim) sebagai Syarif Mekah yang baru.
Walaupun telah dinasihati oleh pihak yang mencurigai kejujuran British Kristian, mereka teruskan juga kesepakatan itu. Adalah juga dipercayai, peperangan itu adalah berlandaskan nasionalisma bangsa Arab dan bukan peperangan fisabillillah..
Boleh jadi kerajaan Ottoman ingin menggantikan Syarif Hussain setelah mendapat maklumat tentang niat pemberontakan Syarif Hussain ini sejak awal lagi. Buat pengetahuan pembaca, semasa Khalifah Ottoman memerintah dunia Islam, kepentingan Bani Hashim tetap di jaga malah pemerintahan autonomi di Mekah dan Madinah adalah dibawah seliaan Bani Hashim.
Tetapi malangya, setelah berjaya mengalahkan tentera Ottoman dari tanah Hejaz, baginda Amir Faisal akhirnya disepak keluar oleh British dan Perancis dari Syria lalu dijadikan 'King of Iraq'.
Mengikut cerita, Syerif Mekah ini pada mulanya berperang disamping tentera Ottoman untuk mengusir puak Saud dari Hejaz pada tahun 1910 iaitu sebelum WWI, tetapi kemudian menentang pula kerajaan Ottoman pada WWI disamping tentera British. Satu tindakan politik yang amat sukar difahami.
(Adakah baginda Syarif Hussain sudah dapat meramalkan tentang kejatuhan Khalifah Ottoman ditangan sekular 'Young Turks' ? maka dengan itu baginda ingin berpecah?)
Selepas itu, tanpa sokongan British, bani Hashim dapat dikalahkan kembali oleh musuh utama mereka dari puak Saud. Menyebabkan mereka terhalau keluar dari Mekah pada tahun 1924. Oleh itu berakhirlah sudah pemerintahan Syerif Mekah dari Semenanjung Tanah Arab...kemana mereka?
Apabila sudah tiada penentangan dari pihak Syarif Mekah, maka ibnu Saud diangkat menjadi Raja Hejaz dengan gelaran 'Al-Malik'. Tiada lagi mereka memakai gelaran Sultan.
Lalu ditukar nama kerajaannya yang baru kepada Kerajaan Arabiyah Sa'udiyah. Kerajaan ini diakui 100% kemerdekaannya oleh British, Belanda, Perancis, Italia, Rusia, Turki dan lain-lain. (Hamka, 1994).
Pengiktirafan pihak Eropah inilah titik mulanya kekuasan mutlak ibnu Saud ditanah Arab. Turki waktu itu sudahpun dibawah pengaruh sekular.
Di dalam tahun 1936M terjumpa pula minyak dikawasan Al-Ahsa dan Zahran oleh syarikat Amerika. Sekelip mata kawasan kering-kontang itu mendapat nikmat. Oleh itu raja Badwi - Raja Ibnu Saud menjadi raja terkaya didunia dalam beberapa tahun sahaja. Tidak kurang gembira syarikat-syarikat minyak Amerika-British dan Eropah kerana mendapat laba dari hasil minyak tersebut.
Tidak hairanlah mengapa hubungan raja-raja ibnu Saud ini terlalu akrab dengan Amerika dan British. Boleh jadi termakan budi agaknya.
Seperkara lagi yang patut direnungkan adalah, setelah habisnya WWI, kebanyakkan pemerintahan di negara-negara Islam adalah dengan perkenan dan restu British, bukan lagi berlandaskan sistem pengisytiharan khalifah yang sebenar.
British mungkir janji.
Antara punca sebenar keadaan ini adalah apabila British mungkir janji. Status 'King of Hejaz' seperti yang dijanjikan kepada Syarif Hussein tidak dilunaskan. Rupanya mereka sudahpun berkira-kira dengan Perancis dalam rancangan Skykes-Picot 1915 untuk membahagikan Palestin dan Lebanon jika mereka berjaya mengalahkan Khalifah Ottoman.
Setelah segala perancangan mereka berhasil, British dengan secara licik membawa pihak Amerika menjadi orang tengah untuk menyelesaikan kekalutan dan pertikaian mengenai pembahagian tanah Lebanon dan Palestin. Ternyata puak Arab yang tanpa ketua ini terpaksa menerima apa sahaja cadangan pihak British-France-Amerika tanpa banyak bicara.
Kali ini mereka dibentangkan pula dengan satu pungutan suara menipu yang dinamakan 'King- Crane Commission 1919', yang menyebabkan wilayah Syam terbahagi dua, iaitu Palestin dibawah pemerintahan British manakala Syria Labanon dibawah Perancis. (Hamka, 1994:650).
Apabila British mendapat mandat untuk memerintah Palestin maka mereka pun terus melaksanakan apa yang terkandung dalam 'Deklarasi Belfaour 1917'.
Yang mana dalam deklarasi tersebut, dengan hanya lebih kurang 150 patah perkataan, James Belfaour dengan persetujuan Kabinet Perang England dan dengan perkenan Permaisuri England telah mengiktiraf kewujudan Persekutuan Zionis yang akhirnya menjadi Negara Yahudi.
Sejak itu berduyun-duyunlah Yahudi seluruh Eropah turun berkampung di Palestin. Mereka membuat penempatan haram dan membuat kacau sehingga mengocak kerharmonian yang selama ini dirasai dibawah kepimpinan kerajaan Islam Ottoman.
Tanah Palestin bertukar tangan.
Deklarasi Belfour dan pemberian mandat kepada British menyebabkan kerakyatan negara Palestin bertukar tangan. 90 peratus penduduk asal Palestin yakni bangsa Arab dianggap sebagai rakyat asing manakala pendatang haram Yahudi pula mendapat status peribumi. Ini membuatkan pihak seluruh warga Arab ternganga.
Setelah itu bermulalah pemberontakan demi pemberontakan sehingga membawa kepada peperangan Arab-Israel 1948 yang mengukuhkan lagi cengkaman Zionis dibumi Palestin.
Begitulah cara puak Yahudi merompak tanah Arab palestin. Jadi siapa sebenarnya yang menipu dan pengganas sekarang?
Bangsa Arab tertipu dan tertipu lagi buat selamanya.
Tertubuhnya negara Zionis melalui penipuan terancang inilah yang menjadi musabab yang membawa kepada Perang Enam Hari (P6H) disamping peperangan lain yang tidak pernah kunjung padam sehingga ke hari ini.
Jadi apakah perjanjian damai yang dimetrai oleh pemimpin-pemimpin Arab dan Yahudi selama ini dijamin keihklasannya atau hanya gula-gula sahaja?
Kesimpulan awal.
Perancangan Yahudi dengan proksinya pada WWI akhirnya menjadi iaitu:-
1. Melemahkan pemerintahan Khalifah Islam Ottoman dari dalam dan seterusnya dari dunia Islam,
2. Memperdaya puak-puak Arab untuk memberontak,
3. Secara terancang memadam dominasi Syerif Mekah Bani Hashim dari Tanah Haram,
4. Melantik puak badwi Saud sebagai proksi atau wakil dunia Islam bagi mengganti Syerif Mekah (1924),
5. Menubuhkan negara Zionis ditengah-tengah dunia Arab.
6. Tidak akan sesekali membenarkan umat Islam mengumpul kekuatan untuk bangun semula.
Selanjutnya kisah Perang Enam Hari (P6H)...cubaan Pak Arab mengganyang si Zionis.
Dicatat oleh Herman Abdullah di 19:51 0 ulasan Pautan pada catatan ini
Label: Artikel, Perspektif, Sejarah Perang, The Malay Press
Getting kids to enjoy learning
Getting kids to enjoy learning
April 30th, 2008 by Halimahton
Learning should be enjoyable.
Many people have asked us how it’s possible to get children to achieve so early. There’s been a lot of guessing and very few facts, simply because in the past I never liked to talk publicly about the way I brought up my children. I’ve always preferred doing practical things instead of talking, but in any case, I think it’s better if people know the facts, so from time to time I’ll write about various aspects of my teaching philosophy on this blog.
Since there is so much to write about, it would be impossible for me to cover everything here, but I hope and believe that people — especially fellow parents and teachers — will find this information useful. I’ll be writing and talking about my teaching style in more detail elsewhere; this first post just covers one small (albeit very important) aspect of my general approach to teaching.
Let’s now go back to what I said in the opening paragraph: learning should be enjoyable. I started teaching my children from birth, and if you spend time with babies it’s easy to see that they are incredibly curious and receptive to new information. In other words, they want to learn!
If you are able to spend some time with a baby (preferably one who likes you!), here’s something simple you can do to see this for yourself. Hold up a toy in front of him — almost any simple and colourful toy will do — at a distance of about 20cm from his face.
Pay close attention to the way he reacts: depending on his age, he will do anything from focusing on the toy and tracking it with his eyes and head to reaching out and grabbing it.
In fact, if he’s able to, he almost certainly will try to take the toy from you, after which he might manipulate it and study it from all angles, or shake it, or put the toy in his mouth, or drop it, and so on.
What’s the baby trying to do? He’s trying to learn about the toy, of course! He wants to know what it looks like, how it feels, how it tastes, and what happens when he shakes or drops it. The baby is also learning about himself; among other things, he’s figuring out how to coordinate his movements and he’s also developing his motor skills.
Clearly, then, babies are very curious about the world around them. This innate love of learning makes them easy to teach, not to mention extremely rapid learners! Because of this, I consider the first five years of a child’s life to be the most important as far as their education is concerned.
Aside from developing fundamental skills such as speaking, reading, and writing, the first five years are a great time for a child to acquire good learning habits such as a high attention span, a strong bond with their parents/teachers, and a simple enjoyment of learning (whether it be from books, things he’s playing with, conversations with other people, TV, the garden, or anywhere else).
This blog isn’t the right place to go into all these areas in detail (unless anyone wants to read 20,000-word posts!), but I do hope to at least be able to give people some of the general ideas.
Making learning fun for babies and toddlers
“Making” learning enjoyable for a child is easiest if you simply get him to maintain his natural love of learning from his earliest days as a baby. All you have to do is spot the times when he wants to learn (e.g. when he’s showing interest in a toy or person) and then come up with some fun learning activities for him.
Don’t forget that you’re trying to get him to retain his existing enjoyment of learning, so it’s important that he associates learning with positive experiences. Have a sense of fun/humour, and don’t worry about setting goals or targets for your baby; just enjoy the time you spend with your child and seeing him learn for what it is.
Try to keep your learning activities exciting or at least interesting; to do this, you might have to be a little creative in the way you introduce new things to your baby. For instance, simply speaking to him in a sing-song voice will help keep him amused and interested.
Patience is essential. Only teach your baby as long as he is interested in the learning activity, and if he seems to have completely lost interest (e.g. he is looking somewhere else) or is no longer alert, just stop! There’s always another day.
Let’s now talk about what not to do: it’s crucial that you don’t make learning dull, tedious, or overly repetitive for your child, as this will cause him to start associating learning with negative experiences from an early age. These negative associations tend to stick with children for a long time.
Essentially, all you have to do here is not suck all the fun out of learning. One simple thing you can do is to make sure that the learning activity is interesting and pleasant for you, as your child will very often feel the same way. In fact, you’ll often find that you naturally communicate your interest and excitement in the activity to your child.
Making learning fun for older children
Let’s now talk about the case of older children; in particular, children who, for one reason or another, seem to dislike their studies or learning in general. The trick here is to get to know your child well and figure out what will make learning fun for your child.
So what does make learning enjoyable for a child? It depends on the child’s personality, of course, but here are some of the more common possibilities:
The child likes the challenge and resulting sense of accomplishment that comes from learning new things
He enjoys spending time with and/or receiving attention from his parent/teacher/carer
He enjoys learning informally through hands-on activities (e.g. cake baking or upgrading a computer) and/or educational-but-informal discussions (e.g. “why do some people have curly or straight hair?” or “where does the picture on the TV come from?”)
Positive peer pressure: he likes to compete with other children and tries to outperform his peers
His studies are integrated with something he already enjoys (e.g. he can write essays about computer games or see how maths is used in football)
A parent/teacher/carer has made learning fun for him at an early age, and hence he’s come to associate learning with good feelings
He likes to show off!
Which of the above applies to your child? If you’re not sure, it’s a good idea to find out! Here are two examples to illustrate how you might use this knowledge to make learning enjoyable for your child.
Example: Focusing
Suppose your child has difficulty focusing on his schoolwork for very long, but is happy to play computer games for many hours every day. What you have to do here is figure out why he is willing to focus on computer games but not his studies.
If you’ve realised that the challenge-and-frequent- reward system in games keeps him interested for a long time, you could divide his work up into a series of small challenges and give him a reward after he overcomes each challenge. You could give him a sweet for each question he answers, or if he doesn’t even want to get started, reward or congratulate him for just writing his name down!
Alternately — or at the same time — you could offer to let him play games for as long as he likes provided that he finishes his work for the day. This will have the side benefit of helping him understand that doing his work now leads to rewards in the long term.
Depending on the kind of work he is doing, you could try to integrate his gaming hobby into his work. If he needs to write an essay, for instance, you can ask him to write about what he likes about his favourite games or to describe his favourite gaming characters.
If he doesn’t know why maths or physics are useful, you can help him find out how computer games are made so that he can see how these subjects are used by people who program games. Or he might just prefer to use computers in general, in which case you should let him do as much work as he can on his computer.
Example: Reading
If your child doesn’t like to read, there are many things you can do to encourage him. As always, your task is to use your understanding of your child to figure out what it is that might get him to like reading.
The easiest thing to do is to simply let him read about things that interest him. Since there is written material covering virtually every subject known to mankind, this should not be difficult!
Get him used to the idea of reading to find out more about the things he likes or is interested in. If he likes fast cars, ask him if he can find (via books or the Internet) the top speeds of the fastest cars, how cars are built for speed, and so on. You should also try to integrate reading into his daily life — if he’s going to the dentist for the first time, borrow a book on the subject so that he can find out what will happen during his visit!
Some children dislike reading because they can’t see how the text might be interesting or entertaining, especially if they’re reading a book that isn’t illustrated. If this is the case for your child, liven up his reading by acting out the book’s content with him. Be imaginative and read the book with a great deal of expressiveness; if he’s reading a story, make it seem like the story is actually happening in front of him. Over time, he’ll gradually start associating books with the excitement he gets from reading with you.
You might notice that your child likes to do the same things as his peers or the people around him in order to fit in. In this case, you could take him regularly to the children’s section of your local library — initially, he might not read anything, but if he sees that everyone around him is happily reading, he’ll be much more inclined to pick up a book for himself. Encourage him by showing him how to navigate the library to find books about things that interest him; at this stage, it doesn’t really matter what he reads, as long as he makes a start.
Bear in mind the fact that I haven’t covered everything in this example! There are lots of other possible reasons why a child might not like to read, such as being restless or having a low attention span; I’ve only discussed a few of the problems here. Likewise, there are many other potential remedies for reading problems that I haven’t been able to cover in this post.
Posted in Articles, Education & Learning
April 30th, 2008 by Halimahton
Learning should be enjoyable.
Many people have asked us how it’s possible to get children to achieve so early. There’s been a lot of guessing and very few facts, simply because in the past I never liked to talk publicly about the way I brought up my children. I’ve always preferred doing practical things instead of talking, but in any case, I think it’s better if people know the facts, so from time to time I’ll write about various aspects of my teaching philosophy on this blog.
Since there is so much to write about, it would be impossible for me to cover everything here, but I hope and believe that people — especially fellow parents and teachers — will find this information useful. I’ll be writing and talking about my teaching style in more detail elsewhere; this first post just covers one small (albeit very important) aspect of my general approach to teaching.
Let’s now go back to what I said in the opening paragraph: learning should be enjoyable. I started teaching my children from birth, and if you spend time with babies it’s easy to see that they are incredibly curious and receptive to new information. In other words, they want to learn!
If you are able to spend some time with a baby (preferably one who likes you!), here’s something simple you can do to see this for yourself. Hold up a toy in front of him — almost any simple and colourful toy will do — at a distance of about 20cm from his face.
Pay close attention to the way he reacts: depending on his age, he will do anything from focusing on the toy and tracking it with his eyes and head to reaching out and grabbing it.
In fact, if he’s able to, he almost certainly will try to take the toy from you, after which he might manipulate it and study it from all angles, or shake it, or put the toy in his mouth, or drop it, and so on.
What’s the baby trying to do? He’s trying to learn about the toy, of course! He wants to know what it looks like, how it feels, how it tastes, and what happens when he shakes or drops it. The baby is also learning about himself; among other things, he’s figuring out how to coordinate his movements and he’s also developing his motor skills.
Clearly, then, babies are very curious about the world around them. This innate love of learning makes them easy to teach, not to mention extremely rapid learners! Because of this, I consider the first five years of a child’s life to be the most important as far as their education is concerned.
Aside from developing fundamental skills such as speaking, reading, and writing, the first five years are a great time for a child to acquire good learning habits such as a high attention span, a strong bond with their parents/teachers, and a simple enjoyment of learning (whether it be from books, things he’s playing with, conversations with other people, TV, the garden, or anywhere else).
