jump to navigation

Pelik Cara Anwar Solat Ketika Di Perkarangan Masjid Negara April 30, 2012

Posted by ibrahimbaba in akhbar, Anwar, Islam, Ketelusan, politik.
Tags: , , , , , ,
add a comment

Anwar Ibrahim dikata berada di perkarangan Masjid Negara pada hari Bersih 3.0. Mereka berkumpul di situ bersama beberapa pemimpin PR lain. Apabila masuk waktu zohor, mereka ini dikatakan tidak masuk dalam masjid untuk solat berjemaah bersama orang ramai tetapi solat hanya di perkarangan masjid itu sahaja.

Soalnya:

1. Apakah dia terikut dengan perpecahan yang pernah berlaku dulu – kerana tidak mahu ikut imam kerajaan?

2. Apakah masa terlalu suntuk kerana sudah hendak mula Bersih? Kalau solat di dalam masjid nanti lambat. Imam baca surah panjang. Wirid lagi.

3. Apakah dia tidak larat kerana keuzurannya hendak berjalan jauh ke dalam masjid turun naik tangga? Maklumlah masih sakit belakang.

4. Apakah beliau malas nak buka kasut atau bimbang kasut beliau hilang bila tanggal kasut untuk solat di dalam masjid? Solat di luar masjid boleh solat sambil pakai kasut!

dan banyak lagi persolan dan kemungkinan lain.

Namun, apa pun sebabnya beliau tidak mahu solat dalam masjid itu terserahlah kepada dia dan “ahli jemaahnya”.

Yang peliknya ialah apabila dia solat di luar perkarangan masjid mereka solat beramai-ramai macam solat berjemaah tapi mereka solat sendiri-sendiri! Atau IB yang salah? Tolong betulkan.

Lihat gambar-gambar dari minag-jinggo ini:

a. Pemuda sebelah kiri ini mungkin nak beritahu arah kiblat. Bukankah lebih senang dalam solat masjid – mesti dah confirm arah kiblatnya.

b. Masing-masih bersedia untuk solat. Anwar menterbalikkan topi beliau. Orang sebelah kirinya mengikat sapu tangan di kepala.

c. Mereka mula bertakbir. Tunggu! Siapa imamnya? Nampak macam sebaris semua tidak ada imam di depan. Kalau orang yang sebelah kanan Anwar yang takbir dulu – mungkin dia imam kot?  Sungguh bersiap siaga sekali untuk “berperang”, sebab itu boleh solat dengan pakai kasut!

d. Mereka guna banner untuk alas solat. Kenapa tidak diterbalikkan banner tu – guna yang sebelah putih. Nasib baik teringat nak tutup sikit – kalau tak tercium muka Ambiga kat banner (?). Kesian dua orang dihujung sana – banner tak cukup besar.

e. Nak kata orang sebelah kanan Anwar jadi imam tidak betul juga. Sebab dia turun sujud lambat. Anwar yang sakit belakang nampak mengeran kesakitan bila nak sujud. Tambah pulak dengan pakai kasut – lagi sakit masa nak lipat turun dan duduk tahiyyat.

f. Bertahiyyat sama-sama. Solat bersama macam berjemaah. Pergerakan semua hampir sama – macam berjemaah. Tapi masing-masing solat bersendirian. Yang belakang tu – agaknya ikut siapa. Mereka tahu tak masing-masing di depan tu solat bersendirian? Mereka mengguna Mazhab yang memboleh dedah tangan semasa solat? (di Malaysia?) Kalau di Indonesia mereka kata “oh sikit aje nampak engak apa-apa”

Yang lain yang ramai lagi tu tak solat ke? Ramai lagi yang Melayu tu … tidak mengapa – menjadi taraf pemerhati!

Sekian, IB

Advertisements

Dewan Ulama PAS Sudah Hilang Sabar Dengan Anwar January 31, 2012

Posted by ibrahimbaba in Anwar, Ketelusan, politik.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
3 comments

Satu demi satu masalah dengan Anwar yang tidak menguntungkan Pakatan Rakyat. Malah Anwar semakin menjadi liabiliti kepada mereka.

Dengan kenyataan Anwar apabila ditemubual yang disiarkan oleh akhbar Wall Street Journal jelas membangkit kemarahan ramai di kalangan ahli dan pimpinan PAS sendiri. Puak-puak UMNO sudah pasti mengambil peluang dari ketelanjuran Anwar ini.

Selepas Ketua Pemudanya mengeluarkan kenyataan, terbaru, Ustaz Harun Taib atas kapasiti sebagai Ketua Dewan Ulama mengecam Anwar kerana menyokong Israel dalam pada PAS yang selama ini bermatian memberi pelbagai kenyataan membantah kekejaman Israel serta berkali-kali mengadakan demonstrasi di depan kedutaan Amerika Syarikat mengecam Israel tiba-tiba Anwar menyanggah PAS dengan menyokong Israel.

