Non-Muslims for PAS - The Nut Graph

By Deborah Loh
deborahloh@thenutgraph.com

AFTER 20 years with the MCA, Hu Pang Chaw switched camps to give his allegiance to PAS. The former Kelantan MCA Youth secretary quit the Chinese-based party a week before the general election in 1999.

"I got tired of the MCA's infighting and personal agendas," says Hu. Living under PAS rule in Kelantan, he felt that the Islamist party was well organised, and its leaders and members friendly and humble.

"I accept the reality in Malaysia that Malay politics will be dominant. The choice between Umno and PAS is obvious. Umno divides people but PAS is more sincere about treating people fairly," he tells The Nut Graph.

Hu, a Christian, also reconciled his position with PAS's Islamic stance. "They say that in Islam, there is no racial superiority. And there is no mention of setting up an Islamic state in the PAS constitution. I have studied the constitution and there is nothing there that is against any other religion."

As the constitution only allows Muslims to become members, Hu decided to set up a supporters' club. It was launched a week before the general election in March 2004 with 100 members. Hu, the club president, said they now have an impressive 18,000 members after four years.

Hu finds PAS's message of equal treatment for all races under Islam
more appealing than Umno's ketuanan MelayuClubs are active in Kelantan, Terengganu, Kedah, Perak and Selangor. When first launched, most supporters were Chinese Malaysians, but Indian Malaysians now comprise 70% of the club after Hindraf's emergence on the national scene in late 2007.

The club has been credited with PAS's victories in the 2008 general election, especially the wresting of the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) stronghold of Kedah, where the party now rules the state government. PAS also retained Kelantan, and holds 22 of the 82 opposition coalition's seats in Parliament.

Now, the club is on the threshold of being elevated to a dewan, or wing, in the main party. The top leadership agreed to this in principle at a November 2008 party retreat. The matter will be raised at the party muktamar (annual congress) around the middle of 2009 for delegates' approval, but PAS deputy president Nasharuddin Mat Isa is eager for their acceptance. "I hope for a much bigger role for the club than what they are now," he tells The Nut Graph.

Advantageous for PAS

If the delegates approve it, PAS will be the first Islamic party in the world to admit non-Muslims, says the party's unity bureau chairperson Dr Mujahid Yusof Rawa.

"It would be wonderful, in this hostile climate of Islamophobia, for PAS to set a good example of inclusiveness," says Mujahid, whose bureau oversees the club.

But public relations aside, the political stakes at national level are clear. Opening PAS is strategic for its evolution from being the Islamic fundamentalist bogey to a national ruling party.

"It will be advantageous for PAS. The club has got so much support from non-Muslims and they are one reason we did so well in the general election," Nasharuddin says.

DAP elections strategist Liew Chin Tong, who researched PAS for his honours degree thesis in Asian Studies, says the supporters' club was a party milestone. This was because of the internal struggle between its moderates and hardliners in defining its future and relevance to the electorate.

"PAS has realised that the way forward is to be inclusive. That's how they won big in the 2008 general election.

"Instead of focusing on the Islamic state issue, they focused on people's stomachs. This helped them win in areas where non-Malays were the swing voters, such as in seats in south Kedah," says Liew, who is also the Bukit Bendera Member of Parliament.

Liew says the idea of making PAS multiracial dates back to the 1960s, but that did not take off until after 1999. The catalyst was the reformasi movement following Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's sacking as deputy prime minister and jailing for sodomy. PAS joined the opposition coalition, then known as Barisan Alternatif (BA) for the 1999 general election. It was forced to moderate its stand on its Islamic goals in order to appear palatable to its secular allies, DAP and PKR, then known as Parti KeADILan Nasional.

"Before the reformasi, PAS was on the fringes with 450,000 members. A year after Anwar's sacking, they had 800,000 members. Today, they have one million," Liew notes.

Faster than the BN

PAS is responding to growing interest in multiracial political parties faster than BN is able to reinvent its model of racially segregated representation under Umno dominance. How this will impact national politics will perhaps only be known at the next general election, due at the latest in 2013.

How PAS treads the middle path will also be closely watched. The party has always had tensions between those seeking to gather mass appeal for PAS beyond the Muslim electorate, and those who adhere to "purer" Islamic ideals for the whole country.

In 2002 and 2003, the party was divided over definitions of what constituted an Islamic state. According to Liew's research, there was also a policy split between conservatives who wanted an Islamic state at federal level, and mainstreamers who favoured syariah law only in PAS-governed states (Kelantan and then Terengganu). This fracture left PAS unprepared for the 2004 general election, in which the party performed disastrously, barely retaining Kelantan by a whisker.

Will the admission of non-Muslims drive a deeper wedge between the moderates and conservatives?

Party leaders seem able to justify it, at least to themselves. Mujahid, the unity bureau head, said PAS's Islamic ideologies are viable in a multiracial context. "PAS will actually become more Islamic with a non-Muslim wing, because Islam is multicultural," he says.

PAS spiritual leader Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat tossing yee sang with Chinese Malaysian
community leaders in Kelantan in February 2008 (Source: sokongpas.blogspot.com)

Balancing act

While admitting non-Muslim members can seem as simple as changing the party constitution with a stroke of the pen, there's more to the fine print.

Hu has big hopes for the non-Muslim wing. He wants to propose that they be given three seats on the PAS central committee. "We must have representation, or we might as well remain a club."

Mujahid, who is tasked with studying the technicalities involved in setting up the wing, has a cautious response. "We still have a lot to discuss. There are issues whether non-Muslims will be given full or associate membership, and whether there will be any conditions regarding their eligibility to vote and to have representation."

Nasharuddin also acknowledges the sensitivities involved. "If they become members, they shouldn't be treated as second-class. But we are not sure how the traditional PAS members will receive them, so we are getting feedback."

The crux is whether PAS sees itself as a party for all Malaysians. Liew believes the party can handle this balancing act, even with its Islamic stance, by being inclusive while ensuring that it stays "clean, competent and friendly" — aspects that the rural grassroots value.

Liew believes PAS can balance its Islamic stance and multiracialismCan PAS become a centrist, multiracial party, yet uphold its Islamic ideals? What bearing will a multiracial Islamist PAS have on its opposition partners, the DAP and PKR, which both espouse multiracial secularism? And how would it impact on the BN?

PAS's promise to be fair to all races must be matched with deeds, and it must avoid the Umno pitfall of equating race with religion. It waits to be seen, but if PAS can pull it off and get the support, serious changes may well happen to Malaysia's race-based political landscape.

Islamic crime and punishment - The Nut Graph

By Shanon Shah
shanonshah@thenutgraph.com

A MUCH sought-after speaker, imam Feisal Abdul Rauf was born in Kuwait in 1948 into an Egyptian family steeped in religious scholarship. He has a degree in physics from Columbia University in New York, United States, and was also educated in England and Malaysia. His comfort in slipping into Bahasa Malaysia before this interview was a pleasant surprise.

Imam Feisal is also the author of Islam: A Search for Meaning, Islam: A Sacred Law (what every Muslim should know about the Shariah), and What's Right With Islam: A New Vision for Muslims and the West.

In the second part of this exclusive interview with The Nut Graph, imam Feisal discusses whether personal sins can be turned into crimes punishable by the state, and whether there is a conflict between Islam and human rights.

TNG: There's a hadith that always makes me laugh, and I'm paraphrasing here. Prophet Muhammad was passing by a date palm orchard, and he observed the way that people were going to pollinate the plants and said, "Well I don't think that's going to work." The people then stopped what they were doing. When the trees did not yield any harvest later, the prophet said, "Well, what do I know about worldly affairs? I'm a prophet!"

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf: This hadith is actually a very important hadith, because [it] has been used by the scholars to indicate that the primary jurisdiction or mandate of the prophet was in religious affairs. And they've used [it] to indicate when the prophet makes a decision, [it is sometimes] from his wahy, or from the guidance of Allah, and that decision has a divine impact, or divine authority. [But] if it comes from his ijtihad, it is considered a different category.

In his own ijtihad, he can make a decision or recommendation which is deemed to be not working. So this hadith has been used by the scholars to define or to put a boundary to that area which is deemed to be the prophet's primary jurisdiction.

But now we go back to the issue of legislating on more divine matters. For example, we accept that there is consensus in Islam that Friday prayers are obligatory for Muslim men who fulfil certain conditions. If you don't do it then it's a sin between you and Allah. But if you legislate on that and it becomes a crime, where you can be put in jail, or fined a certain amount of money, how does that fit into this framework we are discussing?

