My Humble Response

This is Tun Dr Mahathir Muhammad; Malaysian's fourth Prime Minister. His ruling was thought to be the most controversial, not just from the citizen of Malaysia, but from other world's leaders too. He was the sternest in fighting Israeli invasion and Serbia-Herzegovina massacres. Retired on 2002, but officially left his cabinet seat on 2003. Said to be the second most powerful man in Asia after China's president by Newsweek Asia. He was recognized as the best Islamic model in the 20th century, according to some. I think: not really.

1. Dr Syed Alwi bin Ahmad blames Islam for the failures of governance in Muslim countries. 

My Response: I know not who this Dr Syed Alwi is. But one thing is certain; he butt hurt himself by standing against Tun Dr Mahathir Mohammad. That is why when you open Che Det's blog, you will see his lengthy comments, arguing the space availability for Islam to revive and have its Renaissance. Well, you should have known the consequences, Dr Syed Alwi. 

But anyway, I am not really into this Alwi guy. What I want to comment is Che Det's points. So let us get back to this blog's reality (slap face). 

2. It is true that Muslim countries are often poorly governed. There is not a single one of them which qualify to be a developed country. 

My Response: This is good. And pathetically true. Islamic governance nowadays are getting more and even more corrupted. Bribery, social ills and moral degradation are some of the matters that have been eroding Muslims' credibility in both local and global world. 

To add to that, the Western society has a supremely high tendency in viewing dogmas/religions through the observation of their followers' attitude and deeds. Forced to live in one Earth with them, we have to realize that whether by hook or by crook or by both, we have to adapt ourselves to their norms (does that mean, we have to sacrifice our way of life?) AHAHAHA. 

Hell no. To adapt, you do not have to change. All you have to do is to accept. 

3. But the fault does not lie with the religion of Islam. Over a period of 1,400 years the original teachings of Islam as was brought by Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) have been interpreted and re-interpreted by genuine scholars and charlatans with vested interest so that it is no longer the Islam of the messages of Allah subhanawata’ala. Some of these interpretations are so different from the original that they are not Islamic at all. 

My Response: Truth is spoken with vivid description here. I agree with all the points, but would like to add a few more lines, perhaps?

What I can understand about Islam is, it teaches straight monotheism and stern judiciary. There should be no compromise in executing Allah's Laws on this Earth. Those who transgress must be punished, for punishment saves Muslims from corruption. And this is the point where the Government should improvise their  leadership systems. 

I hate politicians and ulamas who label themselves as 'Islamic' but are selling their faith and religion for worldly benefit. They may look like another typical Sunnah defenders, yet having this hatred in their hearts that gives allowance for them to say this is halal and this is haraam. Had not Allah describe this kind of act as an act against His Command? In Surahtul Nahl verse 116, Allah criticizes this kind of people. 

The corrupted ulamas and so-called revivalists should realize that we have another life that needs to be faced. There is still other world after this world. These kinds of people whom making use of religion sensitivity; they do not have solid belief in akhirah:- the Day of Judgment:- the place and time where all of us will be judged.

What I want to emphasize here is, the interpretations are nothing more but proof that shows the diversity of our thoughts and understandings. There should never be nothing wrong with it, as long as they/we keep the basic principles/laws as the ultimate. The only wrong thing to do with religion is selling it so that we can get something worldly with it. Of which, we know; would never be perpetual.

In essence, the teaching of Islam, when is mixed with those secular thoughts and assabiyat/westernized principles will never perform at its fullest. The religion of Islam will only shine brilliantly when we respect the Orders of God and His Prophet(s). Without any worldly doping, nor intention.  

4. In Malaysia we have Arqam and Ayah Pin and many others who have clearly deviated from the true teachings of Islam. Yet their followers are fanatical about their beliefs in the teachings of these people. In the Muslim world there are also many Ashaaris and Ayah Pins. 

Deviants of Islamic teaching are no different than the corrupted ulamas I have said above. I could not think of any other purpose than the worldly gain they could extract out of others' misconception. At least, they have power, as a start. 

But what boggles my mind most is how shallow the minds of our people are, in deciding whether this is good or not good. False and truth. This question returns back to my original assertion; worldly gain. 

5. Their teachings are intended to validate their own deeds and purpose, many of which are political. Thus in the Turkish Sultanate of the distant past, when a Sultan was enthroned, he ordered the murder of all his brothers. This was to prevent them from mounting a challenge against him. And his religious advisers justify this act by pointing out that Islam abhors “fitnah” (bad mouthing as well as attempting to overthrow a ruler and take over a country – both of these happened between the small Muslim states of Al-Andalus or Spain, often with Spanish help). 