Walaupun Anwar cuba membetulkan kenyataannya namun ramai menganggap itu hanyalah sebagai helah yang difikirkan selepas kesilapannya ditegur orang – apa yang orang putih panggil “an after thought”.

Keterlanjuran kata-kata ini menyusul selepas pelbagai keterlanjuran yang dilakukan oleh Anwar. Satu demi satu. Ustaz Harun telah dengan jelas mengeluarkan kenyataannya membantah Anwar serta memohon penjelasan dari Anwar dalam isu Pluralisme Agama. Ustaz Harun dengan jelas menghukum kufur kepada orang yang menganuti fahaman menyamakan semua agama ini.

Dalam hal ini, Anwar sekali lagi menyalahkan puak ulama bahawa mereka tidak faham bahasa Inggeris. Dalam perbualan dengan beberapa orang yang menegur Anwar atas keterlanjuran Anwar dalam kenyataannya di WSJ, Anwar sekali lagi mengatakan “depa tak reti Inggeris”. Jawapan yang sama Anwar guna ketika menjawap apabila batahan terhadap ucapannya menyokong Pluralisme Agama di London dan temubualnya yang mengatakan hukuman ke atas kesalahan jenayah seks sebagai kuno dan perlu dipinda yang disiarkan dalam BBC.

Siri keterlanjuran Anwar ini amat tidak disenangi oleh ustaz-ustaz di dalam PAS.

Di kalangan pimpinan PAS, isu liwat dan video seks sudah sukar untuk ditolak lagi. Hampir keseluruhan ahli dalam Dewan Ulama PAS yakin dengan video Eskay dan lebih separuh dari barisan pimpinan percaya dalam isu liwat II Anwar ini.

Sebab itu ramai di kalangan pimpinan PAS mengelak dari hadir di kediaman Anwar apabila dijemput untuk ke majlis “solat hajat dan doa selamat” malam sebelum 901. Seorang yang bercakap dengan IB secara bersemuka mengatakan bagaimana mungkin beliau hendak menadah tangan untuk berdoa ke atas kemungkaran.

Malah ramai di kalangan “Anwariyyun” (atau yang kini digelar parasit) percaya isu video Eskay. Mereka semacam masih “bersama” sekadar kepentingan permainan politik sahaja.

Setakat pergaulan dan pertemuan IB dengan beberapa pimpinan PAS isu moral Anwar jelas menjadi liabiliti besar kepada mereka malah ianya sedikit menggugat keimanan yang sentiasa dibisikkan dengan pelbagai persoalan kerena terlibat sama “mempertahankan” Anwar.

Sebab itulah apabila Azmin ingin mengumpulkan 100,000 untuk 901, sasaran tersebut tidak tercapai. Ini kerana pimpinan PAS tidak langsung memberi arahan untuk menggerakkan ahli mereka hadir di mahkamah pagi tersebut. Mat Sabu sendiri pun antara orang yang awal percaya dengan masalah moral Anwar ini.

Sekian, IB

:: Ulusan susulan: Sikap Anwar dan temubual Wall Street Journal

4 Orang Saksi vs Penjelasan Qarinah July 15, 2011

Posted by ibrahimbaba in Anwar, Ketelusan, politik.
Tags: , , , , ,
2 comments

Apabila menonton kedua-dua video ini IB lebih percaya dengan penjelasan seorang yang berilmu dalam bidang agama lagi hafiz.

Tuan-puan tonton sendiri dan nilai.

Tonton yang ini dulu.

Kemudian tonton dan amati penjelasan aspek lain yang terlalu ramai orang pejam mata dan tutup telinga.

Rakaman video kurang memuaskan. Kalau pening bila tonton – dengar sahaja pun memadai. Kita nak dengar hujjahnya.

Sekian, IB

Anwar dan Pluralisme Agama Lagi? December 16, 2010

Posted by ibrahimbaba in Anwar, Islam.
Tags: , , , ,
2 comments

Nampak pada gayanya, isu Anwar dan pluralisme agama ini tidak reda-reda. IB pernah melaporkan isu ini 6-7 bulan yang lalu. (Anwar dan Pluralisme Agama).

Dan sebelum ini IB sentuh juga berhubung kenyataan DSAI berhubung penggunaan kalimah Allah oleh orang-orang bukan Islam di Malaysia – Isu Kalimah Allah – Kesian Kat Anwar …

IB tidak pasti apakah jawapan/respon yang diberikan oleh Ustaz Mohd Nur Manuty yang disebut dalam Malaysian Insider benar dari beliau atau tidak. Dengan kesempatan menghabiskan cuti berbaki yang banyak, IB hadir wacana anjuran Muafakat itu (walaupun tidak sempat semua – selepas zohor sahaja).