[My] opinion is based upon Islamic history. We do know that this (penalising) was not instituted by the prophet (Muhammad) during his time. And it's very clear to many Muslim scholars that there are a variety of jurisdictional issues which need to be recognised by Muslims.

Let's say the courts in Malaysia render or make a decision. This decision has power over Malaysia, but not Singapore or Indonesia. People understand that pretty well. But jurisdiction is not just a matter of geography.

You can also have jurisdictions which apply to a particular group of people, and not to others. So for example, the syariah laws apply only to Muslims and not to non-Muslims.

Also, the syariah courts in Malaysia have jurisdiction over particular states, not other states. The syariah court in Selangor can render its decision but [its] jurisdictional authority [does not extend] over the state of Perak.

So you have that variety of jurisdiction — geographical limitation, community limitation, [and] also subject limitation. You can have, let's say, courts [with] jurisdiction over personal law cases [but not] over criminal law cases.

When you look at the laws of Islam, the crimes or the sins in Islam, there are certain sins which are very major. The Quran is very critical of both those who reject God and those who are Muslims but who are [also] hypocrites.

But the jurisdiction over penalising those people does not belong to the worldly courts. It belongs to Allah on the Day of Judgment. So no syariah court, no matter how serious the crime of hypocrisy, is granted jurisdictional authority to issue a penalty for the crime of hypocrisy. Are you going to play God?

Having said that, there is a principle in Islamic law called takzir, or warning. To give an example, let's say when a driver exceeds the speed limit, you fine him. A fine is like a slight penalty to prevent people from committing the crime itself. Because the penalty, [in] Islamic law, as it is in Western law, is a function of the seriousness of the result of the crime.

And you will notice that the penalties in Islamic law are far more punitive for damages that you do to your fellow human beings. Say if you commit murder, that's a capital crime. But if you do not perform your prayers, there's no recognised penalty for that.

It's important to note that there is no penalty that is imposed by the worldly courts for crimes committed against God. And if there is punishment for any of these things, of course, that punishment is the domain of God, not the domain of human beings.

There is no penalty for crimes or sins that you commit which do not hurt other people. For example, eating pork...it's haram. [But] there's no penalty in the Quran or hadith for eating pork. Even if you do it deliberately and you're committing a sin, there's no (worldly) penalty. Why?

It shows that not all sins are in the [worldly] jurisdiction to impose penalties.

So when Islamic teachings are used then as a source of public policy and law that affect citizens, do you think there is room for public debate to talk about these laws?

Of course. You know, when people went to, say, saidina Abu Bakar or saidina Umar for a decision, [if] he wasn't sure he would call the prophet's companions and consult with them. This whole idea of syura, consulting, means to get the opinion of the best thinkers around on a particular issue.

For instance, there's no penalty in the Quran or the hadith for the consumption of alcohol, the consumption of wine. And it was during the time of the caliph Umar, do you know this story?

I do.

This is the story of the prophet's companion who would enjoy drinking and when he got drunk, he would go around town of Medina saying slanderous things. So the people got upset about it. So they went to caliph Umar and said [something like], "There oughta be a law against this guy! This guy is saying slanderous things about us!"

Yes, there's no penalty in the Quran for drinking wine, or the hadith, but the guy is committing slander. So saidina Umar consulted, and saidina Ali said, well, when a person drinks alcohol he is prone to commit slander, and in this case this guy committed slander, so we punish him with a penalty for slander, which was 80 lashes.

So the punishment of 80 lashes was not because he consumed alcohol, it was because he was committing slander.

Correct. That's again an important thing for people to understand, the genesis, or the history of how certain things developed in our jurisprudence. So the application of 80 lashes for the consumption of alcohol is not really a correct application for the consumption of alcohol per se, but rather for a crime committed under the influence of alcohol. So if a person consumed alcohol and committed murder, the penalty would be different.

The same thing happens even under modern law. Let's say in the United States or in some countries, if you drink, there is no penalty.

But if you drink and drive...

Then you pay a fine if you get caught. Why? Because driving under the influence of alcohol is considered dangerous. But [paying a fine for] driving under the influence of alcohol, if you have not committed an accident, in fact is like a form of takzir. You're paying a penalty for not having really done any damage yet. But you could.

But if you drive under the influence of alcohol and crash into somebody's property and damage it, then your fine will be much larger. You will be liable for the damage to the property, in addition to the crime of driving under the influence of alcohol. If, because you were drunk, you were involved in an accident where someone was killed, then you will be liable for the diyah, for the blood payment (compensation for murder victim's next-of-kin).

Do you think there is a conflict between Islam and human rights? Specifically in the areas of women's rights, gay and lesbian rights, and in Malaysia, freedom of religion.

Well first, let me say this again. I have no jurisdiction in Malaysia. Now, my personal opinion is that the issue of human rights in general is something which Islamic ethics, Islamic jurisprudence is very much at the centre of. In fact, I am part of those scholars who believe that Islamic law has to always [advance] the cause of humanity, the interest of society, and the well-being of both the individual and the community.

And therefore it is the obligation of Muslim jurists to always bear in mind the well-being of the community, the well-being of the individual.

As far as women's rights, there's no doubt that Islam was about women's rights, and the prophet was very clear about that. It is [also] clear that in the 22 years of the prophet's time, he could not do everything that he would have liked to do.

It is clear, for example, that Islam is against slavery, but during the 22 years, it was not possible in that time, in that context, and in that duration to outlaw slavery entirely. But today we no longer have slavery. Islam condoned it but limited it; didn't ban it outright. But now that slavery has been banned, can anybody say that it is un-Islamic to ban slavery? Or that we should bring back slavery? I mean, this is certainly not in keeping with Islamic thought and Islamic ethics.

So, some scholars have said similarly [regarding] the status of women [and] our ability to understand issues that we did not understand before.

Gender, for example, is not a black-and-white issue. And even classical Islamic law recognised that. [For example] in estate law. Because people recognised that there were human beings born who exhibited both male and female characteristics, or were uncertain as to whether they were male or female. How do you dispose of an estate to a child when it is not clear whether he is male or female?

But you'll notice that even in classical times, there was no value judgment made against these people or against their rights.

Now, I'm of the opinion that given our modern understanding of [science], that Muslim scholars need to look at the issue of gender in light of our better ability to recognise the area where gender definition is a bit more blurred. And to ensure that whatever we do is based upon the principles of justice and ethics which are consistent with the ethics of the syariah.

Has the job been completely done? Let's say this: Islam has not been completed yet. That's how I would describe it.

Fatwas 101 - The Nut Graph

By Shanon Shah
shanonshah@thenutgraph.com

IMAM Feisal Abdul Rauf is the imam of Masjid Al-Farah in New York City, barely 12 blocks from the site of the 11 Sept 2001 attacks on the World Trade Centre. He is also CEO of the American Society for Muslim Advancement (Asma). Established in 1997, Asma is a Muslim organisation committed to bringing Muslims and non-Muslims together through programmes in academia, policy, current affairs and culture.

Furthermore, Imam Feisal is the architect of the Cordoba Initiative, an inter-religious effort to improve relations between the Muslim world and the West. His work takes him all over the world, including Malaysia. As he tells The Nut Graph: "I am interested in bringing humanity together, not creating divisions."

Imam Feisal granted The Nut Graph this exclusive interview to clarify the issue of fatwas, from historical, religious, and political perspectives. He stressed that he wanted this to educate and to clarify an issue that seems to have caused a lot of confusion in Malaysia, among both Muslims and non-Muslims.

(Background image (© Jetmir Decani)

TNG: What exactly is a fatwa?

Imam Feisal: A fatwa is a legal opinion. But depending upon the context in which it is given and who provides the opinion, it can have the force of law. If a fatwa is given by an authority that has the jurisdiction to render law, then that decision has the power of law.

It's like if you ask a qualified lawyer to give his opinion on something, it's a legal opinion. But the opinion given by a judge who sits [in] a court has jurisdiction in a particular piece of geography. And if it is done [according to] a certain process, then that opinion has the force of law.

When a judge gives an opinion on a specific case, it is called a hukum in Islam. It's a specific application, a judgment. And that judgment of that particular sitting judge has the power of law in a particular jurisdiction if it is [from] the highest authority. [So] in courts, we can go to a higher court to appeal, until [we] go to the highest level of the court system. The Islamic legal system is analogous to that in some ways. If the authority giving the fatwa has jurisdiction in that territory, then that opinion has the force of law.

The codification of Islamic law in contemporary times must be quite different than how it was applied during the period of classical Islam. In the classical period of Islam, what would be the process in issuing a fatwa?

[The] classical period in Islamic history refers to a particular period during which Islamic jurisprudence was being developed, which was roughly the second, third century [after Hijrah] till about five or six hundred years [after].

