To: IKIM (info@ikim.gov.my)
Comment on IKIM's "Let religion be the business of the experts" as published in The Star newspaper on 30/3/2010
I wanted to write a proper response to your article (IKIM's "Let religion be the business of the experts"), but time does not permit. So my brief thoughts:-
1. This part I totally agree. Bad manners/discourtesy/kurang ajar does not help in any situation, what more when the topic is religion.
"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."
2. But, citing doctors, lawyer and engineers, etc ... err ... not that right.
Verbatim:-
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.
My comment:-
I see a difference.
Firstly, religion tells people what to do, or what is good or bad, without being asked. Doctors / lawyers / engineers / accountants / architects only do so if or when they are asked (consulted). Religion tends to 'interfere' with (encroach into) people's lives (sometimes uninvited). Resentment towards this, justified or not, is natural, if not logical. So I don't see anything illogical by someone reacting to a perceived imposition into their lives, ie. step on my tail, and I will bite back. HOW that reaction takes shape ... now that's a test of adab.
Secondly, there can always be a 'challenge' in the form of getting a 2nd opinion from another doctor / lawyer / engineer / accountant / architect, and a 3rd, or 4th opinion (ad infinitum) if necessary. This should be the case with religion (going by the expert analogy). But it is usually not the case. Experts who have the first say, or who have the backing of people with big sticks (power) tend to not be contradicted (for a variety of reasons). So the expert analogy is inaccurate UNLESS getting a 2nd opinion for religious matters is encouraged. So if 2nd opinions on questions such as "Which is correct; Catholicism or Protestantism (or Orthodox); Sunni or Shia; Theravada or Mahayana?" are allowed and encouraged, only then would the expert analogy be accurate, IM(very)HO.
Jason Kay
3 comments:
Peace again bro,
I think in some way you are right but in some way I see the logic behind the writing of the IKIM article.
If you are sick, you see a doctor. If you want to built something see the engineers. And if you need help and advise about the Syaria Law, then we seek the Syaria Lawyers. Nothing is wrong here. We seek doctors because they have more information about medical knowledge and we seek Syaria Lawyers because they have more information on the Sharia Law.
No point to look for advise from people who do not have that knowledge. If a non-muslim do not have any knowledge about Islam, how could he/she gives advice?
In Islam, the Sharia Law is based 100% on what the Prophet Muhammad SAW taught. The system itself is based on the Islam believe.
We muslims believe in our Creator/God. Allah created us, so He knows what is best for us. Muslims submit 100% to Allah and His command. Yes you can say in your way that the religion tell us what to do and what not to do.
Its impossible to compare between religion and doctor because (according to your science based understanding) religion is theology and doctors are just human. Can you compare Christianity to mechanics? Its simply not logic.
Its actually funny that you wrote 'Religion tends to 'interfere' with (encroach into) people's lives (sometimes uninvited). Resentment towards this, justified or not, is natural, if not logical. So I don't see anything illogical by someone reacting to a perceived imposition into their lives, ie. step on my tail, and I will bite back. HOW that reaction takes shape ... now that's a test of adab.'
First of all, religion do not interfere with people's life, you choose to become a muslim, so you yourself CHOOSES to live according to what Allah ask from us. Its only interfere if you are forced to embraced a particular religion. I dont understand which part of this is not logical or justified.
Step on my tail and I will bite back is a test to adab? I dont really understand but, as Muslims in no way anyone should go and bite anyone else. And if the 'biting' takes place, we have the Sharia Law to punish any evil. We dont have to make new laws and test them out because the Sharia Law is already perfect in each and every way.
We dont have any problems in asking for second opinion. It does not matter if its shia or sunni. The prophet taught us that if we have disagreement, we just have to refer back to the Quran and Hadiths.
If its the Creator who makes the Law, then it should be fair in each and every way.
In some way I agree and disagree with you.
Religion do not interfere with people's life. It only counts as interfere if one are forced to do it unwillingly. In Islam, muslims CHOOSE to do what Allah ask them to do.
We choose to follow and adhere to all the laws in the religion because we know it good for us. (who knows us better then our Creator) We also chooses to consult doctors etc when needed. Second opinions are required because humans make mistakes.
There are no need to ask for second opinion about Islam (incomparison to doctors etc consultation) because Allah never makes mistakes.
Dont have to worry about shia and sunni or any of that parable because in Islam, Prophet Muhammad SAW told us that if there are any contradictions, we are to refer back to the Quran and Hadiths.
No reference to the opinions are needed. Just need to refer to the Quran and Hadiths.
Kopi O,
Thank you for your comments. My reply:
My understanding of the IKIM article is that it does not approve of the barrage of criticisms levelled by Muslim and non-Muslims (who are not religious scholars) on the issue of caning of Muslim women under Syariah Law.
Firstly, let me make clear my personal views on this. Since caning of Muslim women is allowed by Syariah Law and the offenders are Muslim, coming under the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court and they have pleaded guilty and accepted their punishment (no appeal), I don’t see a problem with the punishment.
My disagreement with the IKIM article is this: It castigates the people who oppose the caning of women under Syariah Law on the basis that they are not knowledgeable / have inadequate knowledge in Syariah Law, and to support this position, it draws an analogy to doctors / lawyers / engineers / accountants / architects (people who give professional advise).
My blog post was merely to point out that THAT ANALOGY IS FLAWED because professional advise is sought by a person who GOES TO the professional. It is not GIVEN TO the person by the professional unsolicited. Professionals don’t go around telling people how to eat, exercise, build houses, do their accounts, etc unless asked.
Religion (religious leaders) on the other hand do so (telling people how to live) WITH OR WITHOUT being asked (I notice I had stated “religion tells people what to do, or what is good or bad, without being asked” in the blog post – my mistake).
If people ask religion/religious leader how to live, then whatever advise given is merely a genuine answer to a genuine query. This is a good thing.
But if people don’t ask religion/religious leader, “How should I live”, but religion/religious leader steps in (uninvited) and starts to go on and on and on about what you can and cannot, and what you should and should not do, then naturally there would be resentment.
The point I was trying to make is this. If religion/religious leader tells people how to live without being asked, that’s not polite (no ‘adab’). Similarly, if people resent religion/religious leader telling them how to live (without being asked in the first place) and REACT negatively, then that is also not polite (no ‘adab’).
Post a Comment