jump to navigation

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.

Advertisements

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.

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

Ex-cop: How AG interfered in ‘black eye’ case October 11, 2008

Posted by ibrahimbaba in Anwar, Kehakiman, Kerajaan, Ketelusan, Mahathir, politik.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

dipetik dari http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/91024


A retired senior police officer who probed the infamous ‘black eye’ incident involving Anwar Ibrahim in 1998 has made startling claims on how attorney-general (AG) Abdul Gani Patail allegedly tampered with evidence in the case

In a set of court documents revealed this week, Mat Zain Ibrahim implied that the actions of Abdul Gani, then a senior deputy public prosecutor, delayed the investigation process and concealed facts from then AG, the late Mohtar Abdullah.

Malaysiakini contacted Abdul Gani’s office for comments today, but has yet to receive a response to the voice-mail message.

Mat Zain, who had led the investigation team, made his revelations in a 18-page statement of claim in a RM30 million defamation suit that he filed against Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim on Aug 11, in the Shah Alam High Court. Mat Zain retired from the police force in 2001.

anwar ibrahim black eye 010805

He claimed he had been defamed in Anwar’s police report lodged on July 1 implying that he had fabricated evidence relating to the ‘black eye’ incident (left), in cooperation with Abdul Gani and inspector-general of police (IGP) Musa Hassan (while a senior investigation officer in 1998).

In his statement of claim, Mat Zain pleaded innocence to Anwar’s claims and instead pointed the finger at Abdul Gani by recounting how the latter had allegedly interfered in the case.

Mat Zain’s claims were first made public on Wednesday, during Anwar’s sodomy trial in the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court. Anwar’s lawyer Sulaiman Abdullah had read out the document in court during submissions on why Abdul Gani should not be involved in any aspect of the sodomy case.

However, the media was told not to report the details pending the court’s decision on the admissibility of the evidence. The gag order was lifted yesterday.

rahim noor 01

According to the document, Mat Zain was instructed on Sept 27, 1998 by then IGP Abdul Rahim Mohd Noor (left) to head an investigation team, after Anwar lodged a report that day that he had been beaten up while in police custody, thereby sustaining injuries including a ‘black eye’.

Mat Zain said he had immediately instructed two forensic experts, Dr Halim Mansar and Dr Zahari Noor, from the Kuala Lumpur Hospital to examine Anwar.

Abdul Rahim met him privately that night and told him to conduct an in-depth investigation and “to leave no stone unturned” in order to uphold the image of the police force, he said in the document written in Bahasa Malaysia.

“I was ordered to only brief Rahim and (Mohtar) on the progress of the investigation and given the assurance that no other senior police officer will disrupt me in carrying out my duty.”

mahathir interview 050308A similar message was conveyed to Mat Zain in a meeting with then premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad (right) about two weeks later, to brief the latter on the progress of the investigation.

“During that meeting, I explained what actually happened to Anwar and identified the person who hurt him.

“The prime minister advised me that there should be no cover-up in the probe and stated that the government may set up an independent commission to investigate the case if there is any attempt to cover up the incident; (and if a commission had to be appointed) would tarnish not only the credibility of the police force but also mine,” the document added.

On Oct 16, 1998, Mat Zain said he met with Abdul Gani to hand over his first investigation report, after directed to liaise with him because Mokhtar was busy with official duties.

Gani’s role explained

Abdul Gani’s alleged interference came into the picture when Mat Zain alleged in his court document that:

– A questionable medical report was prepared by one Dr Abdul Rahman Yusof, allegedly on Abdul Gani’s order.

lingam tape panel meeting 031007 abdul gani patailMat Zain stated that he found out there was an attempt to “insert irrelevant and suspicious statements” into the investigation report, especially in relation to “Abdul Rahman’s report which was done on the instructions of Abdul Gani” (right). Mat Zain said he was confident that Abdul Rahman has never examined Anwar physically.

–  Mat Zain claimed he had obtained information that Abdul Gani was on the 30th floor of the federal police headquarters in Bukit Aman when Anwar was assaulted and he believed Abdul Gani knew of the incident either at the time or soon after.

– On Oct 30, 1998, Mat Zain personally handed over his second investigation paper and report to Abdul Gani, and briefed him on the details. Among the conclusions were that the Anwar’s injury was consistent with assault and not self-inflicted; and that Abdul Rahim was the person who caused the injury.

– Although two investigation reports had been given to Abdul Gani on Oct 26 and 30 respectively, Mohtar was quoted in the media on Nov 7 as saying that his chambers had not received any such report.

– It was only on Nov 20 that Mohtar reportedly said he had received the report. Mat Zain said he believed Mohtar’s statement was made after he (Mat Zain) had “pressured” Abdul Gani a day earlier to confirm the status of his two reports.

– On Nov 25, Musa informed Mat Zain that Mohtar wanted to meet him (Mat Zain) at Bukit Aman and to visit the lock-up where Anwar was held. Musa and Abdul Gani were present during the visit.

