Tuesday, November 20, 2007

WORDS ...dedicate them all to ...

Consider these scenario:

One person posted an article to an egroup in the spirit of sharing the justification of a nationwide “gelombang BERSIH” (a rally initiated by NGO’s and the oppositions). Whilst the validation of such act is still being debated by the government and the opposition, the article has started another bout of horn locking on the egroup.

1 - This is the excerpt of the article posted. I put the focus of the ensuing arguments in bold for emphasis.


n wrote:
untuk dikongsi...

Islam membenarkan demonstrasi, 12 nokhtah perhatian Ustaz Abdul Ghani Shamsudin
http://www.harakahdaily.net/bm/index.php/utama/islam-membenarkan-demonstrasi-12-nokhtah-perhatian.html Berhimpun dan mengadakan demonstrasi; menunjuk perasaan secara aman adalah salah suatu tindakan yang sah dari segi syara dan undang-undang untuk menyatakan penentangan terhadap kemungkaran. Ia suatu pendekatan yang berkesan untuk menyerlahkan pengaruh dan kuasa kebenaran. Dengan itu orang yang zalim akan kembali sedar menginsafi kesalahan diri mereka. Hukum asal berhimpun secara aman dan berdemonstrasi adalah harus . Tapi kalau dirujuk kepada 'Maqasid al Syaria'ah' ia mungkin menjadi 'Mandub' atau sunnah. Malah ia mungkin beralih kepada hukum wajib seandainya tidak ada cara lain untuk menegur dan membetulkan …”

2- Then a member responded to the posting emphasizing the bold lines by ADDING the word “berubah (change)” :

d wrote
:
“…Menarik juga bahawa beliau memberi pendapat bahawa hukum itu berubah-ubah mengikut keadaan. … Itu juga telah dibincangkan dahulu dan sesetengah kita menanggap perubahan hukum itu adalah rapuan yang tidak berasas.”

3 – Next another member responded to the first response :

s wrote:
“… Bila dikatakan *hukum berubah-ubah mengikut keadaan*, kita kena faham bahawa yang berubah-ubah adalah *keadaan*, hukum tidak pernah berubah.”

s went on and gave two examples on how “hukum” is never changed. The examples involve the hukum on consuming pig and alcohol … both are haraam for Muslims. However, in a matter of life or death consideration, consumption is ‘allowed’.

4 – d posted a lengthy response
…”Yang menjadi 'substance' dalam perkara hukum tentulah keadaan. Hukum tak akan berubah dengan semena-semena. Tentulah ada keadaan yang mengubahnya.”

... giving highlight to the limited examples … “Sebab itulah juga I memberi highlight mengenainya supaya semua tidak kaku dalam pentafsiran hukum …jangan menghadkan diri dengan contoh tersebut … bukan hanya tertakluk kepada babi. Pokoknya ialah survival insan Muslim itu …”

5 - to which s conluded with a two liner: “Kesimpulannya masih sama, HUKUM TIDAK BERUBAH, YANG BERUBAH ADALAH KEADAAN. Bersandarkan kepada hadis yang mengatakan, "Yang haram itu jelas, yang halal itu jelas".

6 – and d riposted : “… Apakah bedanya apa yang I perkatakan, apa yang ustaz itu perkatakan dan apa yang brother perkatakan? … Adakah ianya menjadi salah bila I katakan, atau ustaz itu yang perkatakan? Atau adakah ianya menjadi betul apabila ianya datang daripada brother? Apa yang brother cuba buktikan? Apakah pembuktian itu bertentangan dengan kefahaman I?”

... after which the next responses in the thread lost the original argument point which is “hukum berubah mengikut keadaan”.

7 - sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiizzzzzzz. Who is the moron here?

Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas in Islam and The Philosophy of Science wrote:


“A word as it really is, is a symbol, and to know it as it really is, is to know what it stands for, what it symbolises, what it means.”

“If we were to regard a word as if it has an independent reality of its own then it would no longer be a sign or a symbol, as it is being made to point to itself, which is not what it really is.”
“Suppose that a person, touring an area, comes across a warning written in red, “Beware of Rottweiler.” If he is reasonable enough, what one often expects him to do next is to pay heed to the message and leave the place, lest he encounter the Rottweiler.

But suppose that, instead of leaving the place, he spends his time pondering the very composition of the sentence, measuring the shape and size (length, width, diameter, etc.) of each letter and determining its colour and shade, then given the somewhat obvious context, his reason will surely be questioned at the very least.”

8 – I think this para from Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas answers my question in #7.

“It is clear therefore that a word, as a sign or a symbol, remains useful as long as it points to the meaning or message it is supposed to convey. Otherwise, one may spend one’s time scrutinising everything surrounding the word, yet miss its very raison d’etre.”

4 comments:

Himanshu Joshi said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
sher said...

Urghhh, don't remind me.........

Tabib said...

MokcikZ!
you better delete that comment by that spammer himanshu.
Malulah! :(

ray said...

Well, I believe the issue deserves a scrutiny from "timeline" standpoint. As we know, matters evolve through time and space (even a molecule), together with its entropical nature; as such, relevancy and context must be taken into consideration. In this sense, both situational and original hukm must be seen from both sides. Hope this is clear.