This blog isn’t the right place to go into all these areas in detail (unless anyone wants to read 20,000-word posts!), but I do hope to at least be able to give people some of the general ideas.
Making learning fun for babies and toddlers
“Making” learning enjoyable for a child is easiest if you simply get him to maintain his natural love of learning from his earliest days as a baby. All you have to do is spot the times when he wants to learn (e.g. when he’s showing interest in a toy or person) and then come up with some fun learning activities for him.
Don’t forget that you’re trying to get him to retain his existing enjoyment of learning, so it’s important that he associates learning with positive experiences. Have a sense of fun/humour, and don’t worry about setting goals or targets for your baby; just enjoy the time you spend with your child and seeing him learn for what it is.
Try to keep your learning activities exciting or at least interesting; to do this, you might have to be a little creative in the way you introduce new things to your baby. For instance, simply speaking to him in a sing-song voice will help keep him amused and interested.
Patience is essential. Only teach your baby as long as he is interested in the learning activity, and if he seems to have completely lost interest (e.g. he is looking somewhere else) or is no longer alert, just stop! There’s always another day.
Let’s now talk about what not to do: it’s crucial that you don’t make learning dull, tedious, or overly repetitive for your child, as this will cause him to start associating learning with negative experiences from an early age. These negative associations tend to stick with children for a long time.
Essentially, all you have to do here is not suck all the fun out of learning. One simple thing you can do is to make sure that the learning activity is interesting and pleasant for you, as your child will very often feel the same way. In fact, you’ll often find that you naturally communicate your interest and excitement in the activity to your child.
Making learning fun for older children
Let’s now talk about the case of older children; in particular, children who, for one reason or another, seem to dislike their studies or learning in general. The trick here is to get to know your child well and figure out what will make learning fun for your child.
So what does make learning enjoyable for a child? It depends on the child’s personality, of course, but here are some of the more common possibilities:
The child likes the challenge and resulting sense of accomplishment that comes from learning new things
He enjoys spending time with and/or receiving attention from his parent/teacher/carer
He enjoys learning informally through hands-on activities (e.g. cake baking or upgrading a computer) and/or educational-but-informal discussions (e.g. “why do some people have curly or straight hair?” or “where does the picture on the TV come from?”)
Positive peer pressure: he likes to compete with other children and tries to outperform his peers
His studies are integrated with something he already enjoys (e.g. he can write essays about computer games or see how maths is used in football)
A parent/teacher/carer has made learning fun for him at an early age, and hence he’s come to associate learning with good feelings
He likes to show off!
Which of the above applies to your child? If you’re not sure, it’s a good idea to find out! Here are two examples to illustrate how you might use this knowledge to make learning enjoyable for your child.
Example: Focusing
Suppose your child has difficulty focusing on his schoolwork for very long, but is happy to play computer games for many hours every day. What you have to do here is figure out why he is willing to focus on computer games but not his studies.
If you’ve realised that the challenge-and-frequent- reward system in games keeps him interested for a long time, you could divide his work up into a series of small challenges and give him a reward after he overcomes each challenge. You could give him a sweet for each question he answers, or if he doesn’t even want to get started, reward or congratulate him for just writing his name down!
Alternately — or at the same time — you could offer to let him play games for as long as he likes provided that he finishes his work for the day. This will have the side benefit of helping him understand that doing his work now leads to rewards in the long term.
Depending on the kind of work he is doing, you could try to integrate his gaming hobby into his work. If he needs to write an essay, for instance, you can ask him to write about what he likes about his favourite games or to describe his favourite gaming characters.
If he doesn’t know why maths or physics are useful, you can help him find out how computer games are made so that he can see how these subjects are used by people who program games. Or he might just prefer to use computers in general, in which case you should let him do as much work as he can on his computer.
Example: Reading
If your child doesn’t like to read, there are many things you can do to encourage him. As always, your task is to use your understanding of your child to figure out what it is that might get him to like reading.
The easiest thing to do is to simply let him read about things that interest him. Since there is written material covering virtually every subject known to mankind, this should not be difficult!
Get him used to the idea of reading to find out more about the things he likes or is interested in. If he likes fast cars, ask him if he can find (via books or the Internet) the top speeds of the fastest cars, how cars are built for speed, and so on. You should also try to integrate reading into his daily life — if he’s going to the dentist for the first time, borrow a book on the subject so that he can find out what will happen during his visit!
Some children dislike reading because they can’t see how the text might be interesting or entertaining, especially if they’re reading a book that isn’t illustrated. If this is the case for your child, liven up his reading by acting out the book’s content with him. Be imaginative and read the book with a great deal of expressiveness; if he’s reading a story, make it seem like the story is actually happening in front of him. Over time, he’ll gradually start associating books with the excitement he gets from reading with you.
You might notice that your child likes to do the same things as his peers or the people around him in order to fit in. In this case, you could take him regularly to the children’s section of your local library — initially, he might not read anything, but if he sees that everyone around him is happily reading, he’ll be much more inclined to pick up a book for himself. Encourage him by showing him how to navigate the library to find books about things that interest him; at this stage, it doesn’t really matter what he reads, as long as he makes a start.
Bear in mind the fact that I haven’t covered everything in this example! There are lots of other possible reasons why a child might not like to read, such as being restless or having a low attention span; I’ve only discussed a few of the problems here. Likewise, there are many other potential remedies for reading problems that I haven’t been able to cover in this post.
Posted in Articles, Education & Learning
The Racist Card
The Racist Card
By Dr Mahathir Mohammed
[EDISI BAHASA MELAYU DI BAWAH ARTIKEL INI]
It is strange that whenever people like Param Cumaraswamy accuse others of being racist they end up by exposing the racist in them. For them you are racist only if you talk about Malays and their need to catch up with other races. If you talk of the imagined plight of other races in Malaysia, and make ridiculous statements that the Tamil Indians in Malaysia are facing “ethnic cleansing” when you know that no such thing is happening, it is not racist.
It is only in Malaysia that people of immigrant origins, so identified by their insistence on being linked race-wise with their countries of origin, are actually accepted as citizens.
In other countries including the much-admired democracies of the West, citizens are not linked to or classified by their countries of origin. They speak the national language habitually, go to schools where the national language is the medium of instruction and adopt the culture of the indigenous people, or at least the people who originally founded these countries (the indigenous people having been systematically wiped out).
But in Malaysia although the national language is the language of the indigenous people, many Malaysian citizens cannot speak the language, much less use it habitually in their homes and with fellow citizens. Whenever some foreigner speak Bahasa Malaysia to them, they would reply in English. Foreigners cannot understand why they seem to downgrade their national language. And yet these citizens question why there is, for practical purpose, no Bangsa Malaysia.
Schools using languages of the countries of origin are not only permitted but are actually financed by the Government. Try and find such schools in South East Asia or in the so-called liberal developed countries where they claim there is no racial discrimination. There are actually more Indians in the United Kingdom than in Malaysia. But there is not a single school where the teaching medium is in any of the Indian languages.
People like Param would not notice all these. Instead he sees the effort to bring up the indigenous people to the level of the non-indigenous people as racist. Arrogantly he seems to want the indigenous people become the deprived in their own country.
I admit that I spoke on “Ketuanan Melayu” in Johor. The Malay intellectuals have been talking about this for a long time. There was no suggestion about them being racist or that they should be detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA).
I spoke on this issue critically as I consider that claiming to be masters when you are not is ridiculous. How can the Malay driver driving a car belonging to someone else regard himself as the “Tuan” and the owner of the car as inferior to him? Actually it is the owner and his employer who is the “Tuan”.
In my speech my advise to the Malays is to acquire knowledge and skills and use them to enrich themselves for only then can they be regarded by their servants and employees as “Tuan”.
Is this seditious or near seditious? Is speaking about Malays and their needs seditious?
On the other hand let us consider the Hindraf memorandum to the British. Most people including Indians have not read it. To gain the support of the Tamil Indians, Hindraf demands that the British compensate every Tamil Indian in Malaysia one million pounds sterling (about RM 7 million). That should tempt even middle-class Indians. Surely Indian workers would fall for it.
The Hindraf memorandum also contains the following extracts which are obviously racist;
1) “Commonwealth ethnic Indian peace loving subjects in Malaysia persecuted by Government backed Islamic extremist violent armed terrorist who launched a pre-dawn violent armed attack and destroyed the Kg Jawa Mariamman Hindu temple at 4.00am this morning (15.11.07)”.
2) “Appeal for United Kingdom to move emergency United Nations Resolution condemning “Ethnic Cleansing” in Malaysia”.
I will not quote other highly inflammatory remarks found in the Hindraf memorandum. However I would like to mention the threat made by Hindraf in its conclusion;
“We fear that the peace loving Indian community of Tamil origin having been pushed to the corner and the persecution getting worse by the day may be forced into terrorism in a matter of time as what has happened to the Sri Lankan Tamils”.
Is Hindraf planning to make Malaysia a Southeast Asian Sri Lanka?
I don’t believe the majority of the Tamils in Malaysia would agree with the picture painted by Hindraf. Unfortunately, like the Malays, few of them read the actual memorandum. And so they support Hindraf blindly.
But if you read what I have quoted would you not conclude that Hindraf and Param Cumaraswamy, who objected to their detention under the ISA as racist especially as his desire to have me detained under the Act for telling the Malays to realise that they are not “Tuan” when they have to clean the shoes of others. If they want to be “Tuan”, then they must acquire the skills and knowledge to succeed in life. And when they succeed they would be highly regarded whether they are called “Tuan” or not.
It seems that according to Param Cumaraswamy talking about Malays is seditious.
Who is racist; Param Cumaraswamy or Dr Mahathir?
I am not going to call for his detention.
He should as a lawyer who understands the law, decide whether he is a racist and should be detained or not.
*************
[EDISI BAHASA MELAYU]
Perkauman Sebagai Modal
Adalah agak menghairankan apabila orang seperti Param Cumaraswamy menuduh orang lain bersifat perkauman kata-kata mereka mendedahkan sifat perkauman mereka sendiri. Bagi mereka, seseorang itu “racist” (bersifat perkauman) cuma apabila bercakap mengenai bangsa Melayu dan keperluan mereka untuk berusaha mengejar pencapaian bangsa lain.
Tetapi, jika mereka bercakap mengenai masalah kaum lain yang tidak berasas dan tidak benar seperti membuat kenyataan karut bahawa kaum India Tamil di Malaysia menghadapi “penghapusan etnik” yang masyarakat tahu ianya tidak terjadi, ini tidak dianggap bersifat perkauman.
Cuma di Malaysia sahaja orang daripada kaum pendatang, atas kehendak mereka sendiri dikenali dan dikaitkan dengan negara asal mereka, telah diterima sebagai warga negara.
Di negara-negara lain, termasuklah di negara Barat yang demokrasi mereka begitu dikagumi, warga negaranya tidak dikaitkan mahupun diklasifikasikan mengikut negara asal mereka. Mereka juga selalu menggunakan bahasa kebangsaan, negara berkenaan, bersekolah dimana bahasa kebangsaan menjadi bahasa pengantar dan menerima adat resam bangsa pribumi ataupun bangsa yang mula-mula menubuhkan negara itu (apabila bangsa pribumi telah dihapuskan secara terancang).
Tetapi di Malaysia walaupun bahasa kebangsaan adalah bahasa pribumi, ramai rakyat Malaysia yang tidak boleh bertutur bahasa tersebut, malahan secara lazimnya tidak menggunakan bahasa itu di rumah mahupun dengan rakyat Malaysia yang lain. Apabila orang asing bercakap dalam Bahasa Malaysia mereka akan menjawab dalam Bahasa Inggeris. Orang asing tidak mengerti mengapa mereka kelihatan merendah-rendahkan bahasa kebangsaan mereka sendiri. Di dalam masa yang sama mereka ini menyoal mengapa tiada Bangsa Malaysia.
Sekolah-sekolah yang menggunakan bahasa negara asal mereka bukan sahaja dibenarkan malahan dibiayai oleh Kerajaan. Cuba cari sekolah sebegini di Asia Tenggara ataupun di negara-negara maju yang dianggap liberal dan didakwa tidak berlaku diskriminasi kaum. Sebenarnya terdapat lebih ramai orang keturunan India di United Kingdom daripada di Malaysia. Tetapi tidak ada sebuah sekolah pun yang mengguna bahasa-bahasa India sebagai bahasa pengantar di United Kingdom.
Orang seperti Param tidak akan nampak semua ini. Sebaliknya dia melihat sebarang usaha untuk meningkatkan keupayaan rakyat pribumi supaya setanding dengan rakyat bukan pribumi sebagai bersifat perkauman. Dengan bongkak dia seolah-olah mahu melihat rakyat pribumi semuanya mengemis didalam negara mereka sendiri.
Saya mengaku saya bercakap mengenai Ketuanan Melayu semasa di Johor. Sebelum itu, cendekiawan-cendekiawan Melayu telah begitu lama bercakap mengenainya. Tidak pernah ada pandangan bahawa mereka itu bersifat perkauman ataupun ada cadangan supaya mereka ditahan dibawah Akta Dalam Negeri (ISA – Internal Security Act).
Saya bercakap mengenai isu itu secara kritis kerana saya menganggap mendakwa diri kita sebagai tuan bila kita bukan tuan adalah aneh. Bagaimanakah boleh seorang pemandu Melayu yang memandu kereta kepunyaan orang lain menganggap dirinya “Tuan” dan pemilik kereta itu berkedudukan lebih rendah daripada dirinya? “Tuan” yang sebenarnya adalah pemilik kereta dan orang yang membayar gajinya.
Di dalam ucapan saya, saya menasihatkan orang Melayu supaya menimba ilmu dan kemahiran supaya boleh digunakan untuk mencari kekayaan bagi diri mereka kerana cuma dengan cara demikian sahaja mereka akan dianggap “Tuan” oleh orang suruhan dan pekerja mereka.
Adakah ini hasutan ataupun menghasut? Adakah membicarakan mengenai bangsa Melayu dan kepentingan mereka menjadi satu hasutan?
Sebaliknya, cuba kita teliti memorandum Hindraf kepada pihak British. Ramai termasuk kaum India tidak membacanya. Untuk mendapatkan sokongan kaum India Tamil, Hindraf mendesak pihak British supaya membayar gantirugi 1 juta pound sterling (lebih kurang RM 7 juta) kepada setiap orang kaum India Tamil yang terdapat di Malaysia. Ini sudah pasti berupaya mempengaruhi bukan sahaja mereka yang berpendapatan rendah tetapi juga golongan pertengahan dari keturunan Tamil India. Sudah pasti golongan pekerja kaum India terpengaruh.
Terdapat juga didalam memorandum Hindraf sedutan-sedutan seperti berikut yang jelas bersifat perkauman:
1) “Kaum India Komanwel yang merupakan rakyat yang mencintai keamanan di Malaysia ditindas oleh Kerajaan yang didokong oleh pengganas bersenjata kelompok ekstremis Islam telah dengan ganasnya melancarkan satu serangan bersenjata sebelum subuh dan memusnahkan Tokong Hindu Mariamman di Kampung Jawa pada pukul 4 pagi ini (15.11.07)”.
2) “Memohon kepada United Kingdom untuk membentangkan satu resolusi tergempar Pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu mengutuk “Penghapusan Etnik” di Malaysia”.
Saya tidak mahu menambah lagi lain-lain kenyataan yang begitu mengapi-ngapikan perasaan perkauman yang terdapat didalam memorandum Hindraf tersebut.
Walau bagaimanapun, saya ingin menyebut mengenai ugutan yang dibuat oleh Hindraf didalam kesimpulannya;
“Kami risau kaum India berketurunan Tamil yang cintakan keamanan setelah dipinggirkan dan ditindas, semakin hari semakin teruk, akan pada satu ketika, secara terpaksa mengambil langkah keganasan sebagaimana yang terjadi kepada kaum Tamil di Sri Lanka.”
Adakah Hindraf bercadang menjadikan Malaysia sebagai Sri Lanka di Asia Tenggara?
Saya tidak percaya majoriti orang Tamil di Malaysia bersetuju dengan gambaran yang dibuat oleh Hindraf. Malangnya, seperti orang Melayu, cuma beberapa orang sahaja yang membaca memorandum yang sebenarnya. Jadi mereka menyokong Hindraf secara membuta-tuli.
Tetapi jika anda membaca apa yang telah saya nyatakan tidakkah anda akan membuat satu kesimpulan bahawa Hindraf dan Param Cumaraswamy, yang membantah penahanan mereka dibawah ISA bersifat perkauman, terutama di atas kehendaknya supaya saya ditahan dibawah Akta itu kerana menyatakan kepada orang Melayu supaya menyedari yang mereka bukan “Tuan” apabila mereka terpaksa mencuci kasut orang lain. Jika mereka ingin menjadi “Tuan”, mereka mesti menimba ilmu dan kecekapan untuk berjaya didalam kehidupan. Dan apabila mereka berjaya martabat mereka akan meningkat samada mereka dipanggil “Tuan” ataupun tidak.
