Posted in HIPOKRIT

Erykah Badu: Masih isu meleret dan dipersendakan

Dilaporkan semalam Kementerian Dalam Negeri tidak berpuas hati dengan penjelasan The Star berhubung penyiaran gambar Erykah Badu dengan tubuhnya ber’tatu’ kalimah Allah.

Mufti Perlis Dr Juanda Jaya juga berkata permohonan maaf dibuat The Star minggu lepas dilihat seolah-olah tidak ikhlas.

Keputusan KDN serta pendapat yang diluahkan Dr Juanda tidak menghairankan kerana ada sesetengah bukan Muslim yang terus mempertikaikan kenapa maaf harus dipohon.

Contohnya respons kepada rencana ‘Badu’s tattoo taboo‘ (The Nut Graph, 5 Mac 2012).

Seorang pembaca ‘JW Tan’ telah mengomen, “Bagaimanakan saya boleh tahu rupa tulisan Arab untuk perkataan ‘Allah’ sekiranya suratkhabar tidak dibenarkan mencetaknya dalam satu gambar?” (screenshot di bawah)

Komen ‘JW Tan’ itu menyimpang dari intipati isu, iaitu ‘Allah’ telah dilukis pada badan dan ditayangkan kepada khalayak ramai melalui pampangan di tubuh bogel.

Soalnya pasti bukan akhbar Star dilarang sama sekali untuk menunjukkan kalimah Alllah. Kalau ditunjukkan dalam konteks yang respectful (hormat), saya jangka Muslim tidak akan membantah.

Saya mendapati dalam perbahasan isu ‘Allah’, media pro-pembangkang yang berpendekatan sudut pandangan Kristian lebih cenderong kepada percubaan untuk menegakkan benang basah. Hujah-hujah yang menyeleweng diketengahkan.

Ambil satu lagi contoh rencana di Nut Graph bertajuk ‘If “Allah” were for Muslims only‘ (15 January 2010).

Kolumnisnya Chan Kheng Hoe membincangkan sama ada setiap orang Malaysia yang berbangsa Melayu mempunyai hak untuk merujuk kepada Tuhan sebagai ‘Allah’.

Kheng Hoe menulis:

“Clearly, a Muslim is someone who bows to Allah’s will and celebrates due rites. He or she submits to Allah. Hence, before we allow anyone to call upon God as ‘Allah’, should we not first scrutinise the person’s life to determine whether he or she is submitted to Allah’s will?

Ekoran itu, Kheng Hoe merumuskan bahawa seorang yang mengaku dirinya Muslim tetapi tidak mengamalkan puasa pada bulan Ramadan tidak boleh dibenarkan menggelar Tuhan dengan kalimah Allah kerana sudah mengingkari Rukun Islam.

Seterusnya Kheng Hoe berkata sesiapa yang melakukan khalwat dan terbabit dengan rasuah pun tidak boleh dibenarkan menggelar Tuhan sebagai Allah kerana perbuatan-perbuatan tersebut haram di sisi agama.

“No way, José. Call God anything else you want, but don’t use God’s Holy Name. Every convicted Muslim criminal should also find another word in their vocabulary to refer to the Almighty,” sambungnya.

Tambah Kheng Hoe lagi, seorang Muslim yang bekerja di kilang pembuatan bir Carlsberg atau Guinness Anchor, yang ada kaitan dengan Genting Bhd termasuk pengarah Melayunya serta peguam yang mewakili syarikat judi Magnum Bhd juga tidak akan layak menggunakan kalimah Allah kerana mereka manusia berdosa dari segi Islam.

Dia memberikan senarai siap dengan contoh-contoh lain Muslim yang tidak sempurna, dan mengakhiri kolumnya dengan berkata:

“Granted, by the above standards, I personally wouldn’t qualify to call God by any name. But then, neither would anyone else.”

Saya rasa sikap mereka yang menggunakan sophistry (alasan licik) sebenarnya mencerminkan golongan Cina yang suka menunjuk-nunjuk kononnya tidak “rasis” melalui penampilan mereka mengenakan tudung, memakai baju Melayu dan girang memupuk hubungan persaudaraan antara agama.

Akan tetapi mereka masih tidak mampu mengenali tulisan ‘Allah’.

Berkaitan:

Erykah’s Allah tattoo and China bull in Muslim shop

Belajar menghormati Buddhisme, Hinduisme dahulu sebelum cuba mencampurtangani Islam

Author:

I have no Faceook or Twitter.

4 thoughts on “Erykah Badu: Masih isu meleret dan dipersendakan

  1. Kheng Hoe ni adalah contoh tipikal golongan non-Muslim yang berlagak lebih pandai dari ulama Islam kerana memandai-mandai membuat takrifan siapa yang layak menggunakan nama Allah.

    p.s. Kalau orang yang khalwat tu tak layak panggil tuhan dengan nama Allah, apakah orang yang mengatakan tuhan itu 3 dalam 1 (trinity) mempunyai kelayakan?