The imams developed the science of Islamic jurisprudence, called fiqh. Because we have what is called a syariah or a syarak. Syarak is the ordinances which God made in the Quran, and we have the syariah, which jurists define as being, roughly, depending upon which school, anywhere between 150 and 500 verses in the Quran called ayatul ahkam, which are verses in which God commands and prohibits. And there are about 12 to 15 hundred hadith of the prophet (Muhammad), in which the prophet also commands and prohibits.

This group of Quranic verses and prophetic statements [is] called the syariah. This is God-given, so to speak. And what we call fiqh means our understanding of the syariah. Of course, there is always, in Islamic thinking, a caveat that we human beings are not perfect.

The prophet himself was a human being, but he was guided and protected by the divine power during his prophethood. [W]hen the prophet did something God disagreed with, God would send a [Quranic verse] to correct the prophet. This is something which has happened.

So we call fiqh our understanding of the divine and prophetic statements. Because we always believe that our understanding may be imperfect and may be wrong. We try our best, but we know we cannot be completely correct all the time.

Fast-forward to contemporary times, and fatwa-making in the different Muslim nation-states and Muslim-majority societies has become so divergent. I remember a fatwa by Al-Azhar Grand Imam Sheikh Mohamed Sayed Tantawi, where he agreed with the ruling in France banning the hijab in public schools. The Grand Mufti of Egypt, Sheikh Ali Gomaa, at one point also issued a fatwa saying if the congregation agrees to have a woman imam for Friday prayers, then that's fine for that congregation. In Malaysia, on the other hand, there was a lot of objection to these two things. There does not seem to be a lot of harmony in the Muslim world now as far as the issue of fatwa-making is concerned.

Well, see, there is an impression by many Muslims that there's only one correct answer to many of these questions. This is a relatively modern phenomenon.

[But] that is not the case. Based upon even our knowledge of how the prophet (Muhammad) himself rendered decisions, the prophet gave different answers to the same question based upon who was asking.

Therefore it is a principle of Islamic jurisprudence, Islamic law, that the right answer to a question is very often context-specific. And this is something Muslims need to understand, that the context can itself shift the answer.

Even in our history, imam Shafie (d 820CE) — and Malaysia is [mostly] governed by Shafie principles of Islamic law — when he moved from Iraq to Egypt, modified or changed some of his fatwas because the context changed.

So it is a long-standing and well-recognised principle of Islamic law that the correct answer to a question ... can be context-specific.

And I think at some point imam Shafie defended imam Malik (d 795CE), and then when he went to Egypt, imam Shafie was suddenly very critical of how people were blindly following imam Malik's judgments.

First of all, there is not that much difference between the different mazhabs. They are by and large identical. The differences lie in small areas; minor differences.

This comes out of the historical, societal and social narratives in which many of the founders of these mazhabs had lived. For example, imam Malik, who lived in Medina, in the Hijaz (western region of the Arabian Peninsula) — which was a very homogeneous society, mainly Arabs — had a different viewpoint.

Imam Abu Hanifah (d 765CE), who lived in what is modern Iraq today, lived in a far more heterogeneous society, far more multicultural. So in more multicultural societies the situations are different, needs are different, and therefore they were more proactive in developing principles of interpretation which were suitable for their societies.

But within a few centuries, there was a general consensus by Muslim scholars that all of these mazhabs are equally correct. And this is something which modern Muslims need to apply in their behaviour.

Very often Muslims, while they know that there are four classical mazhabs in Sunni thought — which implies that there can be differences in opinion, both of which are deemed correct — don't apply that in behaviour. The tendency for many modern Muslims today [is] to act in such a way that if you do not agree with their opinion, you are considered a kafir right away.

You've clarified that fatwas are context-specific. A lot of Islamic jurisprudence evolved out of specific historical and social contexts, as far as the human interpretation of the primary and secondary sources of Islam are concerned. So, am I correct in concluding that public opinion and legislative processes can contribute to Islamic lawmaking?

Absolutely. In fact, government legislation is a recognised source of laws [in Islam]. You see, what the Islamic jurists did [was that] they classified the sources of law. And they looked at how people legislated or brought about laws.

The Quran and the hadith are a particular source of law, the primary sources of what we call Islamic law, [meaning] laws which are consonant with God's prescriptive and prohibitive commandments.

But then there are other sources of laws which societies have. One is legislation by the authorised legislative powers. Government legislation has already been recognised under Islamic law as being syarie.

The word syarie is understood by Islamic scholars in much the same way that people say, "Is this law constitutional?" Modern societies, modern nation-states have a constitution. The legislature may enact a law. But if this law contradicts the constitution, you can raise a case against it in the courts, and the courts can strike it down as being unconstitutional. But if the law is not in conflict with the constitution, then it is considered acceptable or constitutional. [That is what] the term syarie means in the way that it is applied.

And the same has been considered to other sources of law which are recognised by Muslim jurists. Like the importance of what is called al-ada. You call it adat over here, or custom, and it's called urf also in Islamic law. [People have customs], there's an adat. There's adat Melayu, adat Cina, adat Arab, there's all kinds of adat from different countries. If the adat does not contradict the principles of the Quran or the hadith, it is considered syarie.

There have been cases where judges have issued judgments based upon their understanding of Islamic law. A case happens, they apply a decision. This is sometimes called judicial activism. This is under the Hanafi principle of istihsan, which has been used to refer to the activism of judges making decisions in cases where there is no existing law, and the process creating law or creating precedents [from] their judgments.

Because this is, in a sense, what the prophet (Muhammad) did. The prophet would be asked to judge a case, and the way he judged a case is considered part of the hadith of the prophet.

The prophet himself performed ijtihad, and in many cases gave us the reason for something. So, judges have done the same thing, and they categorise it under different names. So these terms that we have used, istihsan, urf and adat, or government legislation, these are sources of law which are deemed to be syarie.

In fact, the vast majority of Islamic law is not the Quran or hadith, but later legislation or the custom of the people. And this is an important thing to understand because there is a general recognition by Muslim scholars that things in the Quran and hadith tend to have a more permanent value. But laws which were enacted later, or come from the adat of a people, even though they were deemed syarie in earlier times, can be modified.

So when you look at the whole corpus of laws which people deem to be Islamic, we have to be a bit more refined or nuanced in what we mean by "Islamic". We mean not just the Quran or the hadith but the whole history of the laws that Muslims [governed] themselves by.

biasiswa post grad oleh ridzwan bakar

http://ridzwan-bakar.blogspot.com/2008/11/biasiswa-post-grad.html

Pembaca budiman,

Alhamdulilah kelmarin saya dijemput untuk menjadi ahli panel temuduga untuk calon PHD dan Sarjana bagi sebuah Yayasan milik GLC. Kegembiraan tersemat di hati dengan jemputan dan pengiktirafan sebegini. Inilah satu lagi ruang untuk saya membantu membina generasi muda.

Rata-rata calon yang hadir memiliki CGPA yang cemerlang. Yayasan ini juga menetapkan CGPA minimum 3.6 untuk pengajian Masters dengan pengalaman kerja 5 tahun. Persaingan untuk merebut 3 tempat untuk tajaan universiti ternama di luar negara ini agak sengit jika diukur dari sudut akademik. Cuma 3 calon sahaja yang akan dipilih dari senarai seramai 18 orang yang telah menetapi kriteria.

Penilaian untuk mendapat biasiswa ini bukan berdasarkan kepada academic excellence semata-mata. Kebanyakkan calon silap perhitungan. Bagi saya, sudah tentu panel akan melihat dari sudut kepimpinan, emosi dan spiritual. Ada calon yang memberi isyarat badan seolah-olah mereka kecewa kerana gagal menjawab soalan teknikal dan ketidak mampuan mengolah kedudukan ekonomi dunia dan ekonomi Malaysia. Ada juga calon yang suka sangat ketawa di sepanjang sessi temuduga, ada juga yang ’kaki goreng’, ada juga yang cuba mengajar penemuduga dan ada juga yang tidak pandai mengambil hati penemuduga. Bagi calon PHD pula kebanyakkannya tidak bersedia bahkan gagal memahami apa itu ’research methodology’.

Sekiranya anda atau anak-anak anda bakal melalui proses permohonan biasiswa, tips berikut boleh membantu.

1. Ucapkan assalamualaikum dan hulurkan tangan untuk bersalam dengan ahli panel.
2. Senyum
3. Perkenalkan diri, latar belakang keluarga dan tahap akademik
4. ’Market’ diri sebaik mungkin dengan berhati-hati.
5. Jujur dan berterus terang. Bila di tanya soalan ’research methodology’, tidak perlulah goreng penemuduga seolah-olah penemuduga tidak tahu. Jika tidak pasti, katakan ”saya belum menguasai ilmu ini tuan”.