Nampak jelas menurut Param Cumaswamy , bercakap mengenai orang Melayu adalah satu hasutan yang berbau perkauman.
Jadi siapa yang bersifat perkauman; Param Cumaraswamy atau Dr Mahathir?
Saya tidak akan meminta supaya dia ditahan.
Sebagai seorang peguam yang memahami undang-undang, dia perlu menilai dirinya samada dia seorang yang bersifat perkauman dan perlu ditahan atau tidak.
By Dr Mahathir Mohammed
[EDISI BAHASA MELAYU DI BAWAH ARTIKEL INI]
It is strange that whenever people like Param Cumaraswamy accuse others of being racist they end up by exposing the racist in them. For them you are racist only if you talk about Malays and their need to catch up with other races. If you talk of the imagined plight of other races in Malaysia, and make ridiculous statements that the Tamil Indians in Malaysia are facing “ethnic cleansing” when you know that no such thing is happening, it is not racist.
It is only in Malaysia that people of immigrant origins, so identified by their insistence on being linked race-wise with their countries of origin, are actually accepted as citizens.
In other countries including the much-admired democracies of the West, citizens are not linked to or classified by their countries of origin. They speak the national language habitually, go to schools where the national language is the medium of instruction and adopt the culture of the indigenous people, or at least the people who originally founded these countries (the indigenous people having been systematically wiped out).
But in Malaysia although the national language is the language of the indigenous people, many Malaysian citizens cannot speak the language, much less use it habitually in their homes and with fellow citizens. Whenever some foreigner speak Bahasa Malaysia to them, they would reply in English. Foreigners cannot understand why they seem to downgrade their national language. And yet these citizens question why there is, for practical purpose, no Bangsa Malaysia.
Schools using languages of the countries of origin are not only permitted but are actually financed by the Government. Try and find such schools in South East Asia or in the so-called liberal developed countries where they claim there is no racial discrimination. There are actually more Indians in the United Kingdom than in Malaysia. But there is not a single school where the teaching medium is in any of the Indian languages.
People like Param would not notice all these. Instead he sees the effort to bring up the indigenous people to the level of the non-indigenous people as racist. Arrogantly he seems to want the indigenous people become the deprived in their own country.
I admit that I spoke on “Ketuanan Melayu” in Johor. The Malay intellectuals have been talking about this for a long time. There was no suggestion about them being racist or that they should be detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA).
I spoke on this issue critically as I consider that claiming to be masters when you are not is ridiculous. How can the Malay driver driving a car belonging to someone else regard himself as the “Tuan” and the owner of the car as inferior to him? Actually it is the owner and his employer who is the “Tuan”.
In my speech my advise to the Malays is to acquire knowledge and skills and use them to enrich themselves for only then can they be regarded by their servants and employees as “Tuan”.
Is this seditious or near seditious? Is speaking about Malays and their needs seditious?
On the other hand let us consider the Hindraf memorandum to the British. Most people including Indians have not read it. To gain the support of the Tamil Indians, Hindraf demands that the British compensate every Tamil Indian in Malaysia one million pounds sterling (about RM 7 million). That should tempt even middle-class Indians. Surely Indian workers would fall for it.
The Hindraf memorandum also contains the following extracts which are obviously racist;
1) “Commonwealth ethnic Indian peace loving subjects in Malaysia persecuted by Government backed Islamic extremist violent armed terrorist who launched a pre-dawn violent armed attack and destroyed the Kg Jawa Mariamman Hindu temple at 4.00am this morning (15.11.07)”.
2) “Appeal for United Kingdom to move emergency United Nations Resolution condemning “Ethnic Cleansing” in Malaysia”.
I will not quote other highly inflammatory remarks found in the Hindraf memorandum. However I would like to mention the threat made by Hindraf in its conclusion;
“We fear that the peace loving Indian community of Tamil origin having been pushed to the corner and the persecution getting worse by the day may be forced into terrorism in a matter of time as what has happened to the Sri Lankan Tamils”.
Is Hindraf planning to make Malaysia a Southeast Asian Sri Lanka?
I don’t believe the majority of the Tamils in Malaysia would agree with the picture painted by Hindraf. Unfortunately, like the Malays, few of them read the actual memorandum. And so they support Hindraf blindly.
But if you read what I have quoted would you not conclude that Hindraf and Param Cumaraswamy, who objected to their detention under the ISA as racist especially as his desire to have me detained under the Act for telling the Malays to realise that they are not “Tuan” when they have to clean the shoes of others. If they want to be “Tuan”, then they must acquire the skills and knowledge to succeed in life. And when they succeed they would be highly regarded whether they are called “Tuan” or not.
It seems that according to Param Cumaraswamy talking about Malays is seditious.
Who is racist; Param Cumaraswamy or Dr Mahathir?
I am not going to call for his detention.
He should as a lawyer who understands the law, decide whether he is a racist and should be detained or not.
*************
[EDISI BAHASA MELAYU]
Perkauman Sebagai Modal
Adalah agak menghairankan apabila orang seperti Param Cumaraswamy menuduh orang lain bersifat perkauman kata-kata mereka mendedahkan sifat perkauman mereka sendiri. Bagi mereka, seseorang itu “racist” (bersifat perkauman) cuma apabila bercakap mengenai bangsa Melayu dan keperluan mereka untuk berusaha mengejar pencapaian bangsa lain.
Tetapi, jika mereka bercakap mengenai masalah kaum lain yang tidak berasas dan tidak benar seperti membuat kenyataan karut bahawa kaum India Tamil di Malaysia menghadapi “penghapusan etnik” yang masyarakat tahu ianya tidak terjadi, ini tidak dianggap bersifat perkauman.
Cuma di Malaysia sahaja orang daripada kaum pendatang, atas kehendak mereka sendiri dikenali dan dikaitkan dengan negara asal mereka, telah diterima sebagai warga negara.
Di negara-negara lain, termasuklah di negara Barat yang demokrasi mereka begitu dikagumi, warga negaranya tidak dikaitkan mahupun diklasifikasikan mengikut negara asal mereka. Mereka juga selalu menggunakan bahasa kebangsaan, negara berkenaan, bersekolah dimana bahasa kebangsaan menjadi bahasa pengantar dan menerima adat resam bangsa pribumi ataupun bangsa yang mula-mula menubuhkan negara itu (apabila bangsa pribumi telah dihapuskan secara terancang).
Tetapi di Malaysia walaupun bahasa kebangsaan adalah bahasa pribumi, ramai rakyat Malaysia yang tidak boleh bertutur bahasa tersebut, malahan secara lazimnya tidak menggunakan bahasa itu di rumah mahupun dengan rakyat Malaysia yang lain. Apabila orang asing bercakap dalam Bahasa Malaysia mereka akan menjawab dalam Bahasa Inggeris. Orang asing tidak mengerti mengapa mereka kelihatan merendah-rendahkan bahasa kebangsaan mereka sendiri. Di dalam masa yang sama mereka ini menyoal mengapa tiada Bangsa Malaysia.
Sekolah-sekolah yang menggunakan bahasa negara asal mereka bukan sahaja dibenarkan malahan dibiayai oleh Kerajaan. Cuba cari sekolah sebegini di Asia Tenggara ataupun di negara-negara maju yang dianggap liberal dan didakwa tidak berlaku diskriminasi kaum. Sebenarnya terdapat lebih ramai orang keturunan India di United Kingdom daripada di Malaysia. Tetapi tidak ada sebuah sekolah pun yang mengguna bahasa-bahasa India sebagai bahasa pengantar di United Kingdom.
Orang seperti Param tidak akan nampak semua ini. Sebaliknya dia melihat sebarang usaha untuk meningkatkan keupayaan rakyat pribumi supaya setanding dengan rakyat bukan pribumi sebagai bersifat perkauman. Dengan bongkak dia seolah-olah mahu melihat rakyat pribumi semuanya mengemis didalam negara mereka sendiri.
Saya mengaku saya bercakap mengenai Ketuanan Melayu semasa di Johor. Sebelum itu, cendekiawan-cendekiawan Melayu telah begitu lama bercakap mengenainya. Tidak pernah ada pandangan bahawa mereka itu bersifat perkauman ataupun ada cadangan supaya mereka ditahan dibawah Akta Dalam Negeri (ISA – Internal Security Act).
Saya bercakap mengenai isu itu secara kritis kerana saya menganggap mendakwa diri kita sebagai tuan bila kita bukan tuan adalah aneh. Bagaimanakah boleh seorang pemandu Melayu yang memandu kereta kepunyaan orang lain menganggap dirinya “Tuan” dan pemilik kereta itu berkedudukan lebih rendah daripada dirinya? “Tuan” yang sebenarnya adalah pemilik kereta dan orang yang membayar gajinya.
Di dalam ucapan saya, saya menasihatkan orang Melayu supaya menimba ilmu dan kemahiran supaya boleh digunakan untuk mencari kekayaan bagi diri mereka kerana cuma dengan cara demikian sahaja mereka akan dianggap “Tuan” oleh orang suruhan dan pekerja mereka.
Adakah ini hasutan ataupun menghasut? Adakah membicarakan mengenai bangsa Melayu dan kepentingan mereka menjadi satu hasutan?
Sebaliknya, cuba kita teliti memorandum Hindraf kepada pihak British. Ramai termasuk kaum India tidak membacanya. Untuk mendapatkan sokongan kaum India Tamil, Hindraf mendesak pihak British supaya membayar gantirugi 1 juta pound sterling (lebih kurang RM 7 juta) kepada setiap orang kaum India Tamil yang terdapat di Malaysia. Ini sudah pasti berupaya mempengaruhi bukan sahaja mereka yang berpendapatan rendah tetapi juga golongan pertengahan dari keturunan Tamil India. Sudah pasti golongan pekerja kaum India terpengaruh.
Terdapat juga didalam memorandum Hindraf sedutan-sedutan seperti berikut yang jelas bersifat perkauman:
1) “Kaum India Komanwel yang merupakan rakyat yang mencintai keamanan di Malaysia ditindas oleh Kerajaan yang didokong oleh pengganas bersenjata kelompok ekstremis Islam telah dengan ganasnya melancarkan satu serangan bersenjata sebelum subuh dan memusnahkan Tokong Hindu Mariamman di Kampung Jawa pada pukul 4 pagi ini (15.11.07)”.
2) “Memohon kepada United Kingdom untuk membentangkan satu resolusi tergempar Pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu mengutuk “Penghapusan Etnik” di Malaysia”.
Saya tidak mahu menambah lagi lain-lain kenyataan yang begitu mengapi-ngapikan perasaan perkauman yang terdapat didalam memorandum Hindraf tersebut.
Walau bagaimanapun, saya ingin menyebut mengenai ugutan yang dibuat oleh Hindraf didalam kesimpulannya;
“Kami risau kaum India berketurunan Tamil yang cintakan keamanan setelah dipinggirkan dan ditindas, semakin hari semakin teruk, akan pada satu ketika, secara terpaksa mengambil langkah keganasan sebagaimana yang terjadi kepada kaum Tamil di Sri Lanka.”
Adakah Hindraf bercadang menjadikan Malaysia sebagai Sri Lanka di Asia Tenggara?
Saya tidak percaya majoriti orang Tamil di Malaysia bersetuju dengan gambaran yang dibuat oleh Hindraf. Malangnya, seperti orang Melayu, cuma beberapa orang sahaja yang membaca memorandum yang sebenarnya. Jadi mereka menyokong Hindraf secara membuta-tuli.
Tetapi jika anda membaca apa yang telah saya nyatakan tidakkah anda akan membuat satu kesimpulan bahawa Hindraf dan Param Cumaraswamy, yang membantah penahanan mereka dibawah ISA bersifat perkauman, terutama di atas kehendaknya supaya saya ditahan dibawah Akta itu kerana menyatakan kepada orang Melayu supaya menyedari yang mereka bukan “Tuan” apabila mereka terpaksa mencuci kasut orang lain. Jika mereka ingin menjadi “Tuan”, mereka mesti menimba ilmu dan kecekapan untuk berjaya didalam kehidupan. Dan apabila mereka berjaya martabat mereka akan meningkat samada mereka dipanggil “Tuan” ataupun tidak.
Nampak jelas menurut Param Cumaswamy , bercakap mengenai orang Melayu adalah satu hasutan yang berbau perkauman.
Jadi siapa yang bersifat perkauman; Param Cumaraswamy atau Dr Mahathir?
Saya tidak akan meminta supaya dia ditahan.
Sebagai seorang peguam yang memahami undang-undang, dia perlu menilai dirinya samada dia seorang yang bersifat perkauman dan perlu ditahan atau tidak.
The Great Oil Swindle
The Great Oil Swindle
How much did the Fed really know?
By Mike Whitney
30/05/08 "ICH" -- - The Commodity Futures and Trading Commission (CFTC) is investigating trading in oil futures to determine whether the surge in prices to record levels is the result of manipulation or fraud. They might want to take a look at wheat, rice and corn futures while they're at it. The whole thing is a hoax cooked up by the investment banks and hedge funds who are trying to dig their way out of the trillion dollar mortgage-backed securities (MBS) mess that they created by turning garbage loans into securities. That scam blew up in their face last August and left them scrounging for handouts from the Federal Reserve. Now the billions of dollars they're getting from the Fed is being diverted into commodities which is destabilizing the world economy; driving gas prices to the moon and triggering food riots across the planet.
For months we've been told that the soaring price of oil has been the result of Peak Oil, fighting in Iraq, attacks on oil facilities in Nigeria, labor problems in Norway, and (the all-time favorite)growth in China. It's all baloney. Just like Goldman Sachs prediction of $200 per barrel oil is baloney. If oil is about to skyrocket then why has G-Sax kept a neutral rating on some of its oil holdings like Exxon Mobile? Could it be that they know that oil is just another mega-inflated equity bubble---like housing, corporate bonds and dot.com stocks—that is about to crash to earth as soon as the big players grab a parachute?
There are three things that are driving up the price of oil: the falling dollar, speculation and buying on margin.
The dollar is tanking because of the Federal Reserve's low interest monetary policies have kept interest rates below the rate of inflation for most of the last decade. Add that to the $700 billion current account deficit and a National Debt that has increased from $5.8 trillion when Bush first took office to over $9 trillion today and it's a wonder the dollar hasn't gone “Poof” already.
According to a January 4 editorial in the Wall Street Journal: “If the dollar had remained 'as good as gold' since 2001, oil today would be selling at about $30 per barrel, not $99. (today $126 per barrel) The decline of the dollar against gold and oil suggests a US monetary that is supplying too many dollars.” Wall Street Journal 1-4-08
The price of oil has more than quadrupled since 2001, from roughly $30 per barrel to $126, WITHOUT ANY DISRUPTIONS TO SUPPLY. There's no shortage; it's just gibberish.
As far as “buying on margin” consider this summary from author William Engdahl:
“A conservative calculation is that at least 60% of today’s $128 per barrel price of crude oil comes from unregulated futures speculation by hedge funds, banks and financial groups using the London ICE Futures and New York NYMEX futures exchanges and uncontrolled inter-bank or Over-The-Counter trading to avoid scrutiny. US margin rules of the government’s Commodity Futures Trading Commission allow speculators to buy a crude oil futures contract on the Nymex, by having to pay only 6% of the value of the contract. At today's price of $128 per barrel, that means a futures trader only has to put up about $8 for every barrel. He borrows the other $120. This extreme “leverage” of 16 to 1 helps drive prices to wildly unrealistic levels and offset bank losses in sub-prime and other disasters at the expense of the overall population.”
So the investment banks and their trading partners at the hedge funds can game the system for a mere 8 bucks per barrel or 16 to 1 leverage. Not bad, eh?
Is it possible that gambling on oil futures might be a temptation for banks that are already underwater from a trillion dollars worth of mortgage-related deals that have “gone south” leaving the banking system essentially bankrupt?
And if the banks and hedgies are not playing this game, then where is the money coming from? I have compiled charts and graphs that show that nearly two-thirds of the big investment banks' revenue came from the securitization of commercial and residential real estate loans. That market is frozen. Besides, this is not just a matter of “loan delinquencies” or MBS that have to be written off. The banks are "revenue starved". How are they filling the coffers? They're either neck-deep in interest rate swaps, derivatives trading, or gaming the futures market. Which is it?
Of course, there is one other possibility, but if that possibility turned out to be right than it would cast doubt on the legitimacy of the entire financial system. In fact, it would prove that the system is being rigged from the top-down by our friends at the Banking Politburo, the Federal Reserve. Here goes:
What if the investment banks are trading their worthless MBS and CDOs at the Fed's auction facilities and using the money ($400 billion) to drive up the price of raw materials like rice, corn, wheat, and oil?
Could it be? Could the Fed really be looking the other way so it can bail out its banking buddies while they drive prices skyward?
If it is true; (and I suspect it is) it hasn't done much good. As the Associated Press reported yesterday:
“The Federal Reserve announced Thursday that it will make a fresh batch of short-term cash loans available to squeezed banks as part of an ongoing effort to ease stressed credit markets. The Fed said it will conduct three auctions in June, with each one making $75 billion available in short-term cash loans. Banks can bid for a slice of the available funds. It would mark the latest round in a program that the Fed launched in December to help banks overcome credit problems so they will keep lending to customers.”
