‘Shahi Mufti ‘ has embarrassed many of us with his conduct. Even if a journalist had made a comment, such verbal abuse coming out of Mufti Datuk Hj Wan Zahidi bin Wan Teh unacceptable.
did tremendous damage to Muslims through his ‘fatwas’ at the time of elections, was poised for a positive change, the ugly side came up.
I have seen journalists ask much tougher [and harsher] questions and people replying without getting angry. Journalists [representing society] speak for the people and thus often make the public figures [including politicans] uncomfortable. But Mufti Datuk Hj Wan Zahidi bin Wan Teh and his supporters rather than keeping silent or just ignoring the question, instead went after the journalist in an uncivilised manner.
Time to stop calling him ShahiMufti . There is no such post and nothing regal or royal about him.Muftis are equal and respectable because they lead prayers and that’s all.
And now says that Mufti Datuk Hj Wan Zahidi bin Wan Teh will float a political party. outsourced by UMNO
What a joke! Does he have any idea of his influence. Parties may think that he has an influence. Even in the Jamek Masjid area let alone, he does not have a strong following. I am sure except his household no body is going to vote for his candidates. If such people will keep shut, they will do lot good for Muslims in Malaysia
Dear Datuk Hj Wan Zahidi bin Wan Teh,
I humbly refer to the first paragraph of your statement where you said:
Rasulullah S.A.W. telah mengingatkan dalam hadis-hadis sahih bahawa di antara pelbagai aliran kefahaman agama, hanya pegangan Ahli Sunnah Wal Jamaah yang akan selamat di akhirat kelak. Pegangan Ahli Sunnah meliputi pelbagai aspek agama bermula daripada hukum akidah hinggalah kepada hubungan antara pemerintah dan rakyat.
This is a very vague statement. You did not mention the Hadith in question and under what circumstances the Prophet said what he is reported to have said. Furthermore, you do not mention the source of this Hadith or who reported it.
Anyway, going by what you are saying, non-Sunni Muslims (Ahli Sunnah Wal Jamaah) are all going to hell. Not only the Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, etc., but the Shiah Muslims are going to hell as well. Only the Sunni Muslims are going to heaven.
I trust I have understood what you said.
One thing that puzzles me is that infidels or kafir are not allowed into the two Holy Cities of Mekah and Medina. Yet non-Sunni Muslims are allowed to enter these two Holy Cities. If they are not accepted as Sunni Muslims destined for heaven, then why are these infidels allowed into Mekah and Medina?
That has been something that has puzzled me for some time. Hence, are Shiahs Muslims or not? And if they are Muslims, then how come if a Malaysian embraces the Shiah doctrine he or she would be arrested by the Malaysian government? However, Iranians are not arrested. Only Malaysians are. Are not Iranians also infidels?
This is the second thing that puzzles me so maybe you could enlighten us on this matter to help clear the confusion in our minds.
In your second paragraph you said:
Memandangkan golongan pemerintah atau ‘ulilamri’ begitu penting bagi menjaga kesucian agama dan keutuhan masyarakat Islam, nas-nas syarak meletakkan ketaatan kepada mereka selepas Allah dan Rasulnya seperti yang terdapat dalam surah Annisa’ ayat 59. Oleh kerana hubungan antara pemerintah dan rakyat begitu penting, para ulama membahaskannya dalam kitab-kitab akidah.
You stressed in the last sentence of your first paragraph about the importance of the relationship between the Ruled and the Ruler. You further clarify this point in your second paragraph. In the third paragraph you said, “Berasaskan dalil-dalil yang jelas daripada Quran dan Sunnah, para ulama Ahli Sunnah telah ijmak mengatakan bahawa taat kepada pemerintah adalah fardhu ke atas setiap Muslim”, and then you quoted Sura An-Nisa Verse 59 of the Quran.
Sura An-Nisa Verse 59 of the Quran says as follows:
“O’ you who have Faith! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those charged with authority among you. Then, if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. This is better and very good in the end.”
Your point is: Oleh kerana hubungan antara pemerintah dan rakyat begitu penting…..
You are putting forward your argument about the importance of the relationship between the Ruled and the Ruler. Sura An-Nisa Verse 59 of the Quran says: Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those charged with authority among you.
While we are clear about Allah and the Messenger, how do you define ‘and those charged with authority among you’? Who is this person or group of people who is ‘charged with authority’ from amongst us? How do we choose from amongst us to give them this authority over us? Is it based on popular vote? Is it based on the most learned from amongst us? Is it based on the most pious from amongst us? Is it based on hereditary? Is it based on conquest?
This, you have not explained. Thus you need to also clarify this point. If not, any military general can just grab power and declare that he has authority over us and we would have to obey this person without question. There has to be a basis on how we decide who should have authority over us since, as you said, the relationship between the Ruled and the Ruler is very important.