6. Buat homework dan tunjukkan minat dan kesungguhan kenapa saya layak mendapat biasiswa ini. Ada calon masters yang datang tidak bersedia, contohnya bila penemuduga bertanya ”Apakah pilihan universiti anda?” atau ”Berapa skor IELTS, GMAT / TOEFL yang anda sudah perolehi?” . Elakkan bertanya kembali kepada penemuduga seperti ”Oh... kena cari universiti dulu ke?” atau ”Kena ambil TOELF ke?” Atau ”apa itu IELTS/GMAT?”

7. Bagi calon PHD, hadirlah dengan persiapan ’research proposal’ anda. Tidak perlulah penemuduga tercari-cari apa sebenarnya yang anda ingin lakukan. Juga tunjukkan keseriusan anda dengan menerangkan ’literature review’ yang anda telah menelaahnya.

8. Elakkan meletakkan kepentingan diri dari kepentingan masyarakat atau organisasi/majikan. Jangan jadikan biasiswa sebagai batu loncatan untuk kepentingan diri. Contohnya: “Selepas tamat PHD, saya hendak jadi pensyarah di Universiti”. Penemuduga tidak berminat dengan jawapan sebegini. Mungkin untuk jawatan pensyarah universiti, jawapan sebegini sesuai. Penemuduga bagi maksud Yayasan GLC ini mengharapkan bakal Dr ini akan menjadi bakal pemimpin, bakal CEO atau memimpin team konsultansi. Ini adalah biasiswa Top 20 University dunia bagi membina barisan pelapis untuk menerajui korporat Malaysia.

9. Berdoa dan mohon kepada Allah. Kepandaian kita bukanlah faktor utama untuk kita memiliki biasiswa atau sesuatu perkara, kerana pemilikan abadi dan mutlak adalah kepunyaan Allah.

Kesimpulannya, terlalu banyak kelemahan yang dilakukan oleh anak-anak muda kita walaupun CGPA mereka melebihi 3.6. Jika mereka tidak menunjukkan kesungguhan dan minat, bagaimana mungkin penemuduga berminat dengan mereka? Ini adalah sessi sembang biasiswa top 20 universiti dunia, bukan sembang kopitiam.

ridz

HANTU RAYA HIDUP LAGI - Tukar Tiub aka isham

Apabila saya dibebaskan dari Kamunting tahun 2003 saya telah mengeluarkan slogan Tangkap! Tangkap Madey ! Ramai yang tersalah faham kenapa saya mengeluarkan slogan ini. Slogan ini bukan kerana dendam. Saya tidak mendendami sesiapa pun. Slogan ini adalah hasil dari analisa politik.

Di hari Madey meninggalkan pejabat PM , pada malamnya saya telah mengadakan pesta yang saya panggil Malam Menghalau Hantu Raya. Di malam itu ramai kawan-kawan datang untuk berpesta termasuk berbelas-belas anggota polis dan Tuan OCPD dari Brickfeild.

Saya pangil Madey Hantu Raya kerana dari mitoloji Melayu ada kepercayaan dimana seseorang yang telah berjanji dengan Setan tidak akan mati-mati. Rasa saya metapora Hantu Raya untuk Madey cukup tepat. Justeru slogan Tangkap! Tangkap Madey! itu semakin terbukti tepat. Dan pesta Megahalau Hantu Raya itu juga memang tepat.

Ramai tersalah baca tentang Hantu Raya. Ramai salah analisa dan tidak memahami perjalanan politik. Salah baca ini muncul kerana: PERTAMA - penganalisaan dan pembacaan politik mereka tidak memiliki asas ekonomi dan kelas. KEDUA – penganalisaan politik ini dicampur adukan dengan harapan dan mimpi si penganalisa itu sendiri.

Politik ialah perebutan kuasa. Kuasa muncul dari ekonomi. Ekonomi ialah harta dan wang ringgit. Politik ialah perjuangan satu kumpulan atau satu kelas yang ingin mendapatkan kuasa agar dapat memiliki punca harta kekayaan. Hukum politik dan kuasa ini tidak akan berubah-ubah sama ada di Saudi Arabia yang Islam, di India yang Hindu, di Nepal yang Buddhist, di Itali yang Katholik atau di Peranchis yang sekular.

Harus diakui bahawa Hantu Raya ini telah meninggalkan kerusi PM kerana telah dihalau oleh ombak Reformasi. Hantu Raya tidak akan pergi tanpa di halau. Keputusan pilihanraya tahun 1999 membuktikan jika Hantu Raya ini tidak pergi maka ombak Reformasi akan melingkupkan United Malays National Organisation.

Ketika Hantu Raya mengundur dan hilang kuasa kita dapat melihat bagaimana polong-polong dan para kroni seperti Halim Saad, Daim Zainuddin, Lim Goh Tong, Ananda Krishan, Eric Chia, Vincent Tan – mula menguncup. Eric Chia di bawa ke mahkamah untuk kes Pewaja, Vincent Tan di bawa ke mahkamah kerana terlibat dalam kes korek korek korek. Malah Hantu Raya sendiri telah di heret ke mahkamah dalam kes pita video Lingam. Ini cukup mengerunkan Hantu Raya.

Polong dan kroni-kroni Hantu Raya telah mula hilang pengaruh dan hilang kunci untuk dapat merompak dana negara dan merompak harta rakyat tanpa di halang-halang. Waspada, kaum pemodal yang menjadi polong ini tidak akan pergi tanpa melawan kembali. Justeru, mereka bersama Hantu Raya telah menyusun strateji untuk kembali berkuasa.

Saya telah banyak menulis dan cuba menerangkan kenapa Hantu Raya ini wajib dilihat sebagai musuh orang ramai. Banyak tulisan-tulisan yang membuktikan bahawa selama 22 tahun Hantu Raya berkuasa banyak porak peranda telah menimpa orang ramai.

Dasar penswastaan atau mengagih-agihkan harta rakyat seperti syarikat MAS, syarikat air, leterik, jalan raya, keretapi, hospital - kepada kroni dan para polong adalah salah satu dari dasar Hantu Raya yang kita semua rakyat merasa parah akibatnya.

Memaksa kanak-kanak sekolah belajar sains dan ilmu kira-kira dalam Bahasa Inggeris adalah satu lagi bukti. Dasar ini dilaksanakan tanpa perbincangan dan pengkajian. Dasar ini telah dan sedang memporak perandakan sistem pembelajaran kebangsaan. Hasilnya bahasa pengucapan kebangsaan semakin parah dan cerca merba.

Hantu Raya juga telah mengusut masaikan dan merobek lembaga kehakiman negara. Kes pembuangan hakim pada tahun 1988 masih dirasakan musibatnya. Lembaga kehakiman negara menjadi porak peranda sehinggakan ada susuk peguam, susuk megistrate dan susuk hakim boleh dijual beli.

Untuk berkuasa kembali Hantu Raya telah merancang dengan licik. Hantu Raya telah membuat kelentong hinggakan Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah merasa yakin bahawa dialah yang layak untuk memimpin United Malays National Organisation. Lihat pula bagaimana Rais Yatim naik ekor dan hampir terpancut apabila badannya diurut-urut oleh Hantu Raya. Tiba-tiba Rais Yatim merasa dialah susuk yang berwibawa untuk menjadi timbalan presiden gerombolan United Malays National Organisation.

Susuk-susuk ini diurut-urut oleh Hantu Raya agar mereka bangun bertandak untuk melekeh dan mengkritik Abdullah Badawi. Tidak cukup dengan ini, Hantu Raya telah menggunakan taktik – polis baik dan polis jahat – untuk memberi tekanan kepada Abdullah Badawi agar mengundur.

Polis baik ialah Najib Razak. Polis jahat ialah Muhyiddin Yassin. Taktik klasik ini selalu digunakan oleh polis semasa melakukan siasatan. Satu orang akan memberi tekanan secara kasar ganas dan yang satu lagi akan memberi tekanan secara halus. Akhirnya Abdullah Badawi terlucut seluar.

Dari tahun 2003 lagi saya telah menulis dan berkeyakinan bahawa pilihan ‘agung’ Hantu Raya ialah Najib Razak. Malah kita jangan lupa hampir tiga bulan sesudah menjadi PM, Abdullah Badawi tidak memilih sesiapa pun sebagai timbalan sehingga Hantu Raya membuat pengistiharan. Abdullah Badawi terpaksa mengiyakan pilihan Hantu Raya. Maka Najib Razak menjadi timbalannya.

