An Article by IKIM - I fully agree with him

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/3/30/focus/5937508&sec=focus

Let religion be the business of the experts
IKIM VIEWS By Dr WAN AZHAR WAB AHMAD
SENIOR FELLOW/DIRECTOR


Human rights advocates have been fighting for gender equality before the law and yet when Islamic law stands in support of their claim, they accuse syariah of being uncompromising, inhumane and discriminatory.

I am flabbergasted by the prejudices and misgivings of certain quarters against religious teachings. I am almost speechless when reflecting on the degree of denial and obstinacy shown by them.

A recent incident which seemingly took the nation by surprise is the purported outcry over the whipping carried out on Muslim (women) syariah offenders.

While the offenders themselves had no qualms about the punishment, many others became involved in an unnecessary controversy. Human rights advocates have been fighting for gender equality and yet when Islamic law stands in support of their claim, they accused syariah as uncompromising, inhumane and discriminatory.

It is understandable if the criticism came from non-Muslims. But when the rejection came from Muslims themselves, it is incomprehensible. They seem to glorify human rights doctrines more than honouring their own religious pronouncements, or the principles of true ethics and morality.

This is secularism. It represents a process of secularisation as certain quarters are influencing others to shy away from religion and good value system.

Islam does not lay rigid emphasis on punitive actions. The religion is about knowledge, education and the inculcation of good values. Islam asks Muslims to refer to a legal avenue to solve disputes only as a last resort. Even this is always preceded with words for forgiveness and mediation.

Islamic law does not differentiate between male and female offenders. In fact, in achieving salvation, Islam is giving equal opportunity to both sexes.

In the recent execution of the punishment, four male criminals were flogged. But the human rights vanguards chose to close one eye on this.

For the Muslims in this grouping, their secular inclination manifests their inadequate Islamic upbringing, resulting in confusion and ignorance. Even after being told the truth, they stubbornly hold firm to their misunderstanding.

For the non-Muslims, they appear to have lost a sense of adab, the sense of respect of other religions. Camouflaged under the pretext of human-rightism, they claim the right to interfere in a domain they have minimal or no knowledge about.

The Muslim and non-Muslim detractors simply defy authoritative religious precepts, authentic knowledge, reliable authorities, irrefutable historical facts, the rules of reason and logic, and the rules of ethics and morality. In the process, they have consciously or unconsciously become atheists, agnostics, sophists, and secularists.

It is amazing to learn the paradox that people conveniently acknowledge the authority of certain professionals in certain fields but hardly do the same in some other areas.

For example, many will not risk their health or life visiting unqualified physicians for their medical problems and later question the prescription given.

They do not dare challenge any registered lawyer, accountant, engineer, or architect for any matter within their respective fields of expertise and professionalism. Ironically, when it comes to religion, many believe that it is “free” for everyone to interfere with. I fail to understand this logic.

Our nation is blessed with many educated people but it appears that some do not have the wisdom that is supposed to come with education. A considerable number simply do not know their limit.

One of the signs of wisdom is to know one’s limit of knowledge. This implies that one is not supposed to comment on things that one is not well informed of. If one lacks knowledge on anything, one must first gather sufficient information and data before making any remark. Hearsay evidence or mere observation will not help solve any problem.

One must also do it with a clear conscience as one may need to alter or retract one’s opinion if someone else who is more knowledgeable points out the mistake in certain respects or in the entire subject matter.

Failure to fulfil the prerequisites means one is not wise. Not knowing the limit in a way signifies stupidity. If and when one does that and declines to take the right advice, one only exposes one’s ignorance and, worse, arrogance.

Knowledge is not something neutral. It is laden with values that one must not ignore: good and evil, right and wrong, beneficial and harmful.

In the context of a multi-religious society, everyone must be alert to each other’s sensitivities. If a non-Muslim is making unfair comment on Islam and its institutions, no sound Muslim will just keep quiet.

Similarly, if Muslims for example are questioning the rationality of the Christian concept of trinity, or the Hindu’s multiplicity of gods, or the practice of the caste system, the leaders and followers of these religions will not just shut up and do nothing.

Therefore, it is extremely important for all groups in our pluralistic society not to touch on each other’s sensitivities, especially those that pertain to theology and matters that have been granted by our Constitution.

Let us affirm the general position that matters of religion do not fall under the purview of any layman on the street, even an educated one, as there are conditions to be met. Let us maintain the status quo that religion is the business of those qualified experts and professionals.

Yes, religion is open to human interpretation, but not just by anybody. If one has fulfilled certain requirements, there will be no objection to engage in any religious discussion. In the case of Islam, this applies to everybody having the desire, determination and efforts for a better understanding.