Ucapan yang dibuat oleh Sdr. Yusri menyentuh tiga orang tokoh. Maka tidak adil bagi Ustaz Mohd Nur untuk mengatakan wacana tersebut menjadi medan untuk tembak Anwar. Sebabnya ialah dalam ucapan Yusri, beliau menyebut juga Nik Aziz dan turut sama ditegur Yusri ialah PM Najib sendiri. Dan Yusri dengan jelas dia tidak memakai mana-mana warna (biru gelap, biru muda atau pun hijau). Yang penting apabila kita bercakap kita landaskan Islam.

Jangan kerana kepentingan politik kita boleh “adjust” pendirian kita.

Sekian, IB.

WikiLeaks: Singapore believes Anwar guilty of sodomy December 12, 2010

Posted by ibrahimbaba in Anwar.
Tags: , , , , ,
add a comment

Sin Chew quotes from AFP …

SINGAPORE, December 12, 2010 (AFP) – Singapore leaders believe Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim had sex with a male aide in a honey trap set by his enemies, according to leaked US cables published by WikiLeaks on Sunday.

A US state department cable dated November 2008 and given by the whistleblower to Australia’s Fairfax media group detailed intelligence gathered by Australian and Singaporean intelligence on the opposition leader’s case.

“The Australians said that Singapore’s intelligence services and (former prime minister) Lee Kuan Yew have told ONA (Office of National Assessments) in their exchanges that opposition leader Anwar ‘did indeed commit the acts for which he is currently indicted’,” the cable read.

It added that Singapore reached its conclusion based on “technical intelligence,” which a Fairfax report said was likely to involve intercepted communications.

“ONA assessed, and their Singapore counterparts concurred, ‘it was a set-up job and he probably knew that, but walked into it anyway’,” the cable wrote.

Anwar, 63, has vehemently denied sodomising his aide, 25-year-old Mohamad Saiful Bukhari Azlan, claiming he was the victim of a political conspiracy.

He faces 20 years in prison if found guilty of sodomy, a serious crime in Muslim-dominated Malaysia.

Tian Chua, vice-president of Anwar’s People’s Justice Party, dismissed the revelations as “hearsay”.

“There is no doubt that this is a trumped-up charge,” he said. “If the claim is true… it would have been relatively easy for the government to prove it.”

“We cannot depend on what the foreign intelligence officials say. The question is whether the government has evidence to convict Anwar in court.”

Human Rights Watch has urged Malaysia to drop the charges against Anwar, condemning the case as a “charade of justice”.

Anwar, a former deputy premier, was sacked in 1998 and jailed on separate sodomy and corruption counts.

His sodomy conviction was later overturned and he was freed after serving six years in jail, enabling him to mount a political comeback as head of the opposition.

Anwar is first Malaysian ‘victim’ of Wikileaks December 12, 2010

Posted by ibrahimbaba in Anwar.
Tags: , , , , ,
add a comment

The Star reports …

PETALING JAYA: Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has become the first Malaysian “victim” of WikiLeaks.

The Sydney Morning Herald reported Sunday that leaked US state department cable revealed that Singaporean intelligence officials told their Australian counterparts that Anwar had engaged in the conduct for which he was accused of, and that his sodomy charges were the result of a “set-up job”.

However, the Opposition Leader tweeted his comments later Sunday, saying: “Source? Polis SB Msia. Bukti tak ada (Who is the source? Malaysian police special branch. There’s no proof of any such thing)”.

According to the Herald, the cable, dated November 2008, was one of several that dealt with the explosive private views of senior Singaporean officials.

Issued to Fairfax newspapers by WikiLeaks, the cable stated, “The Australians said that Singapore’s intelligence services … told [the Office of National Intelligence] in their exchanges that [Mr Anwar] ‘did indeed commit the acts for which he is currently indicted’.’’

It added that the Singaporeans told the office they made this assessment on the basis of “technical intelligence’’ which most likely meant intercepted communications.

The office also said that Anwar’s political enemies had engineered the circumstances from which the sodomy charges arose.

‘’[The office] assessed, and their Singapore counterparts concurred, ‘it was a set-up job and he probably knew that, but walked into it anyway’,’’ the cable stated, according to the paper.

Anwar dan Pluralisme Agama April 6, 2010

Posted by ibrahimbaba in Anwar, Islam.
Tags: , , , , ,
4 comments

Apa sudah jadi Pak Sheikh? Apakah DSAI kini telah masuk dalam lubang pluralisme agama?

Berikut adalah teks ucapan beliau di London School of Economics, March 18, 2010 yang disiarkan di blog beliau.