Sila lihat patern siapa yang dilantik dan di yakini dalam kabinet Hantu Raya. Semuanya yang dijadikan pemimpin kanan adalah susuk-susuk yang memiliki masaalah. Rahim dengan budak Kecik, Megat dengan Penjual Kedai Video, Nazri dengan taxi-taxinya, Rafidah dengan APnya. Lagi banyak si menteri bermasalah lagi setia menteri ini dengan Hantu Raya. Lagi banyak berasuah lagi senang polong-polong ini mengikut kata Hantu Raya.

Apakah Najib ada masaalah? Saya tidak perlu menjawab soalan bodoh ini. Kalau saekor tikus yang bertanya mungkin saya akan cuba menerangkan kepada tikus ini tetapi kalau warga negara yang celik otak bertanya maka saya meminta orang yang bertanya ini pindah ke Zimbabwe.

Hantu Raya memiliki stateji berjangka panjang. Semuanya telah, sedang dan akan diatur dengan licik. Tujuan akhir ialah untuk menobatkan anak Hantu Raya. Ini untuk meneruskan dinasti dan memastikan harta kekayaan negara ini akan terus selamat ditangan kaum keluarganya. Juga untuk memastikan Hantu Raya sendiri tidak akan di bawa ke mahkamah untuk menghadapi seribu satu pertuduhan.

Siapa sebenarnya yang di wakili oleh Hantu Raya ini? Jawabnya bukan Mak Cik dari Felda Taib Andak, bukan tuan punya warong di Pantai Dalam, bukan ahli United Malays National Organisation Bukit Jelutung.

Hantu Raya mewakili borjuis nasional, cukung-cukung besar – Daim Zainuddin, Lim Genting, Vincent Tan, Ananda, Tin Phek Bakun – ini hanyalah beberapa nama cukung borjuis nasional yang di ketahui umum. Mereka ini semuanya menjadi polong kaya raya menghisap darah kekayaan negara kerana setia kepada Hantu Raya.

Justeru pertempuran antara Hantu Raya dengan Abdullah Badawi wajib dibaca sebagai pertempuran kepentingan ekonomi dari dua kelas yang berbeza. Syarikat Scomi , ECM Libra, atau Syarikat Ethos Capital adalah pendatang baru yang belum bertahap borjuis nasional. Syarikat-syarikat ini kaya tetapi belum cukup kaya raya yang melimpah ruah.

Kumpulan kelas baru ini cuba mengambil punca-punca ekonomi melalui payung kuasa Abdullah Badawi. Inilah sebab musabab kenapa Hantu Raya siang dan malam menggudam Khairy Jamaluddin, menggudam Tingkat Empat dan menggudam Kalimullah Hassan. Peggudaman yang dilakukan oleh Hantu Raya tidak ada sangkut paut dengan Islam, dengan Melayu, United Malays National Organisation, nilai patriot, dasar luar negara dan dan dan…Pergaduhan politik ini ialah perebutan ekonomi.

Pada akhir tahun 2008 ini kuda-kuda tunggangan Hantu Raya telah tersedia untuk di tunggang. Kuda sudah sedia. Celana sudah dipasang. Malaysia akan kembali ke zaman gelap Mahathir Muhamad. Bagaimana dengan Najib Razak? Najib Razak ini siapa?

The top 10 resume mistakes and how to avoid them

The best form of defence is attack, and that's what you need to do to make sure your CV is a targeted weapon. That means no mistakes. Here's a checklist to run through.

1. Typos, bad English

A recruiter is looking for an excuse not to consider your application, and bad grammar and typos gives him an excuse to put your application in the special file marked the bin. A badly written CV shows you are disinterested or that you just can't spell. Either way, it's fatal. Check it yourself, and get someone else to go over your CV - it is easy to miss mistakes in your own copy.

2. Just the facts

Have you provided relevant contact details - have you entered the right numbers?

3. Don't be passive

Can you shake things up, can you solve problems, will you walk into your job running? If you can - great - you're what your employee is looking for. The question is: have you communicated this with your CV?

To do so you need to drop the passive verbs, and use active ones.

For example,

Don't write:

Managed a team of sales professionals for 18 months

Do write:

Built a highly organised sales team. Led it to record sales in three straight quarters.

Use: built, won, drove, inspired, sold. Don't use I.

4. Don't be vague

Your employer wants to be impressed, and to see that you know your business. Details help. State what you have achieved, with action verbs, and use numbers where possible.

5. Customisation counts

One size does not fill all. A senior post in particular demands that you understand the position, and that you tailor your achievements to that job in your CV.

Read the job specification carefully. Look for key words in the text the reveal the kind of personality being looked for, and what the employer expects the right candidate to be able to deliver.

6. Don't be dull

No one wants to know your duties (I attended the weekly sales meetings); they want to hear your achievements (Used leads from the weekly board meetings to add ten active clients to my roster). 7. Don't be flabby

Tell your story - but don't make your CV too long, or cut it down so much it says nothing at all.

8. Mission statements

If you are going to write a mission statement avoid MBA style buzzwords, and generic meaningless phrases. Be clear and precise as to what you are looking for.

Who isn't a "Team player", who would claim not to have "Project management skills"; if you're not "Results orientated" - you have problems; "People management skills" is a pre-requisite, not a clincher.

9. Design

Make your CV pleasing to the eye. How your CV is presented tells a story about you. Are you visually aware, do you care enough about the job to present the information well? Your CV is sending signals to your employer. Make sure they are the right ones.

10. Don't put it off

If you see a job you're interested in, don't delay putting together the application - do it the same day and send it the same day. Thousands of jobs have been lost because the applicant never got round to sending in his CV.

quote from mr x blog

what i don't understand is how mahathir, an indian, can manage to fool, debase, demean and insult the malays, and then rule over them for over 2 decades, at the same time robbing them blind and keeping them dumb.

A VULTURE NAMED MAHATHIR - curi and paste Magic River

A letter from Dr Munawar A. Anees posted on The Might Of The Pen, October 19, 2008...

As a student I knew of the horrors of the Holocaust and other human tragedies, but merely as a distant thunder: the violation of human rights and crimes against humanity were only an abstract notion.

That was all fated to change with my arrest under the draconian Internal Security Act (ISA) of Malaysia, which allows for indefinite detention without trial. My crime? I had known Anwar Ibrahim, the deputy prime minister and finance minister of Malaysia, as a close personal friend for many years. We shared and strove for a vision of life firmly rooted in human dignity. We struggled for building an intellectual and political milieu for free expression. Together, we subscribed to the idea of economic prosperity, gender and racial equality and a civil society.

Alas, the Malaysian dictator, Mahathir, under the growing burden of corruption and cronyism, conspired to halt the march of freedom. In order to build his fraudulent case against Anwar, Mahathir himself ordered my arrest.

My kidnapping and detention by the infamous Malaysian Special Branch taught me how it feels to be forcibly separated from one’s wife and children. How it feels to be searched and seized, disallowed to make phone calls, handcuffed, blindfolded, stripped naked, driven in an animal cage, shaven bald, endlessly interrogated, humiliated, drugged, deprived of sleep, physically abused. What it’s like to be threatened, blackmailed, tormented by police lawyers, brutalized to make a totally false confession, hospitalized for a consequent heart ailment, and treated as a psychiatric patient with symptoms of Stockholm syndrome.

Barely surviving on a meager diet of rancid rice and chicken along with 12 medicines a day, I spent nearly four months handcuffed around the clock to my hospital bed, under the watchful eyes of the prison guards.


Thereafter, my ability to speak, read and write took a considerable time to show signs of recovery. Short-term memory lapses were frequent. I existed in a fluid state in which suicidal tendencies, depression and despair were punctuated by fits of rage and indignation.

Weekly visits of less than an hour by my wife, Nadia, with our young children — Aisha and Omran — were my only contact with the outside world and the only inspiration to live on.

In collusion with the lawyer appointed on my behalf by the police, the Malaysian authorities refused the legal assistance of my choice, coercing me not to mount an appeal against the court verdict and threatening me with greater punishment under new charges if I didn’t co-operate.

Simultaneously, Nadia constantly endured police harassment, wiretapping and disruption of our e-mail and bank accounts. Some of our friends were met with the same fate and were compelled to abandon us when we needed them most.

But, in attempting to scare off and alienate my friends, how terribly mistaken were Malaysian autocrats in aping gross Gestapo tactics. How they underestimated the temper of freedom in so many places around the world, above all among friends in the West.

