God’s voice on earth

Hence the Church and the Crown had to work in tandem. The Crown drew its legitimacy from the Church (which recognised the king as God’s representative) while the Church got its powers at the pleasure of the Crown. It was a convenient joint venture of two corrupt systems that existed mainly to oppress and suppress the people.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

In the past, until about 500 years or so ago, the ‘common people’ in Christendom did not interpret religion themselves. That is because religion was communicated in a language that the masses did not speak. Hence they needed ‘middlemen’ to help interpret religion. And these middlemen would interpret religion in a ‘politically correct’ manner.

Then, by the late 1400s to early 1500s, religion began to be communicated in the people’s mother tongue. The English read religion in English, the Germans in German, and so on. This reduced the need for middlemen and made them redundant. And people began to realise that the middlemen had been taking the people for a ride and were ‘tailoring’ religious decrees (fatwah) to suit the political agenda of the powers-that-be.

For example, for Catholics, divorce was not allowed. However, if the king wanted to take on a new wife then the religious authorities could always declare that the king’s first marriage was null and void. Hence he need not divorce his first wife to marry his second wife since his first wife was not really his wife in the first place. The first wife no longer exists so the second wife becomes the first wife.

Then, when he wants to get rid of his second (but now first) wife to marry his third (but now second) wife, he can declare that she has committed treason against God’s representative on earth and hence by offending the king she has offended God and can, therefore, be put to death. Then, on the day they execute his second (but considered first) wife, he can go marry his third (but considered second) wife.

Religious decrees or fatwah have been a very useful political tool for Christendom. The Church and the Crown shared power. Hence rules need to be laid down that serve both the Church and the Crown. When the Church ignores the Crown then the Crown will act against the Church and the Church would lose its powers and status.

Hence the Church and the Crown had to work in tandem. The Crown drew its legitimacy from the Church (which recognised the king as God’s representative) while the Church got its powers at the pleasure of the Crown. It was a convenient joint venture of two corrupt systems that existed mainly to oppress and suppress the people.

That was up to about 500 years ago in Christendom. Since then, especially around 200 years ago, the people got rid of this menace called the Church and later even the menace called the Crown. Hence the two biggest exploiters and oppressors of the people were removed. Today, many people go to church only three times in their life -- when they are christened, when they marry (if they have a church wedding), and when they die (unless they get blown up in Iraq or Afghanistan). Other than that they go to the pubs.

As I said, that was up to about 500 years ago in Christendom. In Islamdom, they still have not got rid of the ‘Church’ and in many countries the ‘Crown’ as well. And that is why in some Muslim countries we still have monarchs who are the head of religion. And we also still have religious authorities that pass decrees or fatwah.

Basically, many Muslim countries are still hundreds of years behind Christendom. Hence those who live in such countries suffer what the people in Christendom suffered up to about 200 to 500 years ago. And that is why we still read news reports such as the two below from NST (regarding dogs) and Hakarah (regarding fatwah or decrees).

The religious authorities tell us what we can and cannot believe in plus what we can and cannot do. They interpret what is and is not allowed. And we are compelled to follow these rulings or face arrest and punishment.

But is this really what God stipulated? This is what the religious authorities say God has stipulated. Can we disagree with this? We cannot disagree with this. Can we interpret things our own way? We cannot interpret things our own way. They will interpret it for us.

You will notice one thing, though. Most times they will quote the Hadith when they pass rulings or decrees. But why quote the Hadith and not the Qur’an, the holy book of Islam? That is because the Qur’an is ‘silent’ on many issues so if they quote the Qur’an then they will not be able to support what they say. Hence they need to quote the Hadith.

What if you do not accept the Hadith? You cannot. You must accept the Hadith. If you reject the Hadith then you are a deviant and can be arrested and punished.

What if you follow a certain sect of Islam that does not recognise the Hadith or it recognises a different set of Hadith and not the ones that you recognise? You cannot. You can only follow the sect of Islam that the government says you can follow and if you follow another sect of Islam then you can get arrested and punished.

Basically, Islam, today, is where Christianity was 500 or 200 years ago. However, while Christendom has reformed and has allowed freedom of choice, Islamdom does not allow freedom of choice. The religious authorities in Islamdom decide what you can and cannot do and there are no two ways about it.

Hence, while the Qur’an does not say that dogs are not allowed (in fact, there is a verse that allows dogs to be used for hunting and game procured from hunting is halal to eat), because they use the Hadith and not the Qur’an to make their rulings, most Malays will not keep dogs.

And note that I said ‘Malays’ and not ‘Muslims’ because the one-time Mufti of Terengganu kept a dog and would take his dog out for a walk every day even when he went to market to buy his fish. And the one-time Mufti of Kelantan said that dogs are not only allowed but you can even bathe your dog.