Sebelum ini IB mengulas juga:

Sekian, IB

p.s. (16Dis10) – komen IB terkini dengan merujuk kepada perkembangan semalam: Anwar dan Pluralisme Agama Lagi?

p.s. (7Jan12) – komen terkini IB selepas isu ini meletup lagi di Utusan Malaysia pada 5 Jan 2012: Mengulangi Bahawa Anwar Itu Cekal Dengan Pendirian Pluralisme Agamanya

********

Let me begin with a cryptic line from T.S. Eliot’s “Burnt Norton”:

Go, go, go, said the bird: Human kind cannot bear very much reality.

But I say bear it we must for indeed, it is a stark reality of our world that certain religious groups hold that only certain fundamental doctrines may lead to salvation. This exclusivist outlook unfortunately cuts across the board as between religions as well as within the denominations. In Christendom, we have seen the schisms and consequent upheavals arising from this sense of exclusivity. Within Islam, Sunni, Shiite and Sufi denominations have had a chequered history and continue to present the world with a scenario of violence and bloodshed. The backlash against Muslim migration to Europe has become more acrid in the aftermath of 9/11 and 7/7 with right wing politcal parties benefitting from the new bout of xenophobia and fearmongering. France’s ban on the burqa has elicited heated emotion on both sides, but many Muslims scratched our heads in disbelief when Switzerland outlawed minarets.

Back in the 13th century, the mystical poet Jelaluddin al-Rumi wrote in the Masnavi:

The lamps are different but the Light is the same, it comes from Beyond; If thou keep looking at the lamp, thou art lost; for thence arises the appearance of number and plurality.

Those verses couldn’t be more relevant for us today. Despite rancorous debates linking religion to conflict and discrimination, it remains a fact that at a personal level religious experience boils down to certain universal concepts. Where does man come from? What is his purpose? What happens when he dies? The spiritual path subscribes us to a universal quest for truth and the pursuit of justice and virtue. We rejoice in beauty, both within ourselves and in what surrounds us. We long for knowledge, peace and security amid the mysteries and uncertainties of the universe. In our disjointed world filled with ugliness, violence and injustice, religion gives all of mankind an opportunity to realize values which unify humanity, despite the great diversity of climes and cultures.

Dante – one of the great poets of the Christian tradition – had much to say about this issue. Surrounded by civil strife that tore asunder the landscape of his 14th century Italian countryside, Dante was well acquainted with factionalism and the struggles for power between the Lords Temporal and the Lords Spiritual. Seeing the damage inflicted by the attempts to overcome these divisions he perceived a solution that was not merely political in nature. Writing in Monarchia he said that the ultimate aims in life are twofold – happiness in this worldly life as well as happiness in the eternal life basking in the vision of God. The attainment of these two goals would come with great difficulty:

“only when the waves of seductive greed are calmed and the human race rests free in the tranquillity of peace.”

Dante’s vision of universal peace could be achieved only when the nations of the world unite in an undivided planetary polity. This was surely a utopian dream but being European it is worth noting that his dream was not of an imperial Europe. Nor did he envision the Church expanding beyond its walls. The ruling authority in this utopian landscape would be the faculty of human reason, linking Dante’s vision directly to the philosophical outlook of Muslim luminaries including al-Farabi and Ibn Rushd.

Of course such a new world order never materialized. On the contrary if there is an enduring legacy of Enlightenment thought on the political geography of the world it is the dissection of empires and dynasties into individual, competing nation states rather than a greater unification.

Much blood was spilled to create and then protect these boundaries. Despite attempts by some to purify their lands, the boundaries drawn around the nation-state have been blurred by the advent of modern transportation and communication. Today’s world is perhaps more diverse and integrated than was the case in the golden age of Muslim Spain, where Christians, Jews and Muslims lived in peaceful harmonious coexistence. And yet we can hardly say that the overwhemling result of this new connectivity is peace and harmony.

Today, freedom of religion without which there can be no religious pluralism, is an entrenched constitutional liberty in the established democracies. As such, favouring one religion over another or granting it a position at the expense of others may be considered as being against the spirit of religious pluralism. Yet this still happens even in certain established democracies in Europe while in the Middle East and in Southeast Asia this ambivalence has been virtually taken for granted until recently.

This is why the discourse on religious pluralism must deal with the fundamental question of freedom of religion and by association the freedom of conscience. The question arises as to whether it is the diversity of religions which makes the divided world more divided or the denial of religious freedom that causes it.

I believe I’m not alone in saying that for religious pluralism to flourish in a divided world, it is morally unacceptable to say to people of other faiths:

We believe in our God and we believe we are right; you believe in your God, but what you believe in is wrong.