Another $225 billion for the bankers and not a dime for the struggling homeowner! The Fed is bankrupting the country with their permanent rotating loans to keep reckless speculators from going under. So much for moral hazard.
As far as speculation, there is ample evidence that the system is being manipulated. According to MarketWatch:
“Speculative activity in commodity markets has grown "enormously" over the past several years, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee said in a news release. It pointed out that in five years, from 2003 to 2008, investment in the index funds tied to commodities has grown by 20-fold -- to $260 billion from $13 billion.”
And here's a revealing clip from the testimony of Michael W. Masters of Masters Capital Management, LLC, who addressed the issue of “Commodities Speculation” before the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs this week:
“Today, Index Speculators are pouring billions of dollars into the commodities futures
markets, speculating that commodity prices will increase. ...In the popular press the explanation given most often for rising oil prices is the increased demand for oil from China. According to the DOE, annual Chinese demand for petroleum has increased over the last five years from 1.88 billion barrels to 2.8 billion barrels, an increase of 920 million barrels.8 Over the same five-year period, Index Speculatorsʼ demand for petroleum futures has increased by 848 million barrels. THE INCREASE IN DEMAND FROM INDEX SPECULATORS IS ALMOST EQUAL TO THE INCREASE IN DEMAND FROM CHINA.
Index Speculators have now stockpiled, via the futures market, the equivalent of 1.1 billion barrels of petroleum, effectively adding eight times as much oil to their own stockpile as the United States has added to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve over the last five years.
Today, in many commodities futures markets, they are the single largest force.15 The huge growth in their demand has gone virtually undetected by classically-trained economists who almost never analyze demand in futures markets.
As money pours into the markets, two things happen concurrently: the markets expand and prices rise. One particularly troubling aspect of Index Speculator demand is that it actually increases the more prices increase. This explains the accelerating rate at which commodity futures prices (and actual commodity prices) are increasing. The CFTC has taken deliberate steps to allow CERTAIN SPECULATORS VIRTUALLY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE COMMODITIES FUTURES MARKETS. The CFTC has granted Wall Street banks an exemption from speculative position limits when these banks hedge over-the-counter swaps transactions. This has effectively opened a loophole for unlimited speculation. When Index Speculators enter into commodity index swaps, which 85-90% of them do, they face no speculative position limits.... The result is a gross distortion in data that effectively hides the full impact of Index Speculation.” (Thanks to Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis; the one “indispensable” financial blog on the Internet)
Masters adds that the CFTC is pressing to make “Index Speculators exempt from all position limits” so they can make “unlimited” bets on the futures which are wreaking havoc on the global economy and pushing millions towards starvation. Of course, these things pale in comparison to the higher priority of fatting the bottom line of the parasitic investor class.
Brimming oil tankers are presently sitting off the coasts of Iran and Louisiana. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve has been filled. Demand is flat. The world's biggest consumer of energy (guess who?) is cutting back . As CNN reports:
“At a time when gas prices are at an all-time high, Americans have curtailed their driving at a historic rate. The Department of Transportation said figures from March show the steepest decrease in driving ever recorded. Compared with March a year earlier, Americans drove an estimated 4.3 percent less -- that's 11 billion fewer miles, the DOT's Federal Highway Administration said Monday, calling it "the sharpest yearly drop for any month in FHWA history." (CNN)
The great oil crunch is another fabricated crisis; another "smoke and mirrors" fiasco; another Enron-type shell-game engineered by banksters and hedge fund managers. Once again, the bloody footprints can be traced right back to the front door of the Federal Reserve. Don't expect help from the regulators either; they've all been replaced with business reps like Harvey Pitt or Hank Paulson. The only time anyone in the Bush administration finds their conscience is when they're offered a multi-million dollar “tell all” book deal.
Can you hear me, Scotty?
How much did the Fed really know?
By Mike Whitney
30/05/08 "ICH" -- - The Commodity Futures and Trading Commission (CFTC) is investigating trading in oil futures to determine whether the surge in prices to record levels is the result of manipulation or fraud. They might want to take a look at wheat, rice and corn futures while they're at it. The whole thing is a hoax cooked up by the investment banks and hedge funds who are trying to dig their way out of the trillion dollar mortgage-backed securities (MBS) mess that they created by turning garbage loans into securities. That scam blew up in their face last August and left them scrounging for handouts from the Federal Reserve. Now the billions of dollars they're getting from the Fed is being diverted into commodities which is destabilizing the world economy; driving gas prices to the moon and triggering food riots across the planet.
For months we've been told that the soaring price of oil has been the result of Peak Oil, fighting in Iraq, attacks on oil facilities in Nigeria, labor problems in Norway, and (the all-time favorite)growth in China. It's all baloney. Just like Goldman Sachs prediction of $200 per barrel oil is baloney. If oil is about to skyrocket then why has G-Sax kept a neutral rating on some of its oil holdings like Exxon Mobile? Could it be that they know that oil is just another mega-inflated equity bubble---like housing, corporate bonds and dot.com stocks—that is about to crash to earth as soon as the big players grab a parachute?
There are three things that are driving up the price of oil: the falling dollar, speculation and buying on margin.
The dollar is tanking because of the Federal Reserve's low interest monetary policies have kept interest rates below the rate of inflation for most of the last decade. Add that to the $700 billion current account deficit and a National Debt that has increased from $5.8 trillion when Bush first took office to over $9 trillion today and it's a wonder the dollar hasn't gone “Poof” already.
According to a January 4 editorial in the Wall Street Journal: “If the dollar had remained 'as good as gold' since 2001, oil today would be selling at about $30 per barrel, not $99. (today $126 per barrel) The decline of the dollar against gold and oil suggests a US monetary that is supplying too many dollars.” Wall Street Journal 1-4-08
The price of oil has more than quadrupled since 2001, from roughly $30 per barrel to $126, WITHOUT ANY DISRUPTIONS TO SUPPLY. There's no shortage; it's just gibberish.
As far as “buying on margin” consider this summary from author William Engdahl:
“A conservative calculation is that at least 60% of today’s $128 per barrel price of crude oil comes from unregulated futures speculation by hedge funds, banks and financial groups using the London ICE Futures and New York NYMEX futures exchanges and uncontrolled inter-bank or Over-The-Counter trading to avoid scrutiny. US margin rules of the government’s Commodity Futures Trading Commission allow speculators to buy a crude oil futures contract on the Nymex, by having to pay only 6% of the value of the contract. At today's price of $128 per barrel, that means a futures trader only has to put up about $8 for every barrel. He borrows the other $120. This extreme “leverage” of 16 to 1 helps drive prices to wildly unrealistic levels and offset bank losses in sub-prime and other disasters at the expense of the overall population.”
So the investment banks and their trading partners at the hedge funds can game the system for a mere 8 bucks per barrel or 16 to 1 leverage. Not bad, eh?
Is it possible that gambling on oil futures might be a temptation for banks that are already underwater from a trillion dollars worth of mortgage-related deals that have “gone south” leaving the banking system essentially bankrupt?
And if the banks and hedgies are not playing this game, then where is the money coming from? I have compiled charts and graphs that show that nearly two-thirds of the big investment banks' revenue came from the securitization of commercial and residential real estate loans. That market is frozen. Besides, this is not just a matter of “loan delinquencies” or MBS that have to be written off. The banks are "revenue starved". How are they filling the coffers? They're either neck-deep in interest rate swaps, derivatives trading, or gaming the futures market. Which is it?
Of course, there is one other possibility, but if that possibility turned out to be right than it would cast doubt on the legitimacy of the entire financial system. In fact, it would prove that the system is being rigged from the top-down by our friends at the Banking Politburo, the Federal Reserve. Here goes:
What if the investment banks are trading their worthless MBS and CDOs at the Fed's auction facilities and using the money ($400 billion) to drive up the price of raw materials like rice, corn, wheat, and oil?
Could it be? Could the Fed really be looking the other way so it can bail out its banking buddies while they drive prices skyward?
If it is true; (and I suspect it is) it hasn't done much good. As the Associated Press reported yesterday:
“The Federal Reserve announced Thursday that it will make a fresh batch of short-term cash loans available to squeezed banks as part of an ongoing effort to ease stressed credit markets. The Fed said it will conduct three auctions in June, with each one making $75 billion available in short-term cash loans. Banks can bid for a slice of the available funds. It would mark the latest round in a program that the Fed launched in December to help banks overcome credit problems so they will keep lending to customers.”
Another $225 billion for the bankers and not a dime for the struggling homeowner! The Fed is bankrupting the country with their permanent rotating loans to keep reckless speculators from going under. So much for moral hazard.
As far as speculation, there is ample evidence that the system is being manipulated. According to MarketWatch:
“Speculative activity in commodity markets has grown "enormously" over the past several years, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee said in a news release. It pointed out that in five years, from 2003 to 2008, investment in the index funds tied to commodities has grown by 20-fold -- to $260 billion from $13 billion.”
And here's a revealing clip from the testimony of Michael W. Masters of Masters Capital Management, LLC, who addressed the issue of “Commodities Speculation” before the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs this week:
“Today, Index Speculators are pouring billions of dollars into the commodities futures
markets, speculating that commodity prices will increase. ...In the popular press the explanation given most often for rising oil prices is the increased demand for oil from China. According to the DOE, annual Chinese demand for petroleum has increased over the last five years from 1.88 billion barrels to 2.8 billion barrels, an increase of 920 million barrels.8 Over the same five-year period, Index Speculatorsʼ demand for petroleum futures has increased by 848 million barrels. THE INCREASE IN DEMAND FROM INDEX SPECULATORS IS ALMOST EQUAL TO THE INCREASE IN DEMAND FROM CHINA.
Index Speculators have now stockpiled, via the futures market, the equivalent of 1.1 billion barrels of petroleum, effectively adding eight times as much oil to their own stockpile as the United States has added to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve over the last five years.
Today, in many commodities futures markets, they are the single largest force.15 The huge growth in their demand has gone virtually undetected by classically-trained economists who almost never analyze demand in futures markets.
As money pours into the markets, two things happen concurrently: the markets expand and prices rise. One particularly troubling aspect of Index Speculator demand is that it actually increases the more prices increase. This explains the accelerating rate at which commodity futures prices (and actual commodity prices) are increasing. The CFTC has taken deliberate steps to allow CERTAIN SPECULATORS VIRTUALLY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE COMMODITIES FUTURES MARKETS. The CFTC has granted Wall Street banks an exemption from speculative position limits when these banks hedge over-the-counter swaps transactions. This has effectively opened a loophole for unlimited speculation. When Index Speculators enter into commodity index swaps, which 85-90% of them do, they face no speculative position limits.... The result is a gross distortion in data that effectively hides the full impact of Index Speculation.” (Thanks to Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis; the one “indispensable” financial blog on the Internet)
Masters adds that the CFTC is pressing to make “Index Speculators exempt from all position limits” so they can make “unlimited” bets on the futures which are wreaking havoc on the global economy and pushing millions towards starvation. Of course, these things pale in comparison to the higher priority of fatting the bottom line of the parasitic investor class.
Brimming oil tankers are presently sitting off the coasts of Iran and Louisiana. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve has been filled. Demand is flat. The world's biggest consumer of energy (guess who?) is cutting back . As CNN reports:
“At a time when gas prices are at an all-time high, Americans have curtailed their driving at a historic rate. The Department of Transportation said figures from March show the steepest decrease in driving ever recorded. Compared with March a year earlier, Americans drove an estimated 4.3 percent less -- that's 11 billion fewer miles, the DOT's Federal Highway Administration said Monday, calling it "the sharpest yearly drop for any month in FHWA history." (CNN)
The great oil crunch is another fabricated crisis; another "smoke and mirrors" fiasco; another Enron-type shell-game engineered by banksters and hedge fund managers. Once again, the bloody footprints can be traced right back to the front door of the Federal Reserve. Don't expect help from the regulators either; they've all been replaced with business reps like Harvey Pitt or Hank Paulson. The only time anyone in the Bush administration finds their conscience is when they're offered a multi-million dollar “tell all” book deal.
Can you hear me, Scotty?
Friday, May 30, 2008
The Sword of Allah
The Sword Of Allah At Yarmuk
A.I. Akram (Lieutenant-General)
Article ID: 1206 5268 Reads
"Did you not see us victorious upon the Yarmuk,
The way we prevailed in the campaigns of 'Iraq ?
The virgin cities we conquered, as well as
The Yellow Meadow, on our galloping steeds.
We conquered before that Busra, which was
Impenetrable even to the flying crows.
We killed those who stood against us
With flashing swords, and we have their spoils.
We killed the Romans until they were reduced
Upon the Yarmuk, to emaciated leaves.
We smashed their army as they rushed headlong
To the Neck-Breaker, with our sharp steel.
By morning they tumbled into it, reaching
The mysterious matter that defies the senses."
[Al-Qa'qa' bin Amr, commander in Khalid's army] 1.
At dawn the Muslim corps lined up for prayers under their respective commanders. As soon as the prayers were over, every man rushed to his assigned place. By sunrise both armies stood in battle order, facing each other across the centre of the Plain of Yarmuk, a little less than a mile apart.
There was no movement and little noise in the two armies. The soldiers knew that this was a fight to the finish, that one of the two armies would lie shattered on the battlefield before the fight was over. The Muslims gazed in wonder at the splendid formations of the Roman legions with banners flying and crosses raised above the heads of the soldiery. The Romans looked with something less than awe at the Muslim army deployed to their front. Their confidence rested on their great numbers, but during the past two years the performance of the Muslims in Syria had instilled a good deal of respect in the hearts of the Romans. There was a look of caution in Roman eyes. Thus an hour passed during which no one stirred and the soldiers awaited the start of a battle which, according to the chroniclers, "began with sparks of fire and ended with a raging conflagration", and of which "each day was more violent than the day before." 2.
Then a Roman general by the name of George emerged from the Roman centre and rode towards the Muslims. Halting a short distance from the Muslim centre, he raised his voice and asked for Khalid. From the Muslim side Khalid rode out, delighted at the thought that the battle would begin with himself fighting a duel. He would set the pace for the rest of the battle.
As Khalid drew near, the Roman made no move to draw his sword, but continued to look intently at Khalid. The Muslim advanced until the necks of the horses crossed, and still George did not draw his sword. Then he spoke, in Arabic:
"O Khalid, tell me the truth and do not deceive me, for the free do not lie and the noble do not deceive. Is it true that Allah sent a sword from heaven to your Prophet ? … and that he gave it to you ? … and that never have you drawn it but your enemies have been defeated?"
"No!" replied Khalid.
"Then why are you known as the Sword of Allah?"
Here Khalid told George the story of how he received the title of Sword of Allah from the Holy Prophet. George pondered this a while, then with a pensive look in his eyes, asked, "Tell me, to what do you call me?"
"To bear witness", Khalid replied, "that there is no Allah but Allah and Muhammad is His Slave and Messenger; and to believe in what he has brought from Allah."
"If I do not agree?"
"Then the Jizya, and you shall be under our protection."
"If I still do not agree?"
"Then the sword!"George considered the words of Khalid for a few moments, then asked, "What is the position of one who enters your faith today?"
"In our faith there is only one position. All are equal."
"Then I accept your faith!" 3
To the astonishment of the two armies, which knew nothing of what had passed between the two generals, Khalid turned his horse and Muslim and Roman rode slowly to the Muslim army. On arrival at the Muslim centre George repeated after Khalid:
"There is no Allah but Allah; Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah!"
(A few hours later the newly-converted George would fight heroically for the faith which he had just embraced and would die in battle.) On the auspicious note of this conversion began the Battle of Yarmuk.
1. Ibn Kathir, Al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah, Dar Abi Hayyan, Cairo, 1st ed. 1416/1996, Vol. 7 P. 20.2. Waqidi: p. 1333. Tabari: Vol. 2, p. 595
Read the whole story of Khalid Bin al Waleed and the early Muslim Conquests at http://www.swordofallah.com/ (Yahudi have hijacked the site. Go here instead http://www.imaanstar.com/khalid.php)
The Sword of Islam
IN THE NAME OF ALLAH MOST GRACIOUS MOST MERCIFUL
THE SWORD OF ISLAM
The Sunnah Islamic Page
Contact Us
P.O.Box: 28774 Safat
State Of Kuwait
Print The Book
The first few who embraced the "new" religion in Makkah in the Arabian Peninsula at the hands of the Prophet, were his wife Khadijah, his servant Zaid and his eleven year old cousin Ali. Among the ones who later joined this faith were the honest merchant, Abu Bakr; the iron man of Arabia, Umar the Great; the shy businessman, Uthman; the Prophet's brave uncle Hamza and a slave of a pagan, Bilal. They simply couldn't resist the MAGIC SWORD of a humble and lonely Prophet? The negligible minority of the believers in this new Faith was soon exiled from Makkah and they arrived in the city called Yathreb which later became known as MADINAH. The Muslim emigrants to Madinah brought their SWORD with them. The SWORD continued to work and its magnetic force continued to "pull" people towards it until the whole of Arabia joined the Faith. Compared to the population of the rest of the world at that time, the Arabs constituted a tiny minority. A fraction of this minority decided to take the SWORD beyond the boundaries of the Arabian desert to the mighty Mediterranean, the coast of Malabar and the far away East Indies Islands. People after people continued surrendering to this SWORD and joining the Faith.