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

Islam allows blind to use dogs

EYES AND EARS: There is no issue in using the services of trained dogs, says Perlis mufti

(NST) - There is no rule in Islam which prohibits the use of service dogs to guide the blind, said Perlis mufti Dr Juanda Jaya.

"Using the services of guide dogs which are well trained is allowed in the religion, including the Syafie mazhab, which is subscribed to by Muslims in the country.

"There is no issue on using service dogs for various purposes like hunting, guarding and as guiding dogs," he told the New Straits Times, yesterday.

Considered as one of the most sought after service dogs, guide dogs are trained from young to act as eyes and ears for the blind.

Guide dogs are also trained to improve the mobility of the blind and have been proven to help them lead independent lives.

On why blind Muslims in the country do not consider having guide dogs, Juanda said there was confusion on the exact ruling and status of dogs in the religion.

"People need to learn to differentiate between religion and culture in order to make decisions in their lives and to not follow blindly what others say about rulings in Islam."

Fatwa Council president Tan Sri Dr Abdul Shukor Husni said there was no specific fatwa issued for guide dogs for the blind.

"It is mainly because we didn't receive any enquiry or requests from the affected community to consider a fatwa on guide dogs.

"If there is a request and we see a present need for the issuance of a fatwa on guide dogs, we will have a meeting to discuss this issue thoroughly," said Shukor, while calling for Muslims who are concerned about the issue to come forward.

In 2008, the United Kingdom's Muslim Law (Syariah) Council issued a fatwa stating that "a blind person, in the light of syariah law, will be allowed to keep a guide dog to help him and if required to take him to the mosque for his prayers".

Then, 18-year-old Mohammed Abraar Khatri, who lost his sight because of a degenerative disease the same year, championed the rights of Muslims to use the services of guide dogs with help from the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association and the Muslim Council of Britain.

His guide dog, named Vargo, accompanied Mohammed to school, outings and to the mosque.

A special compartment was set up within the mosque compound to let the dog stay while Mohammed went to pray.

Perak mufti Tan Sri Dr Harussani Zakaria said Muslims were allowed to keep dogs if they were trained to be guard dogs, to watch over the garden (kebun) or to be seeing-eye dogs.

"It is said in a hadith that the angels do not like the barking of dogs and will not enter a house in which a dog is kept. But that does not mean that we cannot keep them for certain purposes.”

"We are permitted to keep them, as long as they are not kept in the house, and we have to sertu if we touch them when they are wet."

Sertu, he said, is the act of washing the skin with water six times and with a mixture of water and earth once.

It is often mistaken for the term samak, which is the act of cleaning an animal's skin with rough materials such as sand or ashes.

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

Tidak boleh buat fatwa berdasar andaian – Mufti

(Harakah Daily) - Majlis Fatwa Kebangsaan tidak boleh mengeluarkan sesuatu fatwa hanya berdasarkan andaian atau laporan akhbar semata-mata.

Mufti Pulau Pinang, Datuk Seri Hassan Ahmad berkata, dalam menyelesaikan isu yang disebut sebagai 'Amanat Haji Hadi', Majlis Fatwa Kebangsaan perlu bersemuka dengan Presiden PAS itu sendiri.

"Ia mesti mengikut prosedur. Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi perlu dijemput untuk berbincang dan bagi mendapatkan penjelasan. Ia tidak boleh diselesaikan mengikut andaian," katanya dipetik Sinar Harian Online.

Semalam, Datuk Seri Tuan Guru Abdul Hadi berkata, sejak 31 tahun lalu, beliau langsung tidak pernah menerima apa-apa surat atau dipanggil untuk memberi keterangan kepada Majlis Fatwa Kebangsaan berhubung petikan ucapannya yang dibuat di Banggol Peradong, Terengganu, 31 tahun yang lalu yang kemudian dipopularkan pihak tertentu sebagai 'amanat' itu.

Katanya, tindakan itu tidak adil bagi dirinya kerana tidak diberi peluang menjelaskan perkara sebenar berhubung polemik itu sehingga kini.

Sebelum ini hanya Majlis Fatwa Negeri Melaka, yang mengeluarkan fatwa berhubung amanat itu yang diwartakan pada tahun 2002.

Sebaliknya tiada fatwa khusus di peringkat Majlis Fatwa Kebangsaan berhubung perkara itu.

Mengulas fatwa yang dikeluarkan di peringkat negeri itu, Hassan berkata, Majlis Fatwa Kebangsaan tidak boleh bergantung kepada fatwa yang dikeluarkan oleh majlis fatwa di peringkat negeri.

Kuasa mengeluarkan fatwa, katanya, adalah kuasa negeri dan fatwa yang dikeluarkan oleh Majlis Fatwa Kebangsaan tidak semestinya satu keputusan mutlak kerana kuasa agama kekal di bawah kuasa negeri.