If the Qur’anic proclamation that there is no compulsion in religion is to mean anything then it must surely be that imposition of one’s faith unto others is not Islamic. But to say this is not to deny the reality of religious diversity for the Qur’an also tells us clearly:

“O people! Behold, we have created you from a male and a female and have made you into nations and tribes to that you might come to know one another. Verily, the noblest of you in the sight of God is the one who is most deeply conscious of Him. Behold, God is all-knowing, all-aware.”

The Guru Granth Sahib tells us that he who sees that all spiritual paths lead to the One shall be freed but he who utters falsehood shall descend into hellfire and burn. The blessed and the sanctified are those who remain absorbed in Truth.

Whatever the religion, whether it be Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Sikhism, Hinduism and many others, I believe that the higher truths which go beyond mere practice and ritual all converge on the singular truth: and that is from God we were sent forth and unto God shall we return.

Yet certain leaders of the major world religions continue to make exclusivist claims to the eternal truths rather than accepting the commonality that binds us. If we accept that there can be unity in diversity, religious pluralism can therefore be a unifying force, not a cause of division. That is the way to take us away from darkness into light, from war to peace and from hatred and evil to love and kindness.

As for Muslims, there continues to be the problem of those who reject the value of free speech, free press, democracy, and freedom of conscience. They see the culture of religious pluralism as part of a grand conspiracy by ‘others’ particularly Christians to proselytize and convert Muslims. Pluralism is also a ploy of smuggling Western-style democracy through the back door.

But this is actually an aberration when it comes to the application of Muslim jurisprudence. Outside certain concerns of public policy there is no religious obligation upon Muslims to impose the laws and values of Muslims on the entire society. The Ottoman millet system is but one example of a system crafted by a Muslim state which was grounded in the principle of respect the recognized the rights of non-Muslims to follow freely the dictates of their religion. It was recognised that this was essential to maintain harmony in a pluralistic environment of an expanding empire. Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyah, an eight century Hanbali legal scholar offers us a more vivid case. In the case of the Zoroastrian practice of self-marriage whereby men are encouraged to marry their mothers, this is an act deemed morally repugnant from the Muslim perspective. When asked whether the Muslim state should recognise such unions, however, al-Jawziyah affirmed the rights of the Zoroastrians provided their cases not be presented in a Muslim court and that the said practices are deemed permissible within their own legal tradition. So, he said, the Muslim state has no business to interfere.

It is unfortunate that some of the wisdom of Islam’s classical scholarship are forgotten. Ideological rigidity remains the stumbling block to progress and reform. Muslims must break free from the old practices of cliché-mongering and name calling, move beyond tribal or parochial concerns. A rediscovery of the religion’s inherent grasp of pluralism is very much in need.

The Qur’an declares: Say He is Allah, the One, Allah, the eternally besought of all. One of the greatest medieval Torah scholars, Maimonides, also known by the Arabic moniker Abu Imran Musa bin ‘Ubaidallah Maimun al-Qurtubi, in expounding the unity of God in Judaism said: God is one and there is no other oneness like His. With reference to the phrase “hallowed be thy name” from the Lord’s Prayer (Matt. 6:9), the late Swami Prabhavananda wrote that God’s name can be viewed as a mantra, the repetition of which both confers spiritual power and purifies the aspirant’s heart and mind. By means of this practice, God’s “name is experienced as living and conscious, as one with God—and illumination is attained.”

Historically, Muslims viewed the Qur’an as addressing the intellect as well as the spirit. It set out the order in the universe, the principles and certitudes within it, and demanded a thorough examination of them so that we can be certain of the validity of its claims and message. This pursuit would inevitably lead to the realization of the eternal principles of the Divine Unity which in turn springs forth from the Divine Laws. But the Shari’ah was never cast in stone and evolves continuously through this dynamic process. In order to maintain a middle ground, the essential ingredients of an Islamic methodology must then be conceived in a holistic perspective which will be universal and eternal in appeal.

It is said that pluralism in a divided world serves only to cement the schisms leading to the tired and tiring refrain of the ‘clash of civilizations’ akin to the beating of ‘an antique drum’. This seems to be the metaphor that appeals to the imagination of historians and political scientists. The upshot is a clash of visions of history, perceptions, and images which in turn brings about differing and often opposing interpretations, not just of history, but world views. Nevertheless, as Eliot says:

History may be servitude, History may be freedom

We should therefore disabuse ourselves of this notion of the clash between civilizations and refocus our attention on the clash that has been brewing within the umma. We see a more dangerous and portentous clash as one that is intra-civilizational – between the old and the new, the weak and the strong, the moderates and the fundamentalists and between the modernists and the traditionalists.

If we look at history as servitude, we could gloss over the historical perspective and consign it to the realm of academia on the ground that we are already in the 21st century.