Floodgates of human compassion were opened when the futurist author Alvin Toffler, who Mahathir asked to advise him on a pet high-technology project, sent a message of protest to the Malaysian leader within 72 hours of my capture. In a major interview with the Western press, Mahathir even felt it necessary to make assurances — unfulfilled, of course — about my well being.

With every passing day, the rising tide of concern for my plight seemed to personify the words of Elie Wiesel:

“Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor. Never the victim. Never the tormented.”

Friends and strangers alike took a stand and support began to mushroom everywhere. Nadia related to me in the hospital how Amnesty International had declared me a “prisoner of conscience,” and how Pen International adopted me as a “writer in prison.” Against all odds, two prominent Malaysian lawyers, Manjeet Singh Dhillon and Balwant Singh Siddhu, offered their services unconditionally. To top it all, an international coalition — Friends of Dr. Anees — came into existence in defence of my rights. The core group of Naseer Ahmad, Baseer Hai, Safir Rammah, Jamal Mubarak, Anees Ahmad and Naeem Siddiqui mounted a media campaign with phenomenal success.

What touched my heart was that the person, Kamal Mubarak, who set up the Web site had never met me in person. From the depths of my confinement, I could see the magic of human compassion had begun to defeat oppression.

The pinnacle was reached after my release in the warm hug laced with watery eyes of an Amnesty friend in Toronto, Margaret John, who witnessed a pledge of solidarity between me and Devan Nair, the former president of Singapore, for we had come to share a similar fate.

My victimization at the hands of Mahathir’s “Asian values” has transformed me in another way. All my adult life, like so many in the Muslim world, I have suspected under every nook and cranny some conspiracy by the West to keep us down. Yet, in this seminal experience of my life, my friends in the West succeeded in saving me, while Mahathir, a Muslim, did everything to destroy me. And he is trying to do the same to Anwar again through his obliging courts on totally fabricated charges.

Mahathir has demonstrated that, though a proclaimed Muslim, his heart is blind to compassion. Tyranny is the hallmark of his bankrupt concept of “Asian values.”

My tragedy, and that of my friend Anwar, ought to make our fellow Muslims think very hard when they ponder the West and its role in the world. As we set out to shape our collective destiny in the 21st century, will the values of Mahathir or Jefferson serve us best? Mahathir himself made that choice for me. Sic semper tyrannis.*

-----
* Sic semper tyrannis is a Latin phrase meaning "thus, ever (or always), to tyrants." It is sometimes mistranslated as "Death to tyrants." The phrase is a shortened version of Sic semper evello mortem Tyrannis, which translated means "Thus always death comes to tyrants." (Wikipedia)

Another era of Mahathirism is dawning – People Power needs to act!

by R. Shan

Having Mahathir for 22 years was the cause of the deterioration of education, abuse of power, abuse of the judiciary, corruption, nepotism, cronynism, inequality and unfairness in the system. All in the pretext of protecting the Malaysian citizens and developing the nation.
Speak to any Malaysian citizen prior to his rule and they will tell you that people used to respect each other and dealt with one another with humanity, equality and kindness.

Fast forward 22 years and you see division, inequality, emotions running at an all time high. This was his contribution to Malaysia and what he is still trying to contribute while trying to uphold his artificial legacy. Why do you think an 83 year old man needs to create a blog! Other than to serve his legacy and ensure Mahathirism survives, what other reason could there be?

He has purportedly brought modernization and material wealth to society. But what good are these when humanity and civil liberties are compromised. It leads to greed and corruption.
Look around at his advisors and cronies. When it is a business deal, it is always the Indian and Chinese, even the convicted Jew, Jack Abramoff (the poster boy for lobbyists in Washington DC who set up the meeting between Mahathir and President Bush and received about $1 million from the Malaysian government for his lobbying services in 2001 and 2002).

And yet, he is the great divider by championing Ketuanan Melayu. And there are many who fall into his trap, enticed with the promises of more wealth. Yes, the wealth is going to the Malays. But which Malays? Is every Ahmad, Abu and Ali getting any richer?

What I can't understand is why he goes on dividing us further. What is his objective? To uphold his so-called legacy or to do what is good for the society? If it is for the society, then show me the results! Don't point to stone and mortar and tell me these make people better citizens.
Imagine an 83 year old, ready to hit his grave, can still generate a blog and dictate the course of our generation in Malaysia. This is truly fascinating. Apparently 9 million hits on his blog already!

It is people like TAR, Dr. Burhanuddin Helmi and Tun Dr Ismail who are the true heroes of Malaysia. They had nothing to hide, no hidden agendas and only the goodwill of the nation in mind.

People Power must rise to create the awareness that these true heroes tried to instill in Malaysians. We cannot continue to live our lives feeling superficially secure.

We all say we have faith in the Malaysian public, but do you even know your Malay, Chinese or Indian neighbours? Would you help them in their time of need? Would you even know if they are in need? Faith alone is not enough if it is not practiced. We need to rejuvenate and reinvent ourselves to find out what a Malaysian society truly means. It should not mean we are divided by colour, race, religion or creed. We should all be equal.

We cannot go on living in our coconut shell and think "semua boleh". Mahathir with his magic wand will make all bad things go away. Riiight!!!

Look around and see the truth and the reality that is persisting in Malaysia. If you do not want to change and your conscience allows it, then it is your choice. Hey, we can't save everyone! But to the rest, we can go on trying. We should continue trying. We need to keep on trying to create the change we seek for a better Malaysia.

We can't allow Mahathirism to re-emerge and shed away whatever humanity and liberty that was given some breathing space during Badawi and submerge our future generations. One lost and coconut-shell generation should be a good enough lesson to all of us.

You need to look at yourself and be your own judge and executor to see if you are doing your part for change.