So sharp was the edge of the SWORD! It simply conquered the hearts; bodies yielded automatically. It is the SWORD OF TRUTH, whose mere shine eliminates falsehood just like light wipes away darkness.
HAS THE SWORD GONE BLUNT? NO, FAR FROM IT.
It Continues to pierce the hearts of countless men and women today - in spite of the relentless efforts by persons with vested interests who like darkness to prevail, so that they may rob people of their good things. Read below the impressions of some who were recently conquered by the same SWORD. They are from different countries, speak different languages and have different backgrounds. Their present addresses are also given. Perhaps you may like to ask them how it feels to be struck by the SWORD OF TRUTH.
1. LEOPOLD WEISS (now Mohammed Asad): Austrian statesman, journalist, former foreign correspondent for the Frankfurter Zeitung; author of Islam at Cross Roads and Road to Mecca and translator of the Qur'an. He embraced Islam in 1926.
"Islam appears to me like a perfect work of Architecture. All its parts are harmoniously conceived to complement and support each other. Nothing is superfluous and nothing lacking, with the result of an absolute balance and solid composure."
2. AHMED HOLT: British Civil Contractor, traveler in search of the Divine truth, spent much of his time in research and comparative study of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. He embraced Islam in 1975.
"The SWORD OF ISLAM is not the sword of steel. I know this by experience, because the sword of Islam struck deep into my own heart. It didn't bring death, but it brought a new life; it brought an awareness and it brought an awakening as to who am I and what am I and for what am I here?"
3. BOGDAN KOPANSKI (now Bogdan Ataullah Kopanski):originally Polish, now American; Ph.D. in history and politics, had a very interesting journey to Islam and faced severe hardships; was imprisoned twice by the Polish communist regime (1968, 1981-82). He embraced Islam in 1974.
"When I was 12 years old I rejected illogical and contradictory faith of the Church. Two years later in 1962 I was fascinated by the victorious struggle of the Algerian Muslim mujahideen against French colonialism. It was the first arrow of Islam...The high school and earliest days of my education in the University, I was a typical example of the 'rebel generation' of Reds...My way to the Truth of Al-Qur'an was slow and unpaved... In 1974 I visited Turkey, I wrote my M.A. dissertation about Sultan and Caliph Suleiman Kanuni's policy towards the Polish Kingdom. There I was hit by the most beautiful voice of mankind, Adhan, the call to prayer. My hair stood up. An unknown, powerful force led me to an old masjid in Istanbul. There, old, smiling, Turkish bearded men taught me Wuzu, ablution. I confessed to tears, Shahada, and I prayed my first Salah Maghrib...I swept out the rubbish ideologies...The first time in my life, my mind was relaxed and I felt the pleasure of Allah's love in my heart. I was a Muslim..."
4-VENGATACHALAM ADIYAR (now Abdullah Adiyar): Indian, noted Tamil writer and journalist; worked as a news editor inn Dr. M. Karunanidhi's daily Murasoli for 17 years; assisted
3 former Chief Ministers of Tamil Nadu. Received Kalaimamani Award (Big Gem of Arts) from Tamil Nadu Government in 1982. He embraced Islam in 1987.
"In Islam I found suitable replies to nagging queries arising n my mind with regard to the theory of creation, status of woman, creation of universe, etc. The life history of the holy Prophet attracted me very much and made easy for me to compare with other world leaders and their philosophies."
5. HERBERT HOBOHM (now Aman Hobohm): German diplomat, missionary and social worker. An intellectual who has been serving the German diplomatic missions in various parts of the world. Presently working as Cultural Attache in German Embassy in Riyadh. He embraced Islam in 1941.
"I have lived under different systems of life and have had the opportunity of studying various ideologies, but have come to the conclusion that none is as perfect as Islam. None of the systems has got a complete code of a noble life, Only Islam has it' and that is why good men embrace it. Islam is not theoretical; it is practical. It means complete submission to the will of God."
6. CAT STEVENS (now Yusuf Islam): British; formerly a Christian and a world famous pop singer. He embraced Islam in 1973.
"It will be wrong to judge Islam in the light of the behavior of some bad Muslims who are always shown on the media. It is like judging a car as a bad one if the driver if the car is drunk and he bangs it into the wall. Islam guides all human beings in daily life - in it's spiritual, mental and physical dimensions. But we must find the sources of these instruction, the Qur'an and the example of the Prophet. then we can see the ideal of Islam."
7. MARGARET MARCUS (now Maryam Jamilah): American; formerly a Jews, essayist and author of many books. She embraced Islam in 1962.
"The authority of Islamic Morals and Laws proceeds from Almighty God. Pleasure and happiness in Islam are but the natural byproducts of emotional satisfaction in one's duties conscientiously performed for the pleasure of God to achieve salvation. In Islam duties are always stressed above rights. Only in Islam was my quest for absolute values satisfied. Only in Islam did I at last find all that was true, good, beautiful and which gives meaning and direction to human life and death.
8. M. HOFFMAN (now Murad Hoffman): Ph.D. in law (Harvard); German social scientist and diplomat; presently German Ambassador in Algeria. He embraced Islam in 1980.
"For some time now, striving for more and more precision and brevity, I have tried to put on paper in a systematic way, all philosophical truths, which in my view, can be ascertained beyond reasonable doubt. In the course of this effort it dawned on me that the typical attitude of an agnostic is not an intelligent one; that man simply cannot escape a decision to believe; that the createdness of what exists around us is obvious; that Islam undoubtedly finds itself in the greatest harmony with overall reality. Thus I realize, not without shock, that step by step, in spite of myself and almost unconsciously, n feeling and thinking I have grown into a Muslim. Only one last step remained to be taken: to formalize my conversion. As of today I am a Muslim. I have arrived."
9. CASSIUS CLAY (now Muhammad Ali): American; three times World Heavyweight Champion, formerly a Christian. He embraced Islam in 1965.
"I have had many nice moments in my life. But the feelings I had while standing on Mount Arafat on the day of Hajj ( Muslims' pilgrimage), was the most unique. I felt exalted by the indescribable spiritual atmosphere there as over a million and a half pilgrims invoked God to forgive them of their sins and bestow on them His choicest blessings. It was an exhilarating experience to see to people belonging to different colors, races and nationalities, kings, heads of states and ordinary men from very poor countries all clad in two simple white sheets praying to God without any sense of either pride or inferiority. It was a practical manifestation of the concept of equality in Islam."
(Speaking to the daily "Al-Madinah" Jeddah, 15 July, 1989)
These were the impressions of a few persons who had themselves been struck by the SWORD OF TRUTH, that is, the Message of Islam.
AS FOR THE PROPAGANDA THAT IT WAS THE SWORD OF STEEL, THAT IS, FORCE, WHICH WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN THE UNIVERSAL EXPANSION OF ISLAM, WE GIVE BELOW QUOTATIONS FROM THE WRITING OF SOME OF THE PROMINENT NON-MUSLIM SCHOLARS AND LEADERS REFUTING THIS BASELESS ACCUSATION.
1. M. K. GANDHI: "...I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the prophet, the scrupulous regard for his pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and his own mission. These, and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every trouble." YOUNG INDIA, 1924
2. EDWARD GIBBON: "The greatest success of Mohammed's life was effected by sheer moral force without the stroke of a sword." HISTORY OF THE SARACEN EMPIRE, London, 1870
3. A. S. TRITTON: "The picture of the Muslim soldier advancing with a sword in one hand and the Qur'an in the other is quite false." ISLAM, London, 1951, p. 21
4. DE LACY O'LEARY: "History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslim, sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated." ISLAM AT CROSSROADS, London, 1923, p. 8
5. K. S. RAMAKRISHNA RAO: "My problem to write this monograph is easier because we are not generally fed now on that (distorted) kind of history and much time need not be spent on pointing out our misrepresentations of Islam. The theory of Islam and sword, for instance, is not heard now in any quarter worth the name. The principle of Islam, there is no compulsion in religion, is well known." MOHAMMED THE PROPHET OF ISLAM, Riyadh, 1989, p. 4
6. JAMES A. MICHENER: "No other religion in history spread so rapidly as Islam...The West has widely believed that this surge of religion was made possible by the sword. But no modern scholar accepts that idea, and the Qur'an is explicit in support of the freedom of conscience." ISLAM - THE MISUNDERSTOOD RELIGION, READERS' DIGEST (American Edition) May 1955
7. LAWRENCE E. BROWNE: "Incidentally these well-established facts dispose of the idea so widely fostered in Christian writings that the Muslims, wherever they went, forced people to accept Islam at the point of the sword." THE PROSPECTS OR ISLAM, London, 1944.
IF YOU TOO POSSESS A SOFT TENDER HEART AND AN OPEN MIND, DO WRITE TO US FOR SOME BASIC INFORMATION ABOUT THE WAY OF LIFE CALLED "ISLAM". DO NOT BELIEVE THE HEARSAY AND LEARN FORM THE DIRECT SOURCES. WE ARE READY TO HELP - Email Us
THE SWORD OF ISLAM
The Sunnah Islamic Page
Contact Us
P.O.Box: 28774 Safat
State Of Kuwait
Print The Book
The first few who embraced the "new" religion in Makkah in the Arabian Peninsula at the hands of the Prophet, were his wife Khadijah, his servant Zaid and his eleven year old cousin Ali. Among the ones who later joined this faith were the honest merchant, Abu Bakr; the iron man of Arabia, Umar the Great; the shy businessman, Uthman; the Prophet's brave uncle Hamza and a slave of a pagan, Bilal. They simply couldn't resist the MAGIC SWORD of a humble and lonely Prophet? The negligible minority of the believers in this new Faith was soon exiled from Makkah and they arrived in the city called Yathreb which later became known as MADINAH. The Muslim emigrants to Madinah brought their SWORD with them. The SWORD continued to work and its magnetic force continued to "pull" people towards it until the whole of Arabia joined the Faith. Compared to the population of the rest of the world at that time, the Arabs constituted a tiny minority. A fraction of this minority decided to take the SWORD beyond the boundaries of the Arabian desert to the mighty Mediterranean, the coast of Malabar and the far away East Indies Islands. People after people continued surrendering to this SWORD and joining the Faith.
So sharp was the edge of the SWORD! It simply conquered the hearts; bodies yielded automatically. It is the SWORD OF TRUTH, whose mere shine eliminates falsehood just like light wipes away darkness.
HAS THE SWORD GONE BLUNT? NO, FAR FROM IT.
It Continues to pierce the hearts of countless men and women today - in spite of the relentless efforts by persons with vested interests who like darkness to prevail, so that they may rob people of their good things. Read below the impressions of some who were recently conquered by the same SWORD. They are from different countries, speak different languages and have different backgrounds. Their present addresses are also given. Perhaps you may like to ask them how it feels to be struck by the SWORD OF TRUTH.
1. LEOPOLD WEISS (now Mohammed Asad): Austrian statesman, journalist, former foreign correspondent for the Frankfurter Zeitung; author of Islam at Cross Roads and Road to Mecca and translator of the Qur'an. He embraced Islam in 1926.
"Islam appears to me like a perfect work of Architecture. All its parts are harmoniously conceived to complement and support each other. Nothing is superfluous and nothing lacking, with the result of an absolute balance and solid composure."
2. AHMED HOLT: British Civil Contractor, traveler in search of the Divine truth, spent much of his time in research and comparative study of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. He embraced Islam in 1975.
"The SWORD OF ISLAM is not the sword of steel. I know this by experience, because the sword of Islam struck deep into my own heart. It didn't bring death, but it brought a new life; it brought an awareness and it brought an awakening as to who am I and what am I and for what am I here?"
3. BOGDAN KOPANSKI (now Bogdan Ataullah Kopanski):originally Polish, now American; Ph.D. in history and politics, had a very interesting journey to Islam and faced severe hardships; was imprisoned twice by the Polish communist regime (1968, 1981-82). He embraced Islam in 1974.
"When I was 12 years old I rejected illogical and contradictory faith of the Church. Two years later in 1962 I was fascinated by the victorious struggle of the Algerian Muslim mujahideen against French colonialism. It was the first arrow of Islam...The high school and earliest days of my education in the University, I was a typical example of the 'rebel generation' of Reds...My way to the Truth of Al-Qur'an was slow and unpaved... In 1974 I visited Turkey, I wrote my M.A. dissertation about Sultan and Caliph Suleiman Kanuni's policy towards the Polish Kingdom. There I was hit by the most beautiful voice of mankind, Adhan, the call to prayer. My hair stood up. An unknown, powerful force led me to an old masjid in Istanbul. There, old, smiling, Turkish bearded men taught me Wuzu, ablution. I confessed to tears, Shahada, and I prayed my first Salah Maghrib...I swept out the rubbish ideologies...The first time in my life, my mind was relaxed and I felt the pleasure of Allah's love in my heart. I was a Muslim..."
4-VENGATACHALAM ADIYAR (now Abdullah Adiyar): Indian, noted Tamil writer and journalist; worked as a news editor inn Dr. M. Karunanidhi's daily Murasoli for 17 years; assisted
3 former Chief Ministers of Tamil Nadu. Received Kalaimamani Award (Big Gem of Arts) from Tamil Nadu Government in 1982. He embraced Islam in 1987.
"In Islam I found suitable replies to nagging queries arising n my mind with regard to the theory of creation, status of woman, creation of universe, etc. The life history of the holy Prophet attracted me very much and made easy for me to compare with other world leaders and their philosophies."
5. HERBERT HOBOHM (now Aman Hobohm): German diplomat, missionary and social worker. An intellectual who has been serving the German diplomatic missions in various parts of the world. Presently working as Cultural Attache in German Embassy in Riyadh. He embraced Islam in 1941.
"I have lived under different systems of life and have had the opportunity of studying various ideologies, but have come to the conclusion that none is as perfect as Islam. None of the systems has got a complete code of a noble life, Only Islam has it' and that is why good men embrace it. Islam is not theoretical; it is practical. It means complete submission to the will of God."
6. CAT STEVENS (now Yusuf Islam): British; formerly a Christian and a world famous pop singer. He embraced Islam in 1973.
"It will be wrong to judge Islam in the light of the behavior of some bad Muslims who are always shown on the media. It is like judging a car as a bad one if the driver if the car is drunk and he bangs it into the wall. Islam guides all human beings in daily life - in it's spiritual, mental and physical dimensions. But we must find the sources of these instruction, the Qur'an and the example of the Prophet. then we can see the ideal of Islam."
7. MARGARET MARCUS (now Maryam Jamilah): American; formerly a Jews, essayist and author of many books. She embraced Islam in 1962.
"The authority of Islamic Morals and Laws proceeds from Almighty God. Pleasure and happiness in Islam are but the natural byproducts of emotional satisfaction in one's duties conscientiously performed for the pleasure of God to achieve salvation. In Islam duties are always stressed above rights. Only in Islam was my quest for absolute values satisfied. Only in Islam did I at last find all that was true, good, beautiful and which gives meaning and direction to human life and death.
8. M. HOFFMAN (now Murad Hoffman): Ph.D. in law (Harvard); German social scientist and diplomat; presently German Ambassador in Algeria. He embraced Islam in 1980.
"For some time now, striving for more and more precision and brevity, I have tried to put on paper in a systematic way, all philosophical truths, which in my view, can be ascertained beyond reasonable doubt. In the course of this effort it dawned on me that the typical attitude of an agnostic is not an intelligent one; that man simply cannot escape a decision to believe; that the createdness of what exists around us is obvious; that Islam undoubtedly finds itself in the greatest harmony with overall reality. Thus I realize, not without shock, that step by step, in spite of myself and almost unconsciously, n feeling and thinking I have grown into a Muslim. Only one last step remained to be taken: to formalize my conversion. As of today I am a Muslim. I have arrived."
9. CASSIUS CLAY (now Muhammad Ali): American; three times World Heavyweight Champion, formerly a Christian. He embraced Islam in 1965.
"I have had many nice moments in my life. But the feelings I had while standing on Mount Arafat on the day of Hajj ( Muslims' pilgrimage), was the most unique. I felt exalted by the indescribable spiritual atmosphere there as over a million and a half pilgrims invoked God to forgive them of their sins and bestow on them His choicest blessings. It was an exhilarating experience to see to people belonging to different colors, races and nationalities, kings, heads of states and ordinary men from very poor countries all clad in two simple white sheets praying to God without any sense of either pride or inferiority. It was a practical manifestation of the concept of equality in Islam."
(Speaking to the daily "Al-Madinah" Jeddah, 15 July, 1989)
These were the impressions of a few persons who had themselves been struck by the SWORD OF TRUTH, that is, the Message of Islam.