Turkey and Indonesia are clearly blazing the trail of democracy for other Muslim nations to follow. The impending accession of Turkey into the European Union is also a clear statement of the level of liberal democracy attained though unfortunately the obstacles thrown in the way by some member countries is very telling of the state of Islamophobia. In Southeast Asia, Indonesia has already reached the finishing line while her Muslim neighbors are still stuck at the starting block. So history is indeed freedom if indeed we are prepared to learn its lessons.

Today, jihad has been invoked by certain quarters to legitimize acts of violence in varied forms and guises, blurring the line between jihad and terrorism. Thanks to the Obama administration, we have seen some palpable change from the Bush policy of selective ambivalence in the war on terror, supporting autocrats in the Muslim world on the one hand, and championing the cause of freedom and democracy on the other. Although after more than a year since the administration took office we have yet to see substantive changes in the substance of American foreign policy with the Muslim world.

Within Islam, freedom is considered one of the higher objectives of the divine law in as much as the very same elements in a constitutional democracy become moral imperatives in Islam – freedom of conscience, freedom to speak out against tyranny, a call for reform and the right to property.

In closing permit me once again to draw on my perpetual reserve in Eliot’s Four Quartets:

What we call the beginning is often the end
And to make and end is to make a beginning.
The end is where we start from.

Isu Kalimah Allah – Kesian Kat Anwar … January 27, 2010

Posted by ibrahimbaba in Anwar, Islam, Kerajaan, Melayu, PAS, politik, UMNO.
Tags: , ,
4 comments

Di bawah ini adalah artikel yang dipetik dari The Star hari ini yang membicarakan tulisan Anwar Ibrahim dalam Wall Street Journal, Isnin lepas (klik). Selepas membaca tulisannya di WSJ dan ulasan yang dibuat oleh the Star (klik), IB merasakan kesian kat Anwar ini.

Memang nampak sangat agenda politiknya mengatasi segalanya bagi beliau. Itu yang IB kesian sangat.

Kenapa perlu dia terlalu apologetik dalam isu ini? Kenapa perlu memberi “peluru” kepada musuh Islam untuk menentang lagi Islam?

Dia sebut (dalam WSJ): “Over the last two weeks, arsonists and vandals attacked 10 places of worship, including Christian churches and Sikh temples” – habis kenapa tidak dia sebut yang surau pun kena bakar? [polis masih melakukan siasatan – belum 100% pasti siapa yang melakukan mana-mana yang disebut/yang tidak disebutnya]

Masih ramai yang ingat cara Anwar mengendali kes-kes sensitif isu agama dan isu perkauman semasa beliau dalam kerajaan. Apakah tindak tanduknya dulu tidak serupa dengan apa yang dia katakan sekarang? Kerajaan BN dulu dengan kerajaan BN sekarang tidak ada bezanya. Najib dulu orang Anwar jugak. Muhyuddin dulu orang Anwar jugak. Zaid Hamidi dulu orang Anwar jugak. Dan begitulah sebahagian besar orang-orang dalam pimpinan UMNO/BN/Kerajaan adalah orang-orang yang bersama Anwar dulu. Dan Anwar bersama mereka dulu.

Sememangnya kedudukan Anwar sekarang getir. Hidup mati masa depan politik amat tergantung kepada kes yang bakal didepani dalam masa terdekat ini. Tidak kiralah benar atau tidak tuduhan itu. Tidak kiralah adil atau tidak penghakiman (tenguk anda di belah mana – adil bagi seorang mungkin tidak bagi orang lain?). Yang pokoknya – keputusan tersebut boleh mematikan karier politiknya buat selama-lamanya. Mungkin jadilah Anwar seperti Ku Li yang banyak bersuara tetapi tetap kekal dengan “mantan bakal PM”.

Beberapa bulan lagi akan genap 2 tahun Anwar “hampir” menumbangkan kerajaan BN. IB pernah kata ianya “Now or Never” Bagi Anwar Ibrahim (klik) – dan “now” tersebut semakin jauh berjalan. Walaupun sebelum ini seolah-olah nampak seperti BN asyik kecundang setiap kali pilihanraya kecil, namun yang terakhir bulan Oktober lalu, episod kemenangan PR terhenti. Krisis dalaman PKR sendiri semakin sukar dibendung. Dibimbangi ianya “never”. Agaknya itulah dalam kepala Anwar – “never”(?)

Percaturan terakhir dalam isu kalimah Allah jugak tidak banyak memihak kepada PKR (mahupun PAS). Mungkinlah ianya memberi rasa keterbukaan PKR (dan PAS) terhadap Melayu liberal dan bukan Islam/Melayu. Tetapi tunjang pengundi untuk PAS dan PKR adalah orang-orang Melayu.

Pembahagian kawasan di kalangan parti-parti PR berdasarkan komposisi kaum. Kawasan yang ramai Melayu untuk PAS dan kawasan yang Melayu ramai dan bukan Melayu pun ramai diberikankan kepada PKR. Maka isu-isu sensitif untuk orang-orang melayu/Islam harus ditangani dengan sebaiknya mengikut waqiat tempatan.