Understanding Politics In Islam - dipetik dari blog husam musa

Understanding Politics In Islam

1. What is the aim of politics in Islam? According to Al-Mawardi from his book Al-Ahkam Al-Sultaniyyah, it is hirasatud din wa siasatud dunya - to uphold the religion and administer the world. Politics is not munkar - is not a depravity - real politics is noble virtuous because it administers the affairs of all creatures, bringing man closer to good and away from fasad - evil. According to Ibn al-Qayyim, politics is really the justice of Allah the Almighty and His Prophet (peace and the blessings of Allah be upon him). The Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. was a politician as well as the messenger conveying the risalah, murabbi - teacher, Qadi - Chief Justice, Head of the nation and Imam of the ummah. The Khulafa' al Rasyidun - the rightly guided leaders who succeeded him were also politicians following the Sunnah - way of the Prophet, establishing just administration, practising ihsan - the betterment of good and providing the leadership of 'ilm - knowledge and Iman - belief. However in the present time, due to 'politics' man faced suffering as a result of deceit and political ploys and scheming and devious politicians, whether in the form of past colonialists, treacherous rulers, tyrannical leaders and regimes preaching Machiavellian philosophy (the ends justifies the means!). It became common to label and describe committed Muslims as 'political' so that they are regarded warily and wickedly for the purpose of disassociating and furthering apart the people from them, intending that society will shun and hate what is called 'political Islam'. It has been such that symbols of Islam like the headscarf, the proper attire and congregational prayers - Salat jama'ah are attempted to be labelled 'political'. It is a blatant lie for those who say that there is no religion in politics and that there is no politics in religion. This deceit was once tried in the form of an attempted fatwa - a decree while the members of the Ikhwan al-Muslimun were imprisoned in the detention camps in Egypt in the 50's. The regime wanted to influence the masses to regard the activists and the Dai' (the very people who wanted to uphold the Syari'ah, Al-Qur'an and Al-Sunnah) as the purveyors of fasad - evil by using corrupted 'ulama - paid scholars. 2. The Fight against Fasad and Zulm (Evil, Transgression and Tyranny) is the utmost in Jihad From the understanding of the Prophet's tradition (mafhum hadith): Munkar (transgression) is not limited to khamr - liqour, gambling and zina - - unlawful sex but degrading and defiling the honour and dignity of the people and citizens is a major transgression, so is cheating in the elections, refusing to give testimony - neglecting to vote, letting government be in the hands of those who are not deserving and undesired, stealing and squandering the nation's wealth and property, monopolising the people's needs for personal gains or cronies' interests, detaining people without crime or just cause, without judgement from a fair court, torturing human beings in prison and the detention camps, giving, accepting and mediating in bribes, cowering up to, praising evil rulers, allowing the enemies of Allah and the enemies of the Muslim community to be leaders and shunning the believers - the mu'min. These are all grave transgressions! When a Muslim remains quiet upon seeing all of these it means that he or she does not deserve to live (is not alive) from the mafhum of al-ayat and al-hadith. Islam requires that every Muslim has political responsibility. A Muslim is required by his Iman - faith to be truly concerned with the affairs and problems of the ummah - community, helping and defending the meek and the weak, fighting tyranny and oppression. By retreating and abstaining oneself, it will only invite divine retribution and being seized by the flames of hell (mafhum ayat). 3. Political Freedom is Our Utmost Need Today Islam is always rejuvenated, its message spread across, its resurgence, its reverberating call heard by all even if it is given some limited freedom. Therefore the first battle is to obtain freedom to deliver the message of da'wah, the risalah of tawhid (Unity of God), spread consciousness and enabling the existence of Islamic movements. True democracy is not the whims and desires of the tyrannical rulers or their cronies, it is not the place to jail and incarcerate its fighters and not the place to torture its proponents. Democracy is the simplest and proper way to achieve the aims of a noble life, to be able to invite all to Allah and Islam, to be able to call others to Iman without having our souls being imprisoned and our bodies sentenced to be executed by hanging. It is the space for a free and honourable nation to have the right to choose, evaluate the ruler, change governments without coups and without bloodshed. The theory, way and system which looks alien maybe adopted if it benefits us and as long as it does not contradict clear Islamic edicts and the rules of Syariah. We appraise, amend according to our spirit, we do not adopt its philosophy, and we do not allow what is forbidden and vice versa. We do not relinquish or compromise what is ordained or compulsory - the wajib in Islam. The gist of democracy is that the public, the people can choose the rulers who are going to administer them; the people having the right to select, criticise and terminate; and the people are not forced to accept systems, trends, and policies which they do not agree to and they are not abused. They are free to hold elections, referendums, ensuring majority rights, protecting minority rights, having opposition, have multi parties, have press freedom and safeguarding the independence of the judiciary. But once again to constantly uphold and safeguard the principles of Islam, the firm rulings, the al-thawabit: the determined laws - hukm qat'i, the daruri - the essentials of religion and the non-ijtihadiy must not be compromised or neglected. Syura: Syura or consultative decision making must be followed and not just as a debating factor. By practising syura, it is closer, hence even better than the spirit of democracy. It is but the lost jewel found, the lost wisdom - al-hikmah which has been rediscovered. Syura enables musyawarah to be conducted, obtains views and opinions, becomes the responsibility of the people to advise and counsel the government (ad-dinu nasiha) and establish amar ma'ruf nahy munkar - enjoining good and forbidding evil. Among the obligations of amar ma'ruf nahy munkar is the highest jihad (struggle) that is to voice out the truth in front of the unjust tyrant. The State of Politics in the Ummah: The musibah or calamity of the ummah then and now is the absence and the abeyying of the system of syura and the adoption of an oppressive dynastical ruling system. In the modern era, dictators stay in power by the force of arms and gold - power and wealth resulting in the syariah being hindered, secularism being forced upon and cultural Westernisation being imposed. Islamic da'wah and the Islamic movement being victimised, brutalised, imprisoned and hounded viciously. 4. Qur'anic Examples of Tyrannical Rulers The Al-Qur'an denounces all powerful rulers such as Namrud, Fir'aun (Pharaoh), Hamaan and Qarun. Namrud is taghut - the transgressor who enslaves the servants of Allah as his serfs. There is the pact or collaboration of three parties: Fir'aun - he claims to be God, carries out tyranny and oppression throughout the land, enslaves the people Hamaan - the cunning politician, experienced, having self interest, in the service of taghut, propping up and supporting Fir'aun and cheating the people, subjugating them. Qarun - the capitalist or feudalist who takes opportunity from the unjust and oppressive laws, spending fortunes for the tyrannical leader in order to profit and amass more vast returns, bleeding and exploiting the toils of the people. The origin of Qarun was that he came from Prophet Musa's own clan who colluded with Fir'aun due to the love of worldly life and materialism. The combination of taghut and Zulm results in the spread of mayhem and the destruction of the community, subjugating man by force and degradation. The People: Al Qur'an denounces the people or citizens who are obedient and loyal to their oppressive rulers. The people who remain under the tutelage of taghut are fully responsible and accountable because it is due to their attitude that brought forth these fir'auns and taghuts. Al-Junud (the collaborators): These are the armies and enforcers of the rule and order of the taghut. They use force, fear and repression to eliminate and subdue all opposition and dissidents of the tyrant. 5. An Example of Leadership Balqis, the Queen of Saba' as told in the Qur'an was a woman who lead her people well, just and administered them with intelligence and wisdom saving her people from a war that was destructive and made decisions by syura-consulting them. Alas, the story ended with the acceptance of Islam. She led her people towards the goodness of the world and the hereafter. Leaders like her are much more capable and qualified with political acumen and wise administration than most of the present Arab and Muslim 'male' leaders. (Prof. Yusuf Qaradawi purposely avoided the term 'al-rijal') 6. Pluralism and Multi Parties in Islam The existence of various parties or movements is not forbidden as long as unification is not achievable due to differences over objectives, approaches, understanding and the level of confidence and trust. Variety and specialisation are allowed as long as they do not become contradictory and confrontational. However everyone has to be in one united front when facing the challenges to aqidah - belief, syariah, ummah and the survival of Islam. Relations between parties and groupings should be in the atmosphere of non-prejudice, forgiveness, nobleness, counselling truth and steadfastness, wisdom and engaging in healthy cordial debate. Even when the Islamic State is established there is no reason to feel distraught at the existence of pluralism and differences. 7. Counselling and Corrective Participation in Politics Without the shedding of blood, the most effective way as the outcome of long and painful struggles is the existence of political forces which the government in power is unable to contain or eliminate: that is presence of political parties. The ruling regime can get rid of individuals and small groups of opponents but it is difficult for them to defeat or wipe out larger organisations which are well structured, organised and rooted in the masses of society. Political parties have the platform, machinery, newspapers and publications as well as mass influence. Political parties or political movements are necessary to fight oppression, to enable criticism, bringing back the government to to uphold truth and justice, bringing down or changing the government. These parties are capable of monitoring and appraising the government, offer advice and criticism. 8. Voting Voting in the elections is a form of testimony. A just testimony is considered as long as one is not convicted of crime. Whoever so votes or abstains from voting in the general elections causing the defeat of a trustworthy and deserving candidate but on the other hand allows the candidate who is less trustworthy and undeserving to win, one has gone against the command of Allah concerning giving testimony. Adapted and rearranged from the book Fiqh al-Dawlah written by Professor Yusuf al Qaradawi.

di curi dari wuns blog - sori kawan, ambil tak minta kebenaran

Now, even with seemingly limited influence and no power in the administration of the government, he has single handedly brought down his hand-picked successor just as he brought down his Deputy in 1998. Bravo old man, you still have it in you.
First he thought Abdullah is the right man for the job; this thought-to-be innocent government worker for life, who before this was over looked for the fact that he was the Home Minister that used the ISA to detained many Malaysians involved in anti-establishment acts.
Then Mahathir regrets. He regrets hand-picking this man because he saw his influence wane somewhat. He saw his projects falter and his vision of Mahathir-Malaysia going down the drain. He saw, reforms being 'planned'. Reform is a slap on this guy's face because reforms indicates, his perfect legacy of success in Malaysia is not perfect after all.
In fact he knew it wasn't perfect. People have told him many times before: You breed cronyism, you corrupt the judiciary, you intervene in institutions you are not supposed to intervene, you are sacrificing the education to raise zombies and yes mans, you ignore the rural folks, you do this and that (negative). These comments bleeds his ears thus he shuts these critics up.
The harshes critic which he failed to shut is Abdullah, but that only happened later. Through the promise of reforms, Mahathir is seen to be corrupt in the public eye. If not him then it is his skidmarks. What he left behind, his legacy.
At the time he planned his retirement, Mahathir had no one to choose from. His best worker was jailed by his own doing. The only other person is Najib who was young and had not done anything during his tenure in the many posts he held. So he had to go with Abdullah.
Then Najib turns his back on Mahathir. Ignoring his pleas to step up his own efforts to bring down Abdullah. Najib as usual, followed his superior,not wanting to take risks so as not to jeopardise his slow but sure rise in government.
Mahathir began his freaking crazy and non-sensical endorsement scheme. He endorses everyone who even says a word of discontent towards Abdullah. Muhyiddin was his pick, Rais Yatim and also Ku Li his former nemesis turned pawn. Heck if Tsu Koon were Malay and in UMNO Mahathir would have endorsed him.
His efforts and endorse crazy attitude, though at first seemed like a senile old grumpy man trying to shoot like crazy, was in fact a plan to destablize the mentality and loyalty of Najib. With Mahathir having a big influence in UMNO still, Najib knows it is Mahathir whom he has to please.
The only problem with Mahathir endorsing the other candidates is that the other candidates were too afraid to challenge for the top post. Najib does not feel threatened. But with Mahathir openly endorsing the Ku Li-Muhyiddin team at one point in time, Najib knows a challenge is at hand. Ku Li have always stated his intention to fight for the top post. Najib felt threatened.
Najib talked to Pak Lah, and now Pak Lah wants to retire. Probably he knows that with Najib not backing him up, or unable to back him up, his days are numbered..
Mahathir won.
Now he endorses Najib and Muhyiddin as the top two in the country. Just months ago he said Najib was not fit to be the Prime Minister. Even saying Rais Yatim is the better candidate. Just months ago he said Muhyiddin is the best, and now he only puts him second best. He endorsed Ku Li before, and now doesn't even consider his existence. Sorry Ku Li, you've been punk'd!
Mahathir have always vacated that seat for Najib after all. It is Abdullah's reform that side tracked him a little. His grand plan of Mahathir-Malaysia might still be on track. With Najib at the helm, expect the same. When was the last time Najib spoke about reforms? He speaks Mahathir. He walks Mahathir. He plans Mahathir.Now Mahathir says, “There are several former MPs and experts whose advice he should seek to run the country”.. Translation: I'll gladly be your adviser (behind the door dominator) should you get the chance to run the country.
With Mukhriz looking set to land the top youth post, expect the same Malaysia for another 30 years.
However, Abdullah's delay in retiring from his post is good because it gives ample time for Anwar to complete his promised toppling. Here's hoping it happens.
Peace :)