– Mat Zain later found out that Abdul Rahman’s second medical report had mentioned there was a visit to the lock-up (where Anwar was held) and a “reconstruction of the incidence”, where Mat Zain was named as the person who had accompanied Abdul Rahman to the

lock-up. Mat Zain denied this had ever taken place.

mohtar abdullah

– On Jan 6, 1999, Mohtar (left) had reportedly said Mat Zain’s investigations were incomplete and that the latter had yet to identify the perpetrator (despite the findings given to Abdul Gani on Oct 30, 1998).

– Mat Zain said he “believed Abdul Gani concealed important facts from Mohtar’s knowledge” and had personally appointed Abdul Rahman as the medical officer to prepare the report in October 1998. His conclusion was based on the fact that Mohtar had only appointed Abdul Rahman two months later.

– Mat Zain said Abdul Rahman later testified before the royal commission on the ‘black eye’ incident in March 1999 and gave conflicting statements with regard to his own findings. The proceedings came to an end when Abdul Rahim admitted that he had caused the injury to Anwar.

At the end of his court document, Mat Zain vehemently denied Anwar’s accusation that he had plotted any fabrication of evidence with Abdul Gani and Musa.

“The truth is I had acted to the best of my abilities to prevent any party from influencing me to do anything unlawful while investigating Anwar’s injury,” Mat Zain said.

Musa filed a defamation suit against Anwar on July 21 while Abdul Gani has threatened to do the same.

Boleh Lenakah Najib? October 9, 2008

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

Dengan pengumuman Pak Lah yang tidak ingin mempertahankan jawatan Presiden parti apakah ianya bermakna secara otomatik Najib akan menggantinya dan akan menjadi Perdana Menteri?

Boleh percayakah bahawa Pak Lah tidak mempunyai perancangannya? Apa perancangan itu – tidaklah IB tahu. Cuma boleh lenakah Najib selepas mendengar pengumuman Pak Lah?

Ada 1001 macam kemungkinan lagi yang akan dan mungkin berlaku.

  1. Mungkinkah Pak Lah akan mempertaruhkan kuda lain untuk menentang Najib dalam pemilihan Presiden parti?
  2. Pak Lah tidak sesekali mengatakan bahawa dia menyerahkan jawatan Presiden untuk dipangku oleh Najib (seperti Mahathir lakukan untuk Pak Lah). Pak Lah hanya sekadar tidak bertanding. Najib terpaksa menghadapi sebarang kemungkinan ditentang oelh sesiapa sahaja. Ku Li? Mahyuddin?
  3. Mungkinkah Pak Lah mensabitkan Najib dengan sesuatu kes yang serious yang “tidak boleh dibela” lagi oleh Pak Lah – maka terpaksalah Pak Lah mneyerahkannya kepada mahkamah? Mahathir sudah beriya hendak serah kepada Anwar sedekad yang lalu sebelum Anwar dihumban ke penjara.
  4. Mungkinkah pembicaraan kes pembunuhan Altantunya menjadi sesuatu di luar kemampuan Najib untuk membendungnya. Tidaklah IB tahu setakat mana (jika ada) penglibatan Najib – tetapi nama Najib asyik disabitkan selalu. Apakah itu antara senjata Pak Lah?
  5. Apakah mungkin hasrat Anwar untuk mendapat sokongan dari ahli-ahli Parlimen untuk melompat parti bakal menjadi kenyataan? Maka Najib akan hanya sekadar menjadi ketua pembangkang sahajalah.

Banyaklah lagi jika kita hendak fikirkan kemungkinan yang boleh berlaku yang pastinya membuat Najib tidak boleh lena.

Sekian, IB

Apa akan jadi esok? September 15, 2008

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

SMS demi SMS yang diterima. Baik dari gurauan bahawa orang Terengganu sekadar dapat menikmati bubur lambuk sahaja petang ini untuk berbuka puasa dengan Pak Lah, dan Zaid letak jawatan hingga kepada SMS keluhan Arif Shah selepas tewas di Permatang Pauh baru-baru ini (di hujung nanti IB selitkan serba sedikit keluhan beliau).

Dalam kita ingin menumpukan kepada mempertingkatkan amal ibadat di bulan Ramadhan yang mulia ini scenario politik tanah air semakin hangat. [Itulah sebab utama IB kurang menulis – kerana tak mahu pembaca hilang tumpuan kepada ibadat sekali setahun ini. Juga IB sendiri pun hendak juga berusaha – tetapi yang ini IB terpaksa tulis jugalah serba sedikit].

Terbaru ialah pertemuan empat mata Najib dan Pak Lah. Dikatakan hasilnya ialah Najib akan membuat satu pengumuman penting yang bakal mengejutkan. Betul tidak wallahu ’alam.

Apakah tarikh 16 September ini akan berlaku seperti yang dijanjikan Anwar? Kalau mengikut urutan peristiwa yang sepatutnya berlaku sebelumnya untuk 16hb dijadikan tarikh perubahan kerajaan – maka ianya MUSTAHIL untuk berlaku esok.