Sebahagian besar orang Islam tidak senang dengan keputusan mahkamah berhubung isu kalimah Allah. Dan begitu pulalah mereka tidak senang dengan pimpinan PKR dan PAS yang beriya sangat memenangi hati puak liberal dan bukan Islam. Apakah mereka tidak sanjungi kesetiaan pengundi asal mereka yang dari dulu lagi memperjuangkan kedaulatan Islam? Apakah mereka rasa terlalu pentingkan sokongan orang luar yang belum pasti kesetiaan mereka bila sampai saat mengundi?

“Sesungguhnya Yahudi dan Kristian tidak akan redha dengan kita sampai bila-bila selagi kita tidak mengikut cara hidup mereka. Katakanlah, cukup petunjuk ALLAH bagi kami. Tetapi, jika kamu menuruti Yahudi dan Krtistian setelah datang ‘ilmu (Al Quran) kepada kamu, maka tiadalah petunjuk dan bantuan Aku bagimu. ” Al Baqarah:120.

IB amat takuti …

Sekian, IB

************************

Two approaches to ‘Allah’ issue

Articles in the Wall Street Journal by Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim show their contrasting approaches and political styles.

DATUK Seri Anwar Ibrahim has been on the ceramah trail the past couple of weeks. The last time he was this busy was when making his comeback as Permatang Pauh MP more than a year ago.

His sodomy trial starts next Tuesday and all this political activity is a sort of pre-trial campaign to reach out to as wide an audience as he can.

The Opposition Leader’s oratory at these ceramah have assumed a certain pattern.

Apart from providing his take on the forthcoming trial, his chief target has been Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, the man who stands in the way of his political ambitions.

The PKR leader has also been at pains to explain his party’s stand on the controversial “Allah” issue and at times, has come across as rather defensive especially when the audience is Malay and rural.

An overwhelming majority of Malay-Muslims are very uncomfortable with the High Court ruling in allowing the use of the word “Allah” in The Herald and Anwar has been grappling with the Malay-Muslim sentiment on the ground.

But his stand would go down well with the Western liberals who want to see Islam in a way convenient to them.

This came across quite clearly in the Wall Street Journal which published two articles yesterday on the issue – one by Najib and the other by Anwar.

Najib’s piece was titled, “Finding Unity in Diversity” while Anwar’s carried the heading, “Muslims have no Monopoly over ‘Allah’.”

The articles were quite a contrast, not only in content but in reflecting the priorities and political styles of the two men.

The Allah issue has become very political and at the same time very personal to the religious beliefs of the various communities.

Najib chose not to take the political argument. He pointed out that citizen action and spirit had prevailed in helping to maintain calm and peace following attacks on places of worship.

There is no denying Najib has been under a great deal of pressure over this issue and he admitted there are passionate views on many sides and that this was a complex issue that the Government was trying to resolve .

He spoke about the reform path that his administration would take and said Malaysia’s society and the economy could only be built on that which unites rather than which divides.

His message was not about blame or justification but about unity, building bridges and looking forward.

As he put it: “I am determined that the vandalism of the places of worship and arson at the Tabernacle (the church that suffered the most damage) and the powerful response from everyday Malaysians can be transformed into a moment from which we can learn.”

Anwar, in his article, offered a concerted argument why Muslim do not own the word Allah.

But the politician in Anwar dominated in his article and he pinned the blame for what had happened squarely on reckless politicians, the mainstream media and NGOs linked to Umno.

He accused these quarters of fermenting fear to divert attention from controversial court decisions and missing jet engines.

It was the written form of what he had been saying at many of his ceramah, a political attack on his chief nemesis Najib and the ruling coalition.

He went beyond the Allah issue and pronounced this country as going down the drain because of corruption, incompetence and religious extremism.

He said the vision of Malaysia as a peaceful and stable location was in peril.

Anwar, some fear, is about to launch a repeat what he had done back in 1998 when he came under siege for charges of corruption and sodomy.

He blamed Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad for his troubles and in his anger, he not only ran down the former Prime Minister but the system and the country on the international front.

Anwar, they say, should try to draw the line between his personal issues and his politics from that of the country’s interests.

There is no denying that race relations have been affected by what has happened. Malaysians of all races are concerned about the future.

Some are pessimistic, others more hopeful. But what everyone wants now are solutions rather than finger-pointing.

Everyone wants a peaceful and acceptable solution to the “Allah” issue and the politics of blame will not help.