Last article by Kalimullah

kah kah kah. woi che det dan muka sembab muhyiddin... kalimullah dah kutuk hangpa berdua....balas la balik.....kah kah kah

KALIMULLAH HASSAN: It doesn’t pay to be a nice guy


IT was not an easy decision for Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to make.
Particularly when the democratic norm — as practised worldwide, save perhaps in Zimbabwe and countries like that — was that he led the party that won by a comfortable 58-seat majority and, therefore, he was the winner.

But in Malaysia, the democratic norm is to win by more than a two-thirds majority, thus having the ability to amend the Constitution whenever you want, and using that legitimacy to make even unpopular decisions as much as you want. Using that principle as a basis, Abdullah had failed.

He lost four states more than previously. He lost the two-thirds majority by eight seats and, therefore, he had lost and should resign. What was the choice before him? He could fight to defend the presidency of Umno but that would have come at a cost. An already fractured party would have become even more split. And for Abdullah, who has always been loyal to Umno, that was not an option. So, despite much pressure from his ranks, he decided not to hand his successor Datuk Sri Najib Razak a party more racked with internal dissension than he could. He decided to retire.

For Umno and for the Barisan Nasional, he made the right decision. And by making that decision, he learned the hard way. In Umno, loyalty to the leader has one important caveat and that caveat is “as long as you are powerful”. For as long as he was powerful, the Umno ranks, especially those in the supreme council, would bend over backwards to be seen as loyal.
But the moment the chips were down, they would abandon the “sink - ing ship” and run to where they saw the power shifting. And so it was with someone he trusted, like his vice-president Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, who was among the first to call for his resignation. When Muhyiddin saw that the supreme council seemed to be backing Abdullah for the so-called transition programme which would see him in office until June 2010, Muhyiddin backed off, in deference to the party and his “loyalty ” to the party.

But when Umno lost the Permatang Pauh by-election, Muhyiddin once again saw an opportunity and chose Singapore in which to express no confidence in his prime minister, the man who appointed him international trade and industry minister.

As with Muhyiddin, also sneaking away were people who had backed Abdullah to the limit, even when his decisions were perhaps worthy of more critical analysis and opposition.
People like Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein who, perhaps, should realise that March 8 showed that Malaysians, including Malays, are not impressed with kris-waving leaders.
It has happened before. To a man like Tun Ghafar Baba who did not have a mean bone in his body. To people like Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah and Tun Musa Hitam. And to people like Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

To the ordinary man with ordinary assumptions of what loyalty means, what happened to Abdullah would be seen as treachery. But in his world, it’s called realpolitik.
To be fair, Abdullah paid the price for the wrong decisions he made, for the promises he could not fulfil. After the March 8 general election, his position had become untenable.
He took responsibility for it. Yet, all those who had backed him previously conveniently slunk away, allowing all the blame to be heaped on one man — Abdullah.
But yes, that’s politics. Not much honour there, as we all know, no matter what your stripe.
Still, it is an exercise in behavioural science to try to fathom how different the political lexicon is from that of ordinary folk.

Take for example Abdullah’s predecessor, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.
He says he is happy for Umno that Abdullah is quitting and that “Umno can now be rebuilt”.
In ordinary circumstances, that would mean that Dr Mahathir loves Umno and cares for Umno.
In the same breath, Dr Mahathir described Najib as “incompetent” and says he is “not impressed with Najib’s performance as deputy prime minister now”.
And why is Najib incompetent in Dr Mahathir’s view? Because Najib “did not have his own stand and was always following Abdullah’s advice”.

If anyone has forgotten, Dr Mahathir backed Musa as his deputy when he became prime minister in 1981. He chose Ghafar as his deputy when Musa quit over “irreconcilable differences” with him in 1985. Dr Mahathir backed Anwar in 1993 when that ruthlessly ambitious man who would later become his nemesis took on Ghafar in what was one of Umno’s most corrupt party elections. When he sacked Anwar in 1998, he chose Abdullah as his deputy.
Five years later, Dr Mahathir said he was retiring and that Abdullah was ready to succeed him. Dr Mahathir chose Abdullah — as he did Musa, Ghafar and Anwar. And barely months later, Dr Mahathir started the attacks on his successor, just as he had on all those he had chosen and thrust upon Malaysians before.

Almost his whole family got in the act. His sons Mukhriz and Mokhzani and his associates made numerous unsubstantiated and slanderous allegations against Abdullah and his family, friends and aides. Even Abdullah’s late wife, Datin Seri Endon Mahmood, was not spared Dr Mahathir’s sharp tongue. And just before the general election, he publicly urged Malaysians not to give the BN a strong mandate. And when the BN indeed failed in that, Dr Mahathir urged Najib to fight Abdullah. Then he asked Muhyiddin when Najib refused (for which Dr Mahathir called him a coward).

One has to go back to Dr Mahathir’s 1996 Umno presidential address to see what he thought of Muhyiddin. (Muhyiddin lost his bid to be re-elected vice-president that year.) But today, he backs Muhyiddin for Umno deputy president. What will he say about Muhyiddin when Muhyiddin does not listen to him any more? When everything he tried failed, Dr Mahathir quit Umno. And he says he loves Umno.

Dr Mahathir has not been charitable to many people. His family and close friends are perhaps the exception. When he was not attacking the United States, Margaret Thatcher, the West, the Zionists and the Jews, George Soros, Singapore and currency speculators, it was his own Umno members, the Malays “who forget easily” (Melayu mudah lupa), non-governmental organisations and the judiciar y.

At least Dr Mahathir believes that no one is perfect. Well, almost… One thing Najib will not have to worry about is a predecessor breathing down his neck slandering him, his cabinet, his party colleagues, his family, aides and friends. Because, for all his weaknesses, Abdullah is a decent, religious man. Hopefully, Dr Mahathir will also give him a break. Perhaps the only person who can rival Dr Mahathir in invective and tenacity to condemn others is, ironically, Anwar, his onetime protégé-turned-nemesis.

Najib will have enough on his hands trying to fend off Anwar. If there is one thing Najib should learn from the politics of the last three decades, it is that he must have competent, able people who will give him frank and honest views and back him fully when he makes the right decisions and stick with him when the chips are down.

Reform still needs to be done. And Najib must do it. It will also be inevitable that many will clamour for the old ways to remain, but the truth is Malaysians rejected the old ways on March 8. Najib must accept that if he is to succeed in revitalising Umno and the BN. It was not the pull factor of the opposition that made people vote for them. It was the push factor of a BN and Umno which just refused to change.

No more racism and religious bigotry, even at the lowest levels, no more cuddling up with businessmen already charting their paths to Putrajaya, no more shadowy awards of contracts and licences other than on merit. Like it or not, Najib has to make unpopular decisions because the rot set in long ago... long before Abdullah became prime minister.

Abdullah could not, and did not, make the changes that people expected of him. For that, he paid the price. That is the way it should be.

There are two other lessons that Najib can learn from Abdullah. One, that the openness and freedom Abdullah allowed cannot be turned back; and two, that it does not pay to be a nice guy in politics.