The root word for theology, ‘theos’, stands for some ‘other’ which/who is different from humans and is believed to have powers, character and personality that is beyond human comprehension. The second half word ‘logos’ relates to the study of the subject matter of ‘theos.’
Usually, any attempt by humans to define or describe this ‘other,’ is by definition an anthrophormisation of the ‘other’. It means we reduce the undefinable down to the human level of comprehension, especially limited language.
Different words and concepts are usually deployed to understand the ‘other’. Different religions have different views and explicate their beliefs in different ways. The range of words include God, GOD, Almighty, Creator, Allah, Elohim, Eternal Being, and OTHER, etc.
Most of us are not very serious students of theology; and, most who are, unfortunately only focus on their personal belief systems and do not venture into other faiths or belief systems. In Malaysia, rather unfortunately, we do not formally teach comparative religions at all except in one or two courses in a few universities.
As a consequence, they know personal faith of belief system, but also by extension, and maybe by unintentional reference, only the unbelief or wrong beliefs of others. Usually the beliefs of others are never taught in non-positive light because such teaching is never ever academic. When taught with bias, premised upon one’s level of conviction and confidence, such teaching is also abusive to the same others.
Theology of hate
Was the mufti of one of the nine Malay States propagating hate, when that religion is a specific matter under the sultan of the state? Does Islam really teach hate? He is considered a state public servant under the civil law of the Federation of Malaysia, and probably even earns pensions and paid gratuity. How can a public servant preach that “Muslims should kill other citizens, even if qualified under certain conditions of personal interpretive faith?”
Should not the inspector-general of police (IGP) take action to charge him with sedition for a hate crime? My point and argument is simple. It is one thing to say this is a closed group or and teaching context, even if in a mosque as a sermon. But when it is made in public and made vide the mainstream media and the whole of Malaysia knows about it; I think it is abuse by one interpretive view of one Islamic scholar, but it is also an abuse of civil rights of every Malaysian.
ADS
He was promoting hatred to the majority of Muslims in Malaysia. Therefore, mine is a protest about wrong teachings of Islam.
What is insult of Islam?
I have a very close friend who sat on the religious council for one state. He was appointed by the sultan of the state. When he suggested, on one occasion, that it was the Islamic council for the state that insults Islam because of the poor quality of maintenance of their mosques and religious facilities; his term on the council was not renewed.
Can any Malaysian, or any group of Malaysians, therefore now make such a case based on their personal religious leanings? Then, premised upon that faith, ask another group of people to be killed based on the particular interpretation of religious views? Can such hate crimes ever be allowed to be tolerated?
To therefore ask Malays to “run amok like this” is a dangerous cultural event, because it is already being established in different shapes and forms by heterogeneous groups who are called by various names like ‘red shirts’, for whatever reason and the police appear to be impotent to deal with such wrongs.
Bersih, which is a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic event or movement on the other hand, is dismissed by the police as an anti-Malay Chinese-based event and not given legitimacy for their peaceful protest.
Is not the real issue, whether the current establishment approves or sanctions such ‘abusive events’; when their silence over such wrongdoing makes it so obvious? Please remember, Gandhi taught the world that non-action is also action.
Islamic State – which version, whose responsibility?
When OHMSI Sdn Bhd co-organised the above forum at Wisma Eagles in 2012; one major newspaper abused one speaker by misrepresenting what she had argued with a quote, “There is no compulsion in Islam”.
On July 14, the same person wrote an excellent article arguing, ‘Give room for legitimate dissent’, on page 10 in The Sun. The Member of Parliament for Lembah Pantai has argued that probably the only way to mobilise young people is to give them an alternative progressive agenda instead of the feeding the storyline and false meaning sold by IS of the Middle East.
I use her conclusion as the summary for all to read: “Terrorism in the name of faith is a humanitarian problem. We must unite around the same message to condemn the wrongdoings of the fanatical few who have hijacked the message of peace, tolerance and mercy of Islam. And the fight for humanity starts with the young.”
On July 15, the town of Nice in France experienced a most tragic trauma when a lorry rammed into a pedestrian area and killed not less than close to 100 people; 85 and counting.
Hate personalised?
Hitler promoted hatred for Jews. History has recorded that Jesus promoted love for enemies. History also recorded Jesus dying for this cause.
Why did the driver of the lorry intend, plan, and execute such killing of many innocent people with a complete feeling and conviction ‘of doing the right thing at the right time in the right way?’ That summary in italics and highlight are my words to summarise my pet Theory R.
Therefore my question is why would any individual human being choose and decide to undertake the following action intentionally? Can any Muslim theologian please seek to explain and justify his actions to me? Why then do we tolerate a mufti who does no less? Judgment like this always belongs to God and no other.