|
By myAsylum Once again, the tired argument that those who don’t have “sufficient” knowledge on religion, Islam in particular, should not voice any opinion or objections when it comes to matters deemed Islamic, becomes one of the key points raised. Even if these matters have an effect, direct or indirect, on one’s life.
Going against the mainstream can be a challenging thing to do. And not always fun, either. But Walski being Walski, there are some occasions when he has to do exactly that.  Yesterday, The Star published an article written by Dr. Wan Azhar Wan Ahmad, director of the Center for Syariah, Law and Political Science , an academic sub-group within the Institute of Islamic Understanding Malaysia, better known as IKIM.
Walski won’t duplicate the entire article, entitled “Human rightism” vs religion, but rather will pick out certain areas that he thinks are of interest to this discussion. The gist, however, is that what’s termed as “Human rightism” is not entirely congruous with Islam. Or, as Dr. Wan Azhar argues, any religion. Once again, the tired argument that those who don’t have “sufficient” knowledge on religion, Islam in particular, should not voice any opinion or objections when it comes to matters deemed Islamic, becomes one of the key points raised. Even if these matters have an effect, direct or indirect, on one’s life. Well, Walski for one believes that he has a right to critique anything that has an effect on his own life. And frankly, if Dr. Wan Azhar doesn’t like that, well, just too bad. The first thing that the article does is to paint human rights as an ideological doctrine, and therefore an ism. Understandable, because from many an Islamist’s point of view, any ism may be seen as somewhat derogatory. With the exception, naturally, of Islamism (emphasis by myAsylum). THE doctrine of human rights seems to have developed into an ism that has rapidly spread, and been embraced, defended and championed by an increasing number of people beyond ethnic and cultural boundaries worldwide.
This universal human rightism is also perceived by many as an ideology that prevails over national laws and even transcending religions.
For some reasons, conflicts are always portrayed to happen when the values of human rightism are brought against the teachings of Islam.
(source: The Star) So, it would appear that the stage is set – values of human rights can be incongruous to the “teachings of Islam”. Or the conventionally mainstream view, anyway. In a larger sense, the article is a commentary on the events and opinions surrounding the Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno case. But it does also try to reinforce certain mainstream and conventional views. Such as the one that not everyone can comment on religion. Or, at least, not Islam. And that view is very apparent in the article. Another argument goes to the effect that every Tom, Dick and Harry must be given a chance to speak about things even if he has no sufficient knowledge about or no knowledge at all.
It is as if we ask a layman having no knowledge and training in medicine to prescribe medication for a dying patient.
In religious matters, not everybody has the right to claim that he enjoys the freedom to give an opinion as he wishes without first gaining a certain degree of knowledge on the subject matter in dispute.
Religious matters must be left in the hands of qualified ulama to address, in as much as medical matters must be given to qualified doctors.
If one is ill-informed or totally in the dark about any religious precept, then one has to do some research, seek counsel from those who are competent, qualified and authoritative.
(source: The Star) Very mainstream. Very conventional. So, no surprises whatsoever. But once upon a time, it was conventional belief that headaches were the work of demons. And if it were not for the freedom for certain “heretical” individuals to question this belief, we’d still be subjected to exorcisms, rather than aspirin or paracetamol, for headache relief. One bit written in the article, somewhere mid-way through the piece, caught Walski’s attention more than anything else, and is something that he would like to explore a bit more. Read more at: A schism of isms
 |
The Blogs 
"...O people of the Book, let us come to a common understanding between us and between you; that 1) we serve none except God, and 2) that we do not set up anything with Him, and 3) that none of us takes each other as patrons besides God...." (The Message 3:64)
Why are muslims trying to protect religion, when God has already mentione the above.
Serve not religion. But serve God. How?
By doing good and righteous deeds. And be just.