AS FOR THE PROPAGANDA THAT IT WAS THE SWORD OF STEEL, THAT IS, FORCE, WHICH WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN THE UNIVERSAL EXPANSION OF ISLAM, WE GIVE BELOW QUOTATIONS FROM THE WRITING OF SOME OF THE PROMINENT NON-MUSLIM SCHOLARS AND LEADERS REFUTING THIS BASELESS ACCUSATION.
1. M. K. GANDHI: "...I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the prophet, the scrupulous regard for his pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and his own mission. These, and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every trouble." YOUNG INDIA, 1924
2. EDWARD GIBBON: "The greatest success of Mohammed's life was effected by sheer moral force without the stroke of a sword." HISTORY OF THE SARACEN EMPIRE, London, 1870
3. A. S. TRITTON: "The picture of the Muslim soldier advancing with a sword in one hand and the Qur'an in the other is quite false." ISLAM, London, 1951, p. 21
4. DE LACY O'LEARY: "History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslim, sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated." ISLAM AT CROSSROADS, London, 1923, p. 8
5. K. S. RAMAKRISHNA RAO: "My problem to write this monograph is easier because we are not generally fed now on that (distorted) kind of history and much time need not be spent on pointing out our misrepresentations of Islam. The theory of Islam and sword, for instance, is not heard now in any quarter worth the name. The principle of Islam, there is no compulsion in religion, is well known." MOHAMMED THE PROPHET OF ISLAM, Riyadh, 1989, p. 4
6. JAMES A. MICHENER: "No other religion in history spread so rapidly as Islam...The West has widely believed that this surge of religion was made possible by the sword. But no modern scholar accepts that idea, and the Qur'an is explicit in support of the freedom of conscience." ISLAM - THE MISUNDERSTOOD RELIGION, READERS' DIGEST (American Edition) May 1955
7. LAWRENCE E. BROWNE: "Incidentally these well-established facts dispose of the idea so widely fostered in Christian writings that the Muslims, wherever they went, forced people to accept Islam at the point of the sword." THE PROSPECTS OR ISLAM, London, 1944.
IF YOU TOO POSSESS A SOFT TENDER HEART AND AN OPEN MIND, DO WRITE TO US FOR SOME BASIC INFORMATION ABOUT THE WAY OF LIFE CALLED "ISLAM". DO NOT BELIEVE THE HEARSAY AND LEARN FORM THE DIRECT SOURCES. WE ARE READY TO HELP - Email Us
Apostasy and Islam: The Current Hype
Apostasy and Islam: The Current Hype
Jamaal al-Deen Zarabozo
Article ID: 1262 3563 Reads
Much has been said in recent months concerning the law of apostasy in Islam. In particular, the recent case in Afghanistan has highlighted, once again, to many in the Western world that the Muslim world is neither civilized nor respective of human rights. Repeatedly one hears cries that the Muslim countries must change in order to join “the family of civilized countries” in today’s world. In fact, the Islamic law of apostasy seems to be one of the most obvious cases where a “fundamental” human right is violated by Islamic law, bringing up the question of whether Islamic law is even suitable for modern times or must Muslims be compelled to modify and change their religion and laws.
Indeed, Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed by the vast majority of today’s countries, reads: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”
On the other hand, Muslims believe that the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said,
لا يَحِلُّ دَمُ امْرِئٍ مُسْلِمٍ إِلاَّ بِإِحْدَى ثَلاَثٍ الثَّيِّبُ الزَّانِي وَالنَّفْسُ بِالنَّفْسِ والتَارِكُ لِدِيْنِهِ المُفَارِقُ لِلْجَمَاعَةِ
“It is not legal [to spill] the blood of a Muslim except in one of three cases: the fornicator who has previously experienced legal sexual intercourse (i.e. with one’s husband, wife, etc.), a life for a life and one who forsakes his religion and separates from the community.” (Recorded by al-Bukhari and Muslim.)
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is also reported to have said,
مَنْ بَدَّلَ دِينَهُ فَاقْتُلُوهُ
“Whoever changes his religion is to be killed.”[2] (Recorded by al-Bukhari and others.)
These texts from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) have led the vast majority of Muslim scholars to conclude that the punishment for apostasy from Islam in Islamic Law is death. It is true that there are some, especially contemporary writers, who opt for very different conclusions and argue that such a death penalty is a misunderstanding of Islamic Law. This is not the proper place to enter into such a debate. Instead, this author shall presume that the opinion that has been held by the vast majority of the scholars is the correct opinion. This entire discussion, therefore, shall be in the light of that conclusion. If the harsher punishment can be “defended” from the current onslaught, any lesser punishments will, obviously, be even more so defensible.
This opinion held by the vast majority of Muslim scholars of the past puts the contemporary Muslim into quite a quandary—especially given a “modern” view of religion that believes that religion must be changed if it does not meet the rational requirements of the times. However, before one immediately jumps to resolve an issue of this nature, one has to realize that there are a number of unstated premises that are in the background.
Furthermore, if one is being asked to give up the dictates of his faith, there should be rather strong compelling evidence demonstrating that his faith (or some aspect of it) is simply unacceptable. In other words, nobody should be asked to give up something that they believe in unless there truly is strong proof that what he believes in must be wrong or unacceptable. Otherwise, on what basis should an individual—any individual, be he Muslim, Christian, Jew, Hindu, whatever—compromise on something that he believes is demanded by or beloved to his very own creator and lord?
At this point, it is necessary to inject a further comment, because issues of this nature are often the result of different worldviews and perceptions. Many in the West have the understanding that “faith” means to believe in something that one cannot prove. This is not the approach of Islam.[3] In general, Muslims hold that there are very strong, rational reasons for them to believe in their religion. It is not simply a matter of “blind faith.” Instead—and this is obviously not the proper place to go into this in detail—Muslims think, for example, that the excellence of the Quran, its unquestionable historical authenticity, and the numerous miracles[4] related to it all point to this book being a true revelation from God. Thus, before a Muslim is asked to override something found in his religion, there had better be very strong evidence that something is mistaken or unacceptable in the religion of Islam. Furthermore, from a Muslim’s perspective, the burden of proof in such a case would be upon the one who claims that there is something superior or more suitable than what is found in Islamic law. (It must be stressed that this seems to be an issue that many in the West simply cannot comprehend because they think that faith is just a matter of blind faith and they do not realize that Muslims have rational reasons for believing in Islam and Islamic Law.)
The question that the Muslim must pose, therefore, is the following: Do those who promote “human rights” or “civilization/modernity” have such evidence and strong proofs? Without jumping too much ahead, it would seem that they do not.[5] In fact, one can question, based on their own statements about civilization, whether those who call for “civilization” are actually civilized themselves. What are the criteria by which a country is to be judged to be among “the family of civilized nations” today? Is it, for example, the acceptance and respect for those vaunted “human rights”? This would seem to be the underlying premise of many statements heard in the media today. If that is the case, then the list of human rights need to be studied in further detail.
The “Family of Civilized Nations” and Human Rights
One would expect that those who make a great fuss over the human rights of a Muslim accused of apostasy are themselves people who fulfill many, if not all, of the agreed upon human rights. It is interesting to take a glance at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights signed over fifty years ago and see how many “civilized nations” of today are actually fulfilling the rights that they devised, agreed to and exhort the rest of the world to adhere to—especially, it seems, the Muslim world.
Here is a sampling of some of the rights of that original convention (for the sake of brevity the later conventions that were also agreed to shall be ignored here[6]):
Article 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
In the history of mankind, two sets of people are well known for compiling manuals and research on the art of torture: the members of the Inquisition and the CIA. In recent times, perhaps everyone is familiar with the current debate in the United States about the use of torture on “terror” suspects.
Although it is a very general reference source, it is interesting to note what the 2004 Microsoft Encarta has to say about torture:
Until the 13th century torture was apparently not sanctioned by the canon law of the Christian church; about that time, however, the Roman treason law began to be adapted to heresy as crimen laesae majestatis Divinae (“crime of injury to Divine majesty”). Soon after the Inquisition was instituted, Pope Innocent IV, influenced by the revival of Roman law, issued a decree (in 1252) that called on civil magistrates to have persons accused of heresy tortured to elicit confessions against themselves and others; this was probably the earliest instance of ecclesiastical sanction of this mode of examination… In the 20th century the use of torture was revived on a major scale by the National Socialist, Fascist, and Communist regimes of Europe, usually as a weapon of political coercion. In addition, the Communist governments made use of the so-called brainwashing technique, a form of psychological torture in which mental disorientation is induced by methods such as forcing a prisoner to stay awake indefinitely. Brainwashing was practiced extensively on prisoners held by the Communists during the Korean War. Complaints about the use of physical and psychological torture have also been lodged against many other regimes in Latin America, Africa, and Asia.[7]
The nerve of those fascists and communists! The nerve of those uncivilized countries in Latin America, Africa and Asia! This is not the proper place to enter into a critique of the use of torture by the “family of civilized nations” who first and foremost uphold “human rights.” The interested reader may consult, just to name a few books, Alfred McCoy’s A Question of Torture or Jennifer Harbury’s Truth, Torture and the American Way as well as two books more specific about the recent debate Abu Ghraib: The Politics of Torture and The Torture Papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib. The amazing aspect to mention is that during this debate in the media, there has been very little or no mention that freedom from torture is, according to what the United States’ government signed, a fundamental human right.
It should be noted that for decades now Muslim activists have faced torture in prisons throughout the world with, for the most part, the West turning a blind eye to such activities. Indeed, some Western writers—even one who claims to be Sufi—defend such practices. For example, in Stephen Schwartz’s The Two Faces of Islam: The House of Sa’ud from Tradition to Terror, he states that Nasser’s regime’s “brutal repression of the Muslim brotherhood…was both necessary and justified.”[8] Of course, he never notes that it was this brutality and torture in Nasser’s prisons that truly led to the emergence of extremism in the Muslim world.[9]
Article 7
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 9
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair, and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11
1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
These “fundamental human rights” are very interesting in the light of the manner in which both the United States and the European Union have responded in their “war on terror.” This point and the earlier comments seem to make it very clear that these fundamental human rights, which these very same nations speak so highly of, are by no means absolute. The “family of civilized nations” is more than ready to deny these human rights for the sake of “national security,” in other words, for the purpose of state. This is very telling. It clearly demonstrates that even from these countries’ points of view, the interest of the state is the most compelling factor. One simply has to understand and realize that his human rights can be suspended if necessary in the interest of the well-being of the state.
Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Obviously, freedom of religion and opinion is something that the West stands for—or does it really? In March 2006, David Irving, a British historian, was sentenced to three years in prison in Austria for denying the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz during the Nazi holocaust. The Austrian law states that it is illegal to deny or “grossly play down” the Nazi genocide.[10] This is a crime that has landed someone in prison. Yet where is the outcry from the “pro-human rights” governments of the West. Why are the Western leaders not asking in relevant forums, “When is Austria going to join the ‘family of civilized nations’”? The EU, perhaps the most vocal supporters of human rights, does not seem to have a problem with a law of this nature from one of its own.
Article 23
1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
2. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
3. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
4. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Aren’t these the kinds of things that people demonstrate for outside of the World Trade Organization’s meetings? If the powerful nations (along with their friends in the powerful corporations) were fully in favor of these agreed upon human rights, wouldn’t they be embracing the demonstrators with open arms? Is that what occurs or are they met with the largest battalions of riot police the world has ever seen?[11] Could it possibly be the case that, according to the “family of civilized nations,” if “noble” profits are involved, then one may ignore human rights?
Today, there is a movement in the United States demanding the institution of a “living wage” as opposed to a “minimum wage.” The movement, so far, has not met with much success or acceptance.
Incidentally, beginning in 1923, Congress introduced the Equal Rights Amendment, to give equal rights to women, including the right to equal pay for equal work. Although the deadline to ratify that amendment was extended all the way until 1982, it was not ratified by enough states and has never become part of the US constitution.
Article 22
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Article 25
1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
These are truly amazing articles. It can be argued that anyone who believes in or promotes free market, liberal capitalism is, in essence, stating and showing that they do not believe in this human right. Free market capitalism, due to the violation of its essential assumptions, is not geared to producing “the best of all possible worlds” and only produces what the skewed market demands. A mixture of capitalism and socialism, at best, can provide something but probably not all that is needed. But it is this very mixture of capitalism and socialism that has been the target of attack in recent years. The policies of the World Bank, the IMF and the WTO, which are nothing but tools in the hands of the “family of civilized nations” have been nothing short of an assault on any such “socialist” practices on the part of governments, especially those of lesser developed countries. The “liberalization” policies are in complete contrast to the “fundamental human rights” of the individuals of those countries.
The point of the above discussion is not to argue that “two wrongs make a right” and that, if those civilized countries can violate “human rights,” Muslim countries should be allowed to do the same. (True, such a stance on the part of Western nations can be seen as very hypocritical, and nothing breeds hatred and resentment like hypocrisy in action. However, again, that is not the main point here.) The point being made here is that it is rationally understood that there may be some issues that take precedence over what one understands to be fundamental human rights. In other words, as stated above, these rights cannot be considered absolute and defensible under all circumstances. This is true even for those countries who accept these fundamental human rights in principle. Thus, rights are good and important but they are not the end all of the issue. Other important and overriding factors may also have to be considered. Perhaps nothing highlights this point more than the recent debate on torture—even though the same countries who are debating the legality of torture have agreed that torture is clearly considered a violation of fundamental human rights.
Could God Legislate Death for Apostasy?
Many Christians, in particular, seem abhorred by the fact that Muslims could believe that God has legislated death for apostasy. This author has personally heard Christians claim, once again, that Islam must be some barbaric religion to believe in such a penalty. This attitude is very perplexing to this author. It is one thing to say, “We no longer believe in such a law” and quite another to say, “We do not believe in a God that would legislate such a penalty.” In the former case, the individual is simply turning his back on what may have been part of his religion. Such an approach is common for modernist Jews, Christians and Muslims. However, the latter approach clearly denies what is stated in their holy books. (Unfortunately, this is also not uncommon for modernists. However, many less-extreme Jews, Christians and Muslims do not allow themselves to go that far.)
An in-depth study of all of the relevant Biblical texts is well beyond what is needed here. Hence, only one or two verses shall be commented upon.[12]
Exodus 22:20 reads, “He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.” Famed and widely respected Biblical commentator Matthew Henry had the following to say about this verse:
IV. Idolatry is also made capital, v. 20. God having declared himself jealous in this matter, the civil powers must be jealous in it too, and utterly destroy those persons, families, and places of Israel, that worshipped any god, save the Lord: this law might have prevented the woeful apostasies of the Jewish nation in after times, if those that should have executed it had not been ringleaders in the breach of it.[13]
Numbers 25:1-5 reads:
1 And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab. 2 And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods. 3 And Israel joined himself unto Baal-peor: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel. 4 And the LORD said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel. 5 And Moses said unto the judges of Israel, Slay ye every one his men that were joined unto Baal-peor.
Another passage, Deuteronomy 13:6-11 is also quite telling:
6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; 7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; 8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: 9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. 11 And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you.
2 Chronicles 15:8-19 has the law being applied even to the young among the apostates. The relevant verses in that passage are verses 12-13 which read,
12 And they entered into a covenant to seek the LORD God of their fathers with all their heart and with all their soul; 13 That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.
From the New Testament, one finds in Romans 1:20-32 that Paul approves of the death of idolaters, homosexuals and other sinners. This passage reads,
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
The above examples should be sufficient. The interested reader may further consult Deuteronomy 13:12-18 and Deuteronomy 17: 1-7.
Actually, as is well-known, the history of the official Christian church and many of its leaders on issues of this nature is very dark indeed. One did not need to be an apostate to be killed in the history of Christianity. Apostasy is to be distinguished from heresy, as is clear in the following passage from the Encyclopedia Britannica,
[Apostasy is] the total rejection of Christianity by a baptized person who, having at one time professed the faith, publicly rejects it. It is distinguished from heresy, which is limited to the rejection of one or more Christian doctrines by one who maintains an overall adherence to Jesus Christ.
Two examples from the history of Christianity dealing simply with heretics—not apostates—should suffice here. The Cathars, a pacifist heretical group of southern France, were crushed. Pope Innocent III declared a crusade against them. Here is how two Christian authors described part of that crusade:
In 1209, Arnold Amaury, abbot of Citeaux, called for the collective slaughter of all Cathars in the town of Beziers. His motto, which has carried forth into modern expression, stated, "Kill them all, the Lord knows those who are his." Only a small minority of the town, perhaps five hundred, was made up of Cathars, but all the city paid the price for guilt by association. Twenty thousand were killed. Thus began the wholesale slaughter of thousands of Cathars in the thirteenth century.[14]
Non-Catholics, of course, may respond to the above by putting the blood of those deeds on the hands of the evil Catholics. However, one should not forget Martin Luther’s ruling concerning the Anabaptists, another pacifist heretical group who had the audacity to have themselves re-baptized when adults.[15] Martin Luther stated that such heretics are not to be tolerated and the only fitting punishment for them was hanging.[16]
This approach is in compelling contrast to the legacy of Islam. Not long after the death of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), the caliph Ali had to face the crisis of the heretical group known as the Khawarij. Although he sent people to preach to them to correct their misunderstandings, his approach was that they were not to be physically attacked by the state as long as they did not commit any acts of violence against the Muslims. The Khawarij did become violent, and it became necessary for Ali to fight and defeat them. Afterwards, he was asked about them. He was asked if they were polytheists, and Ali replied that they, by holding the beliefs they held, were attempting to flee from falling into polytheism. When he was asked if they were hypocrites, he replied that hypocrites rarely remember and mention Allah. Finally, they asked him, “What are they?” He replied, “They are our brethren who revolted against us and we fought them only due to their revolting against us.”[17]
For God or For Country?