My Response: Ditto. I cannot explain it better. Just a little bit enhancement: I once watched a video, which presents Ustaz Idrus (if you hate 'Bersih 2.0', you should know him). He was uttering a hadith that set me thinking and wandering, how far have the PAS gone from Islamic teaching. The hadith stated that, "When two men are chosen among you as leader, then kill the other". (I could not get the sanad , so you can check it out on the YouTube, InshaAllah).

6. Fratricide as happened in the Turkish Sultanate is not sanctioned by Islam. The verse in the Quran which declares that fitnah (bad mouthing) is worse than killing is not meant to permit fratricide. In fact killing a fellow Muslim is forbidden. 

"..wal fitsnatul asyaddu minal qatl.." as the verse goes, which has the meaning; "and indeed, slandering is more worse than killing..". But as Tun said, this particular verse does not imply that we have the authority/permission to kill one. 

Killing another Muslims by any means is haram mutlaq. There was a case when Prophet Muhammad SAWS scolded his armies for killing the Jews whom uttered the kalimah syahadah, even it was only for his safety. This is a vivid dictation that clearly shows how forbidden it is to kill a believer. 

7. Differences in the interpretations also occur in the Christian religion. That is why there are many sects among the followers of Christianity. In the past the differences had led to wars, with the authorities burning the alleged heretics at the stakes. The war in Northern Ireland which has flared up recently is due to differences in the interpretation of the Christian religion. 

Yes. It was verily a Catholic priest, Daniel O'Connell, became the first demonstrator in the modern era. He triggered the very origin of demonstration or 'monstrous group' to claim for justice. We all know that during the Protestant Colonial Era, the Catholics were banned from holding any ministry in Irish ruling. And this caused a widespread of dissatisfaction amongst the Catholic. 

Well, when I spoke this fact to some of my friends, they turned red and steam started to whistle out of their ears. Butthurt. Let us recite the Qur'anic statement concerning this issue: "If anyone contends with the Messenger even after guidance has been plainly conveyed to him, and follows a path other than that becoming to men to Faith, We shall leave him in the path he has chosen, and land him in Hell,-what an evil refuge!" (Surahtul Nisaa' verse 15).

8. Similarly the Muslim sects often fight each other. These are not due to Islam but are caused by interpretations by different imams and ulamas. It is wrong to blame Islam for the sad state of Muslim states. The blame should be put on the shoulders of the interpreters of Islam whose teachings divide the Muslims so deeply that they fail to be guided by the true teachings of Islam.

My Response: The first ummah splitting happened somewhere around the era of Saidina `Ali Karamallahu Wajhah's. The reason and intention was to hijack Islamic governance (which was under `Ali's leadership). Some scholars by the way argue that the propaganda to overthrown the Khulafatul Rasyidin started as early as Saidina Uthman's era of leadership. I am not going to delve deep into this historically, but I just want to extract one important note:- splitting causes destruction and may lead to divergence of Islam's true teaching. Refer Surah `Ali Imran, verse 104; Surahtul An`am, verse 159. 

9. If Muslims follow the true teachings of Islam as found in the Quran and the verified hadiths, they should be able to govern their countries as effectively as the followers of other religions. I must say though that the followers of other religions too often fail. 

My Response: This is where Syed Alwi' critique became apparent. He said that Islam cannot flourish due to the difficulties in understanding and interpreting it. When interpretations vary, then there is no way we can unite Muslims into one group or one dogma or one, same intention of jihaad. Sadly for Syed, he thought it was the end of it. Disintegration was and is inevitable. However, the way to resolve this is strikingly simple. Let me give you an analogue.

Imagine that you have an empty basin, a bowl of water, oil and chunks of steel. Fill the basin with  water and then oil. And finally put in those steel chunks; stir the mixture. Stir it until the substances dissolve well in the basin.

How can you mixed those stuff? It is way impossible!

Now try to personify those materials with Islamic sects and firqah. Yes, they cannot be mixed.  But then, do them still live/stay in the same basin/place? Of course!

So, the idea is not to mix but to put them under one responsibility, that is, protecting their ikhwan and faith as much as they can. To always cling upon reality that we worship the same God, follow the same Prophet and adhere to the one, same Book (that is, Al-Qur'an). Once they have realize this reality, there will no problem for us to unite and fight in the same saff, same side;  as all of us live for a common interest. Jannah.

So, had it been resolved there?

10. Yes I was thinking of the situation in the country also when I say that Muslims are easily mislead. If their leader says that they will become “kafir” if they work with non-Muslims, they will fanatically uphold this and condemn people who work with non-Muslims. If tomorrow the same leader says working with the “kafir” is alright, they will say “Yes, yes,” and forget how in the past they had condemned others as kafir for doing what they are now doing. 

My Response: Provocative. This is the best part of his writing about this particular topic. He was insinuating someone of his old timer rival. AHAHAHA Perfect timing-lah, Tun.