Kalau Anwar kata semuanya ”on-track” itu tidak tahulah apa yang Anwar maksudkan. Walaubagaimanapun ketidaktentuan tidak banyak membantu negara, ekonomi, dan mengambil masa kita untuk beribadat di bulan yang mulia ini. Amat gelisah – untuk mana-mana pihak sekali pun. Ketidaktentuan ini biarlah berakhir dengan secepat mungkin – ”pi lah belah mana pun”.

Kemudian berbalik kepada cerita Arif Shah, ramai rakan-rakan yang rapat dengan beliau serta ahli keluarga beliau memaklumkan Arif Shah kini sendirian mengharungi pelbagai janji yang telah dibuat bukan oleh beliau tetapi oleh janji-janji manis pelbagai pemimpin parti yang datang berkempen. Pelbagai orang datang menagih. Dikatakan juga hutang kini di keliling dek kerana peruntukan kempen lesap di tengah jalan dan pelbagai bayaran tidak dilunaskan. Ada juga yang mengatakan sabotaj banyak yang berlaku.

Nampaknya budaya UMNO belum hendak berubah lagi.

Sekian, IB

Tahiah Buat Anwar – Amanah Menanti August 27, 2008

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

Tahniah buat Saudara Anwar Ibrahim yang baru memenangi kerusi P44 Permatang Pauh. Tahniah juga kepada seluruh jentera gandingan pelbagai parti dalam PR yang bekerja dengan penuh semangat dan tidak mengira penat lelah untuk memastikan Penasihat PKR melangkah masuk ke Parlimen.

Kini bermulalah bab baru dengan amanah yang dipikul oleh Anwar. Ingat akan janji-janji yang telah dibuat. Ingatlah amanah yang Allah Azzawajala telah tetapkan demi memelihara agama dan bangsa.

Ingatlah gema-gema yang kerap dilaungkan dahulu seperti:

“Islam itu tinggi, tiada yang lebih tinggi darinya”

Sekian, IB

Anwar Tolak Tohmahan RPK August 14, 2008

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

Akhirnya Anwar secara rasminya (dalam blog beliau) menolak tohmahan yang dibuat oleh RPK terhadap Rameli Musa sebagai orang yang mengkonspirasikan bersama Ezam dan Nalla dalam kes liwat DSAI.

Semenjak dari lontaran fitnah pertama oleh RPK terhadap Rameli Musa, IB telah mempersoalkan kenapa Anwar tidak bersuara. Maka apabila tohmahan yang makin dahsyat yang dibuat RPK, IB tiada kaedah lain kecuali menyeru agar Anwar WAJIB menjawab dan hanya Anwar yang boleh menangkis fitnah terbaru ini. Amatlah tidak wajar dalam kita mengatakan orang lain memfitnah kita tetapi kita membiarkan fitnah yang lain yang hanya kita yang mampu membersihkannya. Syabas Anwar!

Bagi mereka yang mengenali rapat Rameli Musa, tidak akan mungkin beliau melakukan sesuatu yang boleh dikatakan sebagai mengkhianati Anwar. Bukan sahaja kerana persahabatan mereka tetapiu juga kerana keperibadian beliau yang tidak memungkinkannya.

Yang menjadi persoalan kepada IB ialah apakah sebenarnya yang RPK mahukan apabila sengaja melontarkan fitnah yang langsung tidak masuk akal sebegini? Apakah ianya suatu peras ugut? Apakah ianya suatu ”kerja barua” untuk seseorang yang sebenarnya ingin menjatuhkan Rameli atau melaga-lagakan Rameli dengan Anwar?

Inilah bahayanya fitnah memfitnah. Gejala fitnah ini adalah antara akhir zaman. Bahana fitnah amat dahsyat terhadap mangsa dan keluarganya, sahabat handai dan ianya juga merosakkan masyarakat sekalian.

Sekian, IB

Kenapa Hamid Albar Terketar-ketar? August 8, 2008

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

Apabila kita menonton buletin TV3 malam tadi, ketika Syed Hamid Albar menjawab pertanyaan kenapa Anwar seorang sahaja yang didakwa sedang Saiful tidak, kita dapat lihat Hamid serba salah menjawabnya.

Kita dapat lihat dengan jelas pergerakan tangan dan badannya (body language) yang ketara gelisah. Ketika beliau hendak menolak cermin mata dengan jarinya, kita dapat lihat jarinya terketar-ketar. [Sila tonton video klip tersebut di laman TV3] Tonton bahagian pada minit 6:40 – perhatikan jari telunjuknya. Juga perhatikan gerak badannya yang amat tidak selesa sebelum .

Juga yang amat ketara bagi Hamid Albar ini ialah beliau tidak dapat bertutur/hujah dengan jelas. Kata-katanya banyak yang tersekat dan mencari-cari perkataan yang sesuai.

Apakah petanda ini semua? Adakah sesuatu yang beliau tahu dan ingin berselindung?

Anda tonton dan anda fikir.
Sekian, IB