  2. Berkongsi posting presiden pro-tem Bloghouse Syed Akbar Ali (berkenaan isu KDN dan arahannya kepada Star) untuk renungan kita bersama.

    http://syedsoutsidethebox.blogspot.com/2012/03/erykah-badu-ministry-of-home-affairs.html

    I find that in discussing religious issues, SAA usually displays down-to-earth common sense.

    Comparing our write-ups, I find my own (i.e. this particular one) here veering to the conservative side.

    The reason must be that I’m annoyed at the personality types involved, i.e. the group I’ve dubbed ‘Yeopies’ and their hypocrisy in playing up to Muslim sentiments.

    I fear that the Yeopies’ honey-won’t-melt-in-their-mouth approach on the one hand, and the Bangsar M’sia make-up (like Kheng Hoe & JW Tan) on the other, are two faces of the split Chinese personality.

    A consequence of the Chinese playacting (acting more pandai in Islam) is that the restrictions on religious sensitivities will become more rigid b’cos both the Muslim right (e.g. PAS fundamentalists who have been on Star’s case) and the poseur arty-farty left are aligned to the same purpose and taking us – albeit in the case of the liberal non-Muslims buat memandai-mandai, it’s not deliberate but inadvertent – in the same direction & landing us in a constrained public space.

  3. Good day.
    1. Al-Islam magazine (aku tak baca pun, majalah ni macam pendokong Islam liberal je) and the Holy Communion chapter is one example where a piece of cookie was treated with sacrilege. Tapi tak boleh pulak kata ” I don’t recall being taught about this sensitivity in school” ataupun “it’s just a piece of cookie” dan tetap kena minta maaf.

    2. Paper parti dah dekat nak kena gantung, tapi masih ada hati nak takutkan orang Cina dengan PAS! Kutuk negara Islam lain pulak tu!Gan Peng Sieu: Bla3 (Thanks to Google Translate, I can get the basic idea on what he’s babbling about)

  4. Syed Ali is a long ardent of the anti hadith group in Malaysia (or they call themselve Quraniun). Their sifu is a retired journalist by the name of Kassim Ahmad. SAA has blog about this guy here:
    http://syedsoutsidethebox.blogspot.com/2009/01/meeting-old-friend-dr-kassim-ahmad.html

    Many of his thought is not inline with the mainstream thought of the Muslim because they deny hadith as an authentic source for religious ruling. They claim that Quran is the only valid source in Islam. What make it worse is that they also do not follow proper methodology of tafsir in Quran. They are good in quoting verses from Quran, but when it comes to interpretation of the meaning, it is simply based on their own way of understanding.

    While you may find that some of his writings do make senses, but many are indeed against the Muslim, like his recent posting about the same issue. In my opinion, what you wrote is right and what he wrote was wrong (or at least politically wrong) for the Muslim. I have made a comment in his blog post.

    Back to the issue of anti hadith, the origin of the teaching came from western orientalist who studied Islam with some western influence Muslim. The ultimate objective of this teaching is to redefine Islam to fit in with the lifestyle so that a Muslim can live a westernized lifestyle without having a sense of guilt of going against the teaching of religion. It is sort of a response to ultra conservatism propagated by the ultra conservative group. Therefore, you will find the favourite topic for them is hijab (or tudung) as this is the most important physical separation point between western and Islamic lifestyle. If you go to his blog, he will defend to his last breath that there is no such thing as cover up for Muslim woman.

    This group knows that there is no way they can change Islam to fit into western lifestyle if they use the to main sources, i.e. the Quran and Hadith. They also realize that they cannot change the Quran. So they start the attack on Hadith. If they can make the Muslim to drop hadith as their source of reference, 2/3 of the rulings of the religion would be gone and most of the prohibition will no longer be applicable. So they can become a westernized Muslim without the sense of guilt of going against the rules of religion.

    The problem with the ultra conservative group is that sometimes they are to conservative to the point that they no longer make any sense. As such the anti hadith argument will provide a good counter argument and sound more sensible. But always beware of the group as they may be right on certain points, but in reality they are wrong in many other points. The reason is because their creed is fundamentally wrong.

    Islam is against extremism. Extremism comes in to faces. Left and right. Ultra conservationism is the left wing while ultra-liberalism is on the right wing. The anti hadith is the ultra-liberalism form of extremism. Islam emphasis in the middle path (you will find that Buddha also taught the same thing), the balance between the extremes.

    p.s. you can google about this anti hadith and the arguments that refute their teaching.
    _______________________________________________________________________________

    Thanks for the explanation, grandmarquis. All these Islam-related controversies make me feel very hemmed in & fearing that the non-Muslims have to tread on eggshells. The two suspended Star editors are my ex-colleagues. — Helen

Comments are closed.