The history just referred to is actually very relevant for the contemporary discussion. It was this history that led to revulsion among Western thinkers to the idea of killing for the sake of God. There was so much killing of Christians by Christians in Europe that the great thinkers of Europe finally concluded that it makes no sense to kill “in the name of God.”
It did not take long for what occurred in the particular circumstances of Europe to be accepted by Western thinkers as “universal principles.” Nothing highlights this fact more than a short treatise prepared by the Institute for American Values shortly after 9/11. This paper was entitled, “What We’re Fighting For.” It was signed by many of the leading intellectuals in the United States, including Francis Fukuyama, Samuel Huntington, Daniel Patrick Moynihan and many others—including some of the leading just war theorists of today, such as James Turner Johnson, John Kelsay and Jean Bethke Elshtain.
In the opening passages of that paper, they state the following:
We affirm five fundamental truths that pertain to all people without distinction:
1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
2. The basic subject of society is the human person, and the legitimate role of government is to protect and help to foster the conditions for human flourishing.
3. Human beings naturally desire to seek the truth about life's purpose and ultimate ends.
4. Freedom of conscience and religious freedom are inviolable rights of the human person.
5. Killing in the name of God is contrary to faith in God and is the greatest betrayal of the universality of religious faith.
We fight to defend ourselves and to defend these universal principles.
Points numbers four and five are of most interest here. This author has to admit that the logic of this preamble escapes him. For example, how did Point 5 become a universal principle?[18] It definitely goes against what the West believed in for centuries. In reality, to this day, it is not a “universal principle” within the West—as can be seen by Christians who have been fighting each other in Northern Ireland and those who have committed murder at abortion clinics in the name of God. It is astonishing to see that after mentioning the basic principles, they then say that they fight “to defend these universal principles.”
At the very least, they should have said that they believe that these principles are good for all of humankind and deserving of the greatest amount of support. They way they have stated their case—and as signed by numerous dignitaries—has a fundamental logical flaw in it. How can they “fight” to defend the “universal principle” of “killing in the name of God is contrary to faith” while also fighting to defend the principle of “religious freedom” as one of the “inviolable rights of the human person”? From what they stated, one could argue that it is acceptable to fight for the sake of God against those people who kill in the name of God because killing in the name of God is contrary to faith in God, as they have stated!
But what have they done in reality? All they have done is replaced religion—for which one is not allowed to fight—with some principles that they have concluded—for which one is allowed to fight! Why should more weight be given to their devised principles rather than the principles that one believes has been revealed from God? Isn’t fighting for man-made principles nothing more than a “secular holy war”? In one of his numerous writings, James Turner Johnson made a valuable comment that highlights the self-contradiction of the stance that these signatories have taken. He wrote,
However, when the state itself develops a state ideology, something very much like holy war reasoning reasserts itself in secular guise. Examples include the ideologies of nationalism, nazism, communism, ethnicity, and even democracy. The West, then, has not completely rejected war for religion, for something very like it lives on in the form of wars for various justifying ideologies.[19]
Now comes a very perplexing question for anyone who believes in God, which, it seems, is still the majority of humankind today: How is it that one is not allowed to fight for the sake of God’s religion—God who created and nourished all of humankind—yet it is considered acceptable today to fight in the name of man-made ideologies, such as “democracy” or “freedom”? Indeed, it is considered completely acceptable today to fight in the name of man-made “nations.” People get together and form a nation, sometimes a result of most arbitrary historical events, and yet it becomes considered acceptable and logical for the people of that nation to kill others in wars carried out in the name of that nation. The same people who defend those types of wars, including many of the signatories to the above mentioned treatise, will condemn killing or fighting in the name of religion or for the sake of God. Which one should make more sense to the one who believes in God, regardless of whether he be a Jew, Christian, Muslim or whatever?
The issue becomes even more perplexing for those who believe in God: An individual can be jailed for life and even put to death for treason, all in the name of the state, yet at the same time, in the name of freedom of expression, anyone is allowed to say anything they wish about God, religion or virtually any other subject. The man-made entity called the state—which may not even exist tomorrow, such as Yugoslavia, or may even give up its overriding ideology, such as the USSR—has the right to put someone to death but God has no right to call for the death of any individual.[20]
The result is a rather hypocritical situation. If such rights for states are accepted then they must also be accepted for God, especially when one’s view of God embodies state, society and personal devotion, as in the case of Islam.
The Paradox of Human Rights and the Freedom to Believe
Those who object to the law of apostasy in Islam in the name of “human rights” have fallen into a very interesting paradox. According to the principle of freedom of belief, nobody should be asked to give up anything they believe in, however today, it is being demanded of Muslims that they not believe in or implement the Islamic law of apostasy. In other words, in the name of human rights and the freedom to believe, they are saying that one does not have the right to believe that someone should be put to death for denying the religion of Islam. This is very much similar to Henry Ford saying, “You can have the Model T in any color you like, as long as it is black.” They are actually defining the limits of one’s belief and they are doing that in the name of freedom of belief.
Proponents of human rights have openly voiced their view: If there is any conflict between human rights—that is, what they claim to be human rights—and any religion or way of life, then human rights takes precedence. In other words, one has the freedom to do and believe what one pleases as long as it is in accord with what the propagators—or dare one say, false gods—of human rights approve of. Ann Elizabeth Mayer, for example, writes,
Muslims may have the sincere conviction that their religious tradition requires deviations from international law, and such private beliefs must be respected. However, the situation becomes different when beliefs that Islamic rules should supersede human rights are marshaled to promote campaigns or measures for stripping others of rights to which they are entitled under international law or when such beliefs are cited to buttress governmental policies and laws that violate the International Bill of Rights. The resulting curbs on rights and freedoms go well beyond the realm of protected private beliefs and enter the domains of politics and law.[21]
Mayer claims to write more from an international observer of law. So now, she has gone from declaring freedom of religion to declaring what types of religion will be free to exist and be actually put into practice. Obviously, any religion that claims any say in “politics” or “law” is not an acceptable religion.
In a work entitled Women’s Rights Human Rights: International Feminist Perspectives, Meyer wrote an article in which she delineated some of what must be removed from the Islamic world due to its contradiction with the concept of human rights. Note how many of the following clearly and without question violate direct texts of the Quran or Sunnah,
Laws [in the Muslim Middle East] commonly provide that the wife must obey her husband, that wives are not allowed to work outside the home without their husbands’ permission, that men may take up to four wives, that a Muslim woman may not marry outside the faith, and that women are entitled to only one-half the inheritance share that men inherit in the same capacity.
Depending on the country involved, one may find that women are compelled to wear concealing garments in public… that their testimony in court is excluded or valued at one-half the weight of a man’s, that they are not allowed to travel without the permission of a male relative or unless accompanied by a male relative… Obviously it would be hard to justify the retention of such laws if one took seriously international norms such as Article 2 of CEDAW [Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, in force since 1918], requiring all states “to pursue all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating discrimination against women.”[22]
Similarly, after the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna in June 1993, the New York Times stated that Washington warned “that it would oppose any attempt to use religious and cultural traditions to weaken the concept of universal rights.”[23] At that conference, Secretary of State Warren Christopher stated that the U.S. will defend the universality of those rights against those who hold, in his own words, “that human rights should be interpreted differently in regions with non-Western cultures.”[24]
It seems that what they are saying is clear: Although freedom of belief is a fundamental human right, according to the article quoted above, before one is truly allowed to believe in or practice any religion, one must check with the human rights experts to ensure that the beliefs and practices of that religion are compatible with fundamental human rights. If this is not a paradox, nothing is.
The following question remains: What “right” do they have to force such paradoxical thinking upon the Muslims, requiring that the Muslims actually alter their faith? It seems that there is no such “right” as such a right could only be invoked by contradicting the Muslim’s “fundamental human rights”!
Conclusion
It is beyond the scope of this article to touch upon all of the relevant points related to the question of the law of apostasy in Islam[25] in the light of contemporary thought and attitudes. However, the above has been sufficient to demonstrate that there does not seem to be any logical, historical or philosophical argument that proves that Islam’s law of apostasy is unacceptable or irrational, especially when applied within the strict confines of the principles of Islamic Law.
The belief in the Islamic law of apostasy stems from the Islamic belief in God, the Creator. It stems from the belief that God has the right to lay down laws for His creatures and that, in fact, He is the best in laying down such laws. This should be considered logical by anyone who believes in God. Even though it can be considered logical, this argument is repugnant to many of the West, even those who believe in God. However, this fact has more to do with the West’s unique history than with the logic of the argument being made. The West experienced a period in which many were killed in the name of God and they also experienced a period in which they realized that their scriptures are not truly from God, due to their manifest contradiction with science. Both of these facts led the West to move away from “God’s law” to man-made laws. One, though, cannot derive “universal principles” from the experience of this small portion of human beings. In fact, those phenomena have no relevance whatsoever to Islam.
Thus, there is no logical reason for a Muslim not to trust in Islam’s scripture, the Quran, as being a true revelation from God.
Hence, there is no reason for a Muslim to abandon God’s law.
Similarly, there is no reason for a Muslim to stop believing in the fact that the best lawgiver is God Himself.
Therefore, there is no logical reason for a Muslim to stop believing in the Islamic law of apostasy as explained by the Prophet of God, Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).
Jamaal al-Deen Zarabozo
Article ID: 1262 3563 Reads
Much has been said in recent months concerning the law of apostasy in Islam. In particular, the recent case in Afghanistan has highlighted, once again, to many in the Western world that the Muslim world is neither civilized nor respective of human rights. Repeatedly one hears cries that the Muslim countries must change in order to join “the family of civilized countries” in today’s world. In fact, the Islamic law of apostasy seems to be one of the most obvious cases where a “fundamental” human right is violated by Islamic law, bringing up the question of whether Islamic law is even suitable for modern times or must Muslims be compelled to modify and change their religion and laws.
Indeed, Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed by the vast majority of today’s countries, reads: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”
On the other hand, Muslims believe that the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said,
لا يَحِلُّ دَمُ امْرِئٍ مُسْلِمٍ إِلاَّ بِإِحْدَى ثَلاَثٍ الثَّيِّبُ الزَّانِي وَالنَّفْسُ بِالنَّفْسِ والتَارِكُ لِدِيْنِهِ المُفَارِقُ لِلْجَمَاعَةِ
“It is not legal [to spill] the blood of a Muslim except in one of three cases: the fornicator who has previously experienced legal sexual intercourse (i.e. with one’s husband, wife, etc.), a life for a life and one who forsakes his religion and separates from the community.” (Recorded by al-Bukhari and Muslim.)
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is also reported to have said,
مَنْ بَدَّلَ دِينَهُ فَاقْتُلُوهُ
“Whoever changes his religion is to be killed.”[2] (Recorded by al-Bukhari and others.)
These texts from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) have led the vast majority of Muslim scholars to conclude that the punishment for apostasy from Islam in Islamic Law is death. It is true that there are some, especially contemporary writers, who opt for very different conclusions and argue that such a death penalty is a misunderstanding of Islamic Law. This is not the proper place to enter into such a debate. Instead, this author shall presume that the opinion that has been held by the vast majority of the scholars is the correct opinion. This entire discussion, therefore, shall be in the light of that conclusion. If the harsher punishment can be “defended” from the current onslaught, any lesser punishments will, obviously, be even more so defensible.
This opinion held by the vast majority of Muslim scholars of the past puts the contemporary Muslim into quite a quandary—especially given a “modern” view of religion that believes that religion must be changed if it does not meet the rational requirements of the times. However, before one immediately jumps to resolve an issue of this nature, one has to realize that there are a number of unstated premises that are in the background.
Furthermore, if one is being asked to give up the dictates of his faith, there should be rather strong compelling evidence demonstrating that his faith (or some aspect of it) is simply unacceptable. In other words, nobody should be asked to give up something that they believe in unless there truly is strong proof that what he believes in must be wrong or unacceptable. Otherwise, on what basis should an individual—any individual, be he Muslim, Christian, Jew, Hindu, whatever—compromise on something that he believes is demanded by or beloved to his very own creator and lord?
At this point, it is necessary to inject a further comment, because issues of this nature are often the result of different worldviews and perceptions. Many in the West have the understanding that “faith” means to believe in something that one cannot prove. This is not the approach of Islam.[3] In general, Muslims hold that there are very strong, rational reasons for them to believe in their religion. It is not simply a matter of “blind faith.” Instead—and this is obviously not the proper place to go into this in detail—Muslims think, for example, that the excellence of the Quran, its unquestionable historical authenticity, and the numerous miracles[4] related to it all point to this book being a true revelation from God. Thus, before a Muslim is asked to override something found in his religion, there had better be very strong evidence that something is mistaken or unacceptable in the religion of Islam. Furthermore, from a Muslim’s perspective, the burden of proof in such a case would be upon the one who claims that there is something superior or more suitable than what is found in Islamic law. (It must be stressed that this seems to be an issue that many in the West simply cannot comprehend because they think that faith is just a matter of blind faith and they do not realize that Muslims have rational reasons for believing in Islam and Islamic Law.)
The question that the Muslim must pose, therefore, is the following: Do those who promote “human rights” or “civilization/modernity” have such evidence and strong proofs? Without jumping too much ahead, it would seem that they do not.[5] In fact, one can question, based on their own statements about civilization, whether those who call for “civilization” are actually civilized themselves. What are the criteria by which a country is to be judged to be among “the family of civilized nations” today? Is it, for example, the acceptance and respect for those vaunted “human rights”? This would seem to be the underlying premise of many statements heard in the media today. If that is the case, then the list of human rights need to be studied in further detail.
The “Family of Civilized Nations” and Human Rights
One would expect that those who make a great fuss over the human rights of a Muslim accused of apostasy are themselves people who fulfill many, if not all, of the agreed upon human rights. It is interesting to take a glance at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights signed over fifty years ago and see how many “civilized nations” of today are actually fulfilling the rights that they devised, agreed to and exhort the rest of the world to adhere to—especially, it seems, the Muslim world.
Here is a sampling of some of the rights of that original convention (for the sake of brevity the later conventions that were also agreed to shall be ignored here[6]):
Article 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
In the history of mankind, two sets of people are well known for compiling manuals and research on the art of torture: the members of the Inquisition and the CIA. In recent times, perhaps everyone is familiar with the current debate in the United States about the use of torture on “terror” suspects.
Although it is a very general reference source, it is interesting to note what the 2004 Microsoft Encarta has to say about torture:
Until the 13th century torture was apparently not sanctioned by the canon law of the Christian church; about that time, however, the Roman treason law began to be adapted to heresy as crimen laesae majestatis Divinae (“crime of injury to Divine majesty”). Soon after the Inquisition was instituted, Pope Innocent IV, influenced by the revival of Roman law, issued a decree (in 1252) that called on civil magistrates to have persons accused of heresy tortured to elicit confessions against themselves and others; this was probably the earliest instance of ecclesiastical sanction of this mode of examination… In the 20th century the use of torture was revived on a major scale by the National Socialist, Fascist, and Communist regimes of Europe, usually as a weapon of political coercion. In addition, the Communist governments made use of the so-called brainwashing technique, a form of psychological torture in which mental disorientation is induced by methods such as forcing a prisoner to stay awake indefinitely. Brainwashing was practiced extensively on prisoners held by the Communists during the Korean War. Complaints about the use of physical and psychological torture have also been lodged against many other regimes in Latin America, Africa, and Asia.[7]
The nerve of those fascists and communists! The nerve of those uncivilized countries in Latin America, Africa and Asia! This is not the proper place to enter into a critique of the use of torture by the “family of civilized nations” who first and foremost uphold “human rights.” The interested reader may consult, just to name a few books, Alfred McCoy’s A Question of Torture or Jennifer Harbury’s Truth, Torture and the American Way as well as two books more specific about the recent debate Abu Ghraib: The Politics of Torture and The Torture Papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib. The amazing aspect to mention is that during this debate in the media, there has been very little or no mention that freedom from torture is, according to what the United States’ government signed, a fundamental human right.
It should be noted that for decades now Muslim activists have faced torture in prisons throughout the world with, for the most part, the West turning a blind eye to such activities. Indeed, some Western writers—even one who claims to be Sufi—defend such practices. For example, in Stephen Schwartz’s The Two Faces of Islam: The House of Sa’ud from Tradition to Terror, he states that Nasser’s regime’s “brutal repression of the Muslim brotherhood…was both necessary and justified.”[8] Of course, he never notes that it was this brutality and torture in Nasser’s prisons that truly led to the emergence of extremism in the Muslim world.[9]
Article 7
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 9
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair, and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11
1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
These “fundamental human rights” are very interesting in the light of the manner in which both the United States and the European Union have responded in their “war on terror.” This point and the earlier comments seem to make it very clear that these fundamental human rights, which these very same nations speak so highly of, are by no means absolute. The “family of civilized nations” is more than ready to deny these human rights for the sake of “national security,” in other words, for the purpose of state. This is very telling. It clearly demonstrates that even from these countries’ points of view, the interest of the state is the most compelling factor. One simply has to understand and realize that his human rights can be suspended if necessary in the interest of the well-being of the state.
Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Obviously, freedom of religion and opinion is something that the West stands for—or does it really? In March 2006, David Irving, a British historian, was sentenced to three years in prison in Austria for denying the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz during the Nazi holocaust. The Austrian law states that it is illegal to deny or “grossly play down” the Nazi genocide.[10] This is a crime that has landed someone in prison. Yet where is the outcry from the “pro-human rights” governments of the West. Why are the Western leaders not asking in relevant forums, “When is Austria going to join the ‘family of civilized nations’”? The EU, perhaps the most vocal supporters of human rights, does not seem to have a problem with a law of this nature from one of its own.
Article 23
1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
2. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
3. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
4. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Aren’t these the kinds of things that people demonstrate for outside of the World Trade Organization’s meetings? If the powerful nations (along with their friends in the powerful corporations) were fully in favor of these agreed upon human rights, wouldn’t they be embracing the demonstrators with open arms? Is that what occurs or are they met with the largest battalions of riot police the world has ever seen?[11] Could it possibly be the case that, according to the “family of civilized nations,” if “noble” profits are involved, then one may ignore human rights?
Today, there is a movement in the United States demanding the institution of a “living wage” as opposed to a “minimum wage.” The movement, so far, has not met with much success or acceptance.
Incidentally, beginning in 1923, Congress introduced the Equal Rights Amendment, to give equal rights to women, including the right to equal pay for equal work. Although the deadline to ratify that amendment was extended all the way until 1982, it was not ratified by enough states and has never become part of the US constitution.
Article 22
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Article 25
1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
These are truly amazing articles. It can be argued that anyone who believes in or promotes free market, liberal capitalism is, in essence, stating and showing that they do not believe in this human right. Free market capitalism, due to the violation of its essential assumptions, is not geared to producing “the best of all possible worlds” and only produces what the skewed market demands. A mixture of capitalism and socialism, at best, can provide something but probably not all that is needed. But it is this very mixture of capitalism and socialism that has been the target of attack in recent years. The policies of the World Bank, the IMF and the WTO, which are nothing but tools in the hands of the “family of civilized nations” have been nothing short of an assault on any such “socialist” practices on the part of governments, especially those of lesser developed countries. The “liberalization” policies are in complete contrast to the “fundamental human rights” of the individuals of those countries.
The point of the above discussion is not to argue that “two wrongs make a right” and that, if those civilized countries can violate “human rights,” Muslim countries should be allowed to do the same. (True, such a stance on the part of Western nations can be seen as very hypocritical, and nothing breeds hatred and resentment like hypocrisy in action. However, again, that is not the main point here.) The point being made here is that it is rationally understood that there may be some issues that take precedence over what one understands to be fundamental human rights. In other words, as stated above, these rights cannot be considered absolute and defensible under all circumstances. This is true even for those countries who accept these fundamental human rights in principle. Thus, rights are good and important but they are not the end all of the issue. Other important and overriding factors may also have to be considered. Perhaps nothing highlights this point more than the recent debate on torture—even though the same countries who are debating the legality of torture have agreed that torture is clearly considered a violation of fundamental human rights.
Could God Legislate Death for Apostasy?
Many Christians, in particular, seem abhorred by the fact that Muslims could believe that God has legislated death for apostasy. This author has personally heard Christians claim, once again, that Islam must be some barbaric religion to believe in such a penalty. This attitude is very perplexing to this author. It is one thing to say, “We no longer believe in such a law” and quite another to say, “We do not believe in a God that would legislate such a penalty.” In the former case, the individual is simply turning his back on what may have been part of his religion. Such an approach is common for modernist Jews, Christians and Muslims. However, the latter approach clearly denies what is stated in their holy books. (Unfortunately, this is also not uncommon for modernists. However, many less-extreme Jews, Christians and Muslims do not allow themselves to go that far.)
An in-depth study of all of the relevant Biblical texts is well beyond what is needed here. Hence, only one or two verses shall be commented upon.[12]
Exodus 22:20 reads, “He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.” Famed and widely respected Biblical commentator Matthew Henry had the following to say about this verse:
IV. Idolatry is also made capital, v. 20. God having declared himself jealous in this matter, the civil powers must be jealous in it too, and utterly destroy those persons, families, and places of Israel, that worshipped any god, save the Lord: this law might have prevented the woeful apostasies of the Jewish nation in after times, if those that should have executed it had not been ringleaders in the breach of it.[13]
Numbers 25:1-5 reads:
1 And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab. 2 And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods. 3 And Israel joined himself unto Baal-peor: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel. 4 And the LORD said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel. 5 And Moses said unto the judges of Israel, Slay ye every one his men that were joined unto Baal-peor.
Another passage, Deuteronomy 13:6-11 is also quite telling:
6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; 7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; 8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: 9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. 11 And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you.
2 Chronicles 15:8-19 has the law being applied even to the young among the apostates. The relevant verses in that passage are verses 12-13 which read,
12 And they entered into a covenant to seek the LORD God of their fathers with all their heart and with all their soul; 13 That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.
From the New Testament, one finds in Romans 1:20-32 that Paul approves of the death of idolaters, homosexuals and other sinners. This passage reads,
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
The above examples should be sufficient. The interested reader may further consult Deuteronomy 13:12-18 and Deuteronomy 17: 1-7.
Actually, as is well-known, the history of the official Christian church and many of its leaders on issues of this nature is very dark indeed. One did not need to be an apostate to be killed in the history of Christianity. Apostasy is to be distinguished from heresy, as is clear in the following passage from the Encyclopedia Britannica,
[Apostasy is] the total rejection of Christianity by a baptized person who, having at one time professed the faith, publicly rejects it. It is distinguished from heresy, which is limited to the rejection of one or more Christian doctrines by one who maintains an overall adherence to Jesus Christ.
Two examples from the history of Christianity dealing simply with heretics—not apostates—should suffice here. The Cathars, a pacifist heretical group of southern France, were crushed. Pope Innocent III declared a crusade against them. Here is how two Christian authors described part of that crusade:
In 1209, Arnold Amaury, abbot of Citeaux, called for the collective slaughter of all Cathars in the town of Beziers. His motto, which has carried forth into modern expression, stated, "Kill them all, the Lord knows those who are his." Only a small minority of the town, perhaps five hundred, was made up of Cathars, but all the city paid the price for guilt by association. Twenty thousand were killed. Thus began the wholesale slaughter of thousands of Cathars in the thirteenth century.[14]
Non-Catholics, of course, may respond to the above by putting the blood of those deeds on the hands of the evil Catholics. However, one should not forget Martin Luther’s ruling concerning the Anabaptists, another pacifist heretical group who had the audacity to have themselves re-baptized when adults.[15] Martin Luther stated that such heretics are not to be tolerated and the only fitting punishment for them was hanging.[16]
This approach is in compelling contrast to the legacy of Islam. Not long after the death of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), the caliph Ali had to face the crisis of the heretical group known as the Khawarij. Although he sent people to preach to them to correct their misunderstandings, his approach was that they were not to be physically attacked by the state as long as they did not commit any acts of violence against the Muslims. The Khawarij did become violent, and it became necessary for Ali to fight and defeat them. Afterwards, he was asked about them. He was asked if they were polytheists, and Ali replied that they, by holding the beliefs they held, were attempting to flee from falling into polytheism. When he was asked if they were hypocrites, he replied that hypocrites rarely remember and mention Allah. Finally, they asked him, “What are they?” He replied, “They are our brethren who revolted against us and we fought them only due to their revolting against us.”[17]
For God or For Country?
The history just referred to is actually very relevant for the contemporary discussion. It was this history that led to revulsion among Western thinkers to the idea of killing for the sake of God. There was so much killing of Christians by Christians in Europe that the great thinkers of Europe finally concluded that it makes no sense to kill “in the name of God.”
It did not take long for what occurred in the particular circumstances of Europe to be accepted by Western thinkers as “universal principles.” Nothing highlights this fact more than a short treatise prepared by the Institute for American Values shortly after 9/11. This paper was entitled, “What We’re Fighting For.” It was signed by many of the leading intellectuals in the United States, including Francis Fukuyama, Samuel Huntington, Daniel Patrick Moynihan and many others—including some of the leading just war theorists of today, such as James Turner Johnson, John Kelsay and Jean Bethke Elshtain.
In the opening passages of that paper, they state the following:
We affirm five fundamental truths that pertain to all people without distinction:
1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
2. The basic subject of society is the human person, and the legitimate role of government is to protect and help to foster the conditions for human flourishing.
3. Human beings naturally desire to seek the truth about life's purpose and ultimate ends.
4. Freedom of conscience and religious freedom are inviolable rights of the human person.
5. Killing in the name of God is contrary to faith in God and is the greatest betrayal of the universality of religious faith.
We fight to defend ourselves and to defend these universal principles.
Points numbers four and five are of most interest here. This author has to admit that the logic of this preamble escapes him. For example, how did Point 5 become a universal principle?[18] It definitely goes against what the West believed in for centuries. In reality, to this day, it is not a “universal principle” within the West—as can be seen by Christians who have been fighting each other in Northern Ireland and those who have committed murder at abortion clinics in the name of God. It is astonishing to see that after mentioning the basic principles, they then say that they fight “to defend these universal principles.”
At the very least, they should have said that they believe that these principles are good for all of humankind and deserving of the greatest amount of support. They way they have stated their case—and as signed by numerous dignitaries—has a fundamental logical flaw in it. How can they “fight” to defend the “universal principle” of “killing in the name of God is contrary to faith” while also fighting to defend the principle of “religious freedom” as one of the “inviolable rights of the human person”? From what they stated, one could argue that it is acceptable to fight for the sake of God against those people who kill in the name of God because killing in the name of God is contrary to faith in God, as they have stated!
But what have they done in reality? All they have done is replaced religion—for which one is not allowed to fight—with some principles that they have concluded—for which one is allowed to fight! Why should more weight be given to their devised principles rather than the principles that one believes has been revealed from God? Isn’t fighting for man-made principles nothing more than a “secular holy war”? In one of his numerous writings, James Turner Johnson made a valuable comment that highlights the self-contradiction of the stance that these signatories have taken. He wrote,
However, when the state itself develops a state ideology, something very much like holy war reasoning reasserts itself in secular guise. Examples include the ideologies of nationalism, nazism, communism, ethnicity, and even democracy. The West, then, has not completely rejected war for religion, for something very like it lives on in the form of wars for various justifying ideologies.[19]
Now comes a very perplexing question for anyone who believes in God, which, it seems, is still the majority of humankind today: How is it that one is not allowed to fight for the sake of God’s religion—God who created and nourished all of humankind—yet it is considered acceptable today to fight in the name of man-made ideologies, such as “democracy” or “freedom”? Indeed, it is considered completely acceptable today to fight in the name of man-made “nations.” People get together and form a nation, sometimes a result of most arbitrary historical events, and yet it becomes considered acceptable and logical for the people of that nation to kill others in wars carried out in the name of that nation. The same people who defend those types of wars, including many of the signatories to the above mentioned treatise, will condemn killing or fighting in the name of religion or for the sake of God. Which one should make more sense to the one who believes in God, regardless of whether he be a Jew, Christian, Muslim or whatever?
The issue becomes even more perplexing for those who believe in God: An individual can be jailed for life and even put to death for treason, all in the name of the state, yet at the same time, in the name of freedom of expression, anyone is allowed to say anything they wish about God, religion or virtually any other subject. The man-made entity called the state—which may not even exist tomorrow, such as Yugoslavia, or may even give up its overriding ideology, such as the USSR—has the right to put someone to death but God has no right to call for the death of any individual.[20]
The result is a rather hypocritical situation. If such rights for states are accepted then they must also be accepted for God, especially when one’s view of God embodies state, society and personal devotion, as in the case of Islam.
The Paradox of Human Rights and the Freedom to Believe
Those who object to the law of apostasy in Islam in the name of “human rights” have fallen into a very interesting paradox. According to the principle of freedom of belief, nobody should be asked to give up anything they believe in, however today, it is being demanded of Muslims that they not believe in or implement the Islamic law of apostasy. In other words, in the name of human rights and the freedom to believe, they are saying that one does not have the right to believe that someone should be put to death for denying the religion of Islam. This is very much similar to Henry Ford saying, “You can have the Model T in any color you like, as long as it is black.” They are actually defining the limits of one’s belief and they are doing that in the name of freedom of belief.
Proponents of human rights have openly voiced their view: If there is any conflict between human rights—that is, what they claim to be human rights—and any religion or way of life, then human rights takes precedence. In other words, one has the freedom to do and believe what one pleases as long as it is in accord with what the propagators—or dare one say, false gods—of human rights approve of. Ann Elizabeth Mayer, for example, writes,
Muslims may have the sincere conviction that their religious tradition requires deviations from international law, and such private beliefs must be respected. However, the situation becomes different when beliefs that Islamic rules should supersede human rights are marshaled to promote campaigns or measures for stripping others of rights to which they are entitled under international law or when such beliefs are cited to buttress governmental policies and laws that violate the International Bill of Rights. The resulting curbs on rights and freedoms go well beyond the realm of protected private beliefs and enter the domains of politics and law.[21]
Mayer claims to write more from an international observer of law. So now, she has gone from declaring freedom of religion to declaring what types of religion will be free to exist and be actually put into practice. Obviously, any religion that claims any say in “politics” or “law” is not an acceptable religion.
In a work entitled Women’s Rights Human Rights: International Feminist Perspectives, Meyer wrote an article in which she delineated some of what must be removed from the Islamic world due to its contradiction with the concept of human rights. Note how many of the following clearly and without question violate direct texts of the Quran or Sunnah,
Laws [in the Muslim Middle East] commonly provide that the wife must obey her husband, that wives are not allowed to work outside the home without their husbands’ permission, that men may take up to four wives, that a Muslim woman may not marry outside the faith, and that women are entitled to only one-half the inheritance share that men inherit in the same capacity.
Depending on the country involved, one may find that women are compelled to wear concealing garments in public… that their testimony in court is excluded or valued at one-half the weight of a man’s, that they are not allowed to travel without the permission of a male relative or unless accompanied by a male relative… Obviously it would be hard to justify the retention of such laws if one took seriously international norms such as Article 2 of CEDAW [Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, in force since 1918], requiring all states “to pursue all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating discrimination against women.”[22]
Similarly, after the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna in June 1993, the New York Times stated that Washington warned “that it would oppose any attempt to use religious and cultural traditions to weaken the concept of universal rights.”[23] At that conference, Secretary of State Warren Christopher stated that the U.S. will defend the universality of those rights against those who hold, in his own words, “that human rights should be interpreted differently in regions with non-Western cultures.”[24]
It seems that what they are saying is clear: Although freedom of belief is a fundamental human right, according to the article quoted above, before one is truly allowed to believe in or practice any religion, one must check with the human rights experts to ensure that the beliefs and practices of that religion are compatible with fundamental human rights. If this is not a paradox, nothing is.
The following question remains: What “right” do they have to force such paradoxical thinking upon the Muslims, requiring that the Muslims actually alter their faith? It seems that there is no such “right” as such a right could only be invoked by contradicting the Muslim’s “fundamental human rights”!
Conclusion
It is beyond the scope of this article to touch upon all of the relevant points related to the question of the law of apostasy in Islam[25] in the light of contemporary thought and attitudes. However, the above has been sufficient to demonstrate that there does not seem to be any logical, historical or philosophical argument that proves that Islam’s law of apostasy is unacceptable or irrational, especially when applied within the strict confines of the principles of Islamic Law.
The belief in the Islamic law of apostasy stems from the Islamic belief in God, the Creator. It stems from the belief that God has the right to lay down laws for His creatures and that, in fact, He is the best in laying down such laws. This should be considered logical by anyone who believes in God. Even though it can be considered logical, this argument is repugnant to many of the West, even those who believe in God. However, this fact has more to do with the West’s unique history than with the logic of the argument being made. The West experienced a period in which many were killed in the name of God and they also experienced a period in which they realized that their scriptures are not truly from God, due to their manifest contradiction with science. Both of these facts led the West to move away from “God’s law” to man-made laws. One, though, cannot derive “universal principles” from the experience of this small portion of human beings. In fact, those phenomena have no relevance whatsoever to Islam.
Thus, there is no logical reason for a Muslim not to trust in Islam’s scripture, the Quran, as being a true revelation from God.
Hence, there is no reason for a Muslim to abandon God’s law.
Similarly, there is no reason for a Muslim to stop believing in the fact that the best lawgiver is God Himself.
Therefore, there is no logical reason for a Muslim to stop believing in the Islamic law of apostasy as explained by the Prophet of God, Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)