In the fourth paragraph you said:
Sehubungan dengan itu, menderhaka kepada pemerintah adalah satu dosa besar yang diletakkan sebaris dengan dosa syirik, membunuh, makan harta anak yatim, makan riba, menderhaka kepada dua ibu bapa, seperti yang disebutkan oleh Ibnu Hajar dalam kitabnya Azzuwajir berasaskan hadis-hadis sahih riwayat Bukhari, Muslim Ibnu Abi Hatim dan lainnya.
Imam Nawawi dalam kitabnya Syarh Sahih Muslim menyatakan:
َﻭَﺃ َّﻣﺎ ُ ﺍﳋ ُﺮ ُ ﻭﺝ َﻋَﻠ ِ ﻴﻬﻢ َﻭِﻗَﻨ ِﺎﻟ ِﻬﻢ َﻓ َﺤﺮﺍﻡٌ ِﺑ ِ ﺎﺀ َ ﺟﻤ ِ ﺎﻉ ﹾﺍﻟ ُﻤ ِﺴﻠ ِ ﻴﻤﻦ۔
“Adapun menderhaka kepada pemerintah dan memerangi mereka, maka hukumnya haram dengan ijmak ulama”.
Basically, your argument is that it is a major sin to betray (menderhaka) the Ruler and equivalent to the sin of murder, etc. Hence, if I were to oppose the Prime Minister, that would be like committing murder.
But what about the obligation of amar makruf nahi munkar, which is mandatory for all Muslims? Does this mean that amar makruf nahi munkar does not apply to Rulers? Does this mean if the Rulers commit a sin or crime we must ignore it because opposing a tyrannical Ruler is a crime equivalent to murder?
Let me give you an example. Say, hypothetically speaking, the Ruler bans prayers and closes down all the mosques and turns them into pubs. Would you, as a Mufti, still say what you said above? Or would you now declare this Ruler a tyrant (zalim) and urge us to oppose him even if it results in our death?
In other words, where are the boundaries? When must be obey the Ruler and when must we oppose him? You have given the Ruler carte blanche. You have not specified under what circumstances we must obey and under what circumstances we must oppose.
Dear Datuk Hj Wan Zahidi, I am just hazarding a guess here but I am assuming you are a Shafiee. That means you follow the teachings of Imam Mohammed bin Idris Al Shaafa’ee and are of the Shafiee school of Islam. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
There are four imams in Sunni Islam. Another imam is Imam Abu Abdullah Ahmed bin Mohammed bin Hambal and his followers are called Hambalis. And one of Imam Hambal’s teachers was, in fact, Imam Shaafa’ee. Hence Imam Hambal was a student of Imam Shaafa’ee.
The great compilers of the Hadith, that you mentioned, are Imam Bukhaari and Imam Muslim, including Imam Shaafa’ee himself. Imam Shaafa’ee, in spite of being the most learned man in his time, used to quote Imam Hambal in his Hadith. That means the teacher, Imam Shaafa’ee, refers to his student, Imam Hambal, as a source of reference. That also means some of Imam Shaafa’ee’s opinions are actually the opinions of Imam Hambal.
Again, feel free to correct me here if I am wrong.
Now, what is the reason I am bringing all this up? The reason is as follows:
Imam Hambal refused to eat in the house of anyone who worked for the government. Although he was poor and at times almost starving, he would refuse charity. Imam Hambal was jailed and tortured by the Caliphs because of his anti-government stand.
In fact, Imam Hambal was not the only one like this. Another of the four Imams, Imam A’zam Abu Hanifa of the Hanafi school of Islam, was also the same. Imam Hanifa opposed the Caliph, Caliph Mansur, and was arrested and tortured as well. In fact, he was jailed and tortured twice for opposing the Caliph.
So you see, Datuk Hj Wan Zahidi, what you said is not entirely correct. And by saying what you said you are misleading Muslims when you should instead be playing the role of the shepherd who guides his flock.
No doubt, because you are a Mufti, most people would not challenge what you said and would accept what you said without question. After all, as a Mufti, you are supposed to be most learned in matters concerning Islam than, say, someone like me who cannot even speak Arabic.
However, what you said is misleading. And I can only assume you are misleading the people because you are not motivated by the truth but by money. If you oppose the government you would lose your job plus all the perks that come with it. Hence you come out with these misleading decrees to justify your existence.
I am not learned like you, Datuk Hj Wan Zahidi. Nevertheless, I know what is true and what is false and you really do not need to be learned to know this. All you need is sincerity and clarity of mind. And this is what you are lacking, Datuk Hj Wan Zahidi, sincerity and clarity of mind.
You may wish to do some soul searching and reflect on what you are doing. If you really believe in Islam you would conduct yourself as one of the four Imams did rather than be reduced to a tool of the political masters. And this is why I never trust so-called religious people, from whatever religion they may be. Most of the problems of this world are caused by people who claim to be doing the work of God.
You do not have to respond to what I have said, Datuk Hj Wan Zahidi. If you think I am right then just keep quiet. Your silence would be enough to tell me that you have no response to what I say. If, however, you feel I am wrong, then feel free to respond and tell me where I am wrong.