Niat Hanya Untuk Melaga-lagakan April 16, 2009

Posted by ibrahimbaba in Anwar, Kerajaan, Melayu, politik, UMNO.
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
1 comment so far

Kenyataan ketua pembangkang DUN Pulai Pinang yang juga Setiausaha UMNO Negeri, Azhar Ibrahim jelas mengambarkan niat dan tujuannya untuk melaga-lagakan dan bermain unsur perkauman. Tajuk dalam NST  “Is Guan Eng in charge of state or Anwar” menyebut bahawa Azhar mempersoalkan “I do not understand why he must kowtow to Anwar? Why can’t he decide on his own?

Kenapa dia mempersoalkan samada Anwar atau Guan Eng yang membuat keputusan? Adakah kerana Guan Eng seorang Ketua Menteri berbangsa Cina terpaksa menerima arahan dari orang Melayu – Anwar? Adakah tujuannya untuk mengapikan orang Cina Pulau Pinang dan Malaysia amnya bahawa “pemimpin Cina engkau tunduk kat orang Melayu“?

Kalau saya seorang chauvanist Melayu (sepertimana sentimen yang kerap dilaungkan pemimpin UMNO – terutama semasa persidangan mereka di PWTC – dengan berapi-api ketuk rostrum), sudah pasti “Anwar dapat mengarah Guan Eng” saya sambut baik.

Apabila di Perak semasa PR memerintah, mereka mengatakan MB Nizar tunduk kepada DAP.

Dalam perkongsian kuasa parti-parti komponen, sudah pasti akan ada perbincangan dan tolak ansur. Bukankah perlantikan Timbalan Ketua Menteri Pulua Pinang ditentukan oleh Pak Lah (dan PM-PM sebelumnya) semasa Gerakan memerintah negeri tersebut? Adakah Koh Tsu Koon yang buat keputusan? Tidak! Arahannya datang dari ketua Barisan Nasional (ketua untuk UMNO).

Jadi begitulah juga dengan Pakatan Rakyat. Peruntukan jawatan tersebut ialah untuk ahli PKR, maka pemimpinnyalah yang buat keputusan – dan bertepatan dengan Anwar sebagai ketua Pakatan Rakyat.

Kalaulah nak dikira kelam-kabut dan ketidaktentuan, keadaan di negeri Terengganu lebih amat meruncing dengan “mutiny” yang berlaku (Terengganu Lebih Parah Dari Perak). Atau suasana di Perak pun juga kelam-kabut hinggakan tidak dapat bersidang untuk sekian lama. Apakah kerajaan MB baru takut hendak bersidang memandangkan speaker dari parti lain? Bukankah itu lagi aneh?

Sekian, IB

Perlu Menegur DSAI February 19, 2009

Posted by ibrahimbaba in Anwar, Islam.
Tags: , , , , , ,
6 comments

Membaca tulisan DSAI akhir-akhir ini membuat IB memikir panjang. Dua posting yang amat mengganggu fikiran IB ialah berhubung perkembangan di Sri Lanka dan sambutan Thaipusam. Terganggunya fikiran IB kerana ketidak telitian DSAI dalam beberapa perkara yang ditulis dalam posting tersebut. Masa yang lama diambil untuk memikirkan bagaiman hendak diturun kata-kata ini.

Pertama, Kenyataan Media Berhubung Perkembangan Mutakhir di Sri Lanka, DSAI bimbang dengan “mangsa di kalangan rakyat, terutamanya penduduk Tamil di utara”. Mengapakah saudara tidak menyebut sama perihal umat Islam yang telah diusir oleh pengganas LTTE/Tamil Tigers? Ratusan ribu umat Islam telah dihalau dari kediaman mereka dan kini sudah bertahun merana terpaksa menjadi pelarian?

Tidak kurang pula mereka yang tidak bersalah dibunuh dengan kejam. Wanita dan kanak-kanak telah turut menjadi mangsa kekejaman pengganas LTTE. Perihal penderitaan ini MESTI disebut juga dalam menyatakan kebimbangan kumpulan minoriti orang-orang Tamil itu.

Kedua, ucapan Selamat Menyambut Hari Thaipusam. Seharusnya saudara amat faham sebagai orang Islam kita perlu menjaga pengucapan dan kata-kata kita agar tidak mencalar syahadah kita. Dalam mengEsakan Allah Azzawajala, kita tidak boleh menyekutukanNya. Tiada tuhan melainkan Allah.

Dari kata-kata dalam pengucapan tersebut saudara telah meletakkan pengiktirafan terhadap dewa-dewa Hindu tersebut. Teguran ikhlas ini adalah bagi mengingatkan DSAI untuk beristighfar dan supaya lebih teliti di masa-masa akan datang. Islam tidak melarang untuk memperjuangkan nasib penganut agama lain terutama mereka yang tertindas – malah adalah terkedepan dalam memperjuangkan keadilan, namun Islam turut mengariskan batas-batas syahadah kita.

Amantu billah.

Sekian, IB