Ana al-Haqq

The very utterance of the sentence above got the Gnostic Mansur al-Hallaj incarcerated and subsequently executed in 922 A.D by the Abbasid Caliph, al-Muqtadir.  The sentence simply says, “I am The Truth.”  However, it was deemed heresy based on the following Quranic verse:

Wa qul ja’a AL-HAQQ wa zahaqa al-batil (HAQQ has come and falsehood has perished) – Quran 17:81

However, in Malaysia you find a group of people who are holier than thou and they come from the same political party that supposedly fights for Islam.  What they say or decree to them are nothing but the truth, perhaps transcending God’s Haqq even if they don’t form even a micron of sense.

The latest furore occured during the Parliament sitting on the 20th October 2011 when the Member of Parliament (MP) for Kuala Selangor who is from that political party uttered the word “BABI” at another Member of Parliament who is a former ally for pointing out the draft of an enactment made by the then State Government when Terengganu was under the control of that party that allows husbands to bugger the rear orifice of their wife/wives.

Let me bring your attention to the already-published though yet-to-be-verified Hansard transcripts for that day’s sitting:

On Page 73, you can find the Member of Parliament for Kuala Selangor uttering the word “BABI”:

This issue was highlighted in the party’s online mouthpiece in an article called: http://bm.harakahdaily.net/index.php/articles/analysis-a-opinion/6117-zulkifli-noordin-jahil-murakkab-tentang-hudud

This is a screenshot of the article:

In one of the paragraphs, they even mentioned the name of their idol, Abul A’la Maududi, an extremist by my definition who had a distrust of non-Muslims, supported the subjugation of women among other extreme intepretation of the Islamic jurisprudence:

As depicted above, Section 14 of the proposed Terengganu Syariah Criminal Enactment, the act of buggering the rear orifice by a man with another man, or with a woman other than his wife, is punishable according to the Hudud that is championed by this party.  You can understand how twisted was the mind that had drafted this enactment.  Abul A’la Maududi was also like that.  What did Abul A’la Maududi say about the rights of non-Muslims under his version of the Islamic rule?

The rights of non-Muslims are limited under Islamic state as laid out in Maududi’s writings. Although non-Muslim “faith, ideology, rituals of worship or social customs” would not be interfered with, non-Muslims would have to accept Muslim rule.

Islamic ‘Jihad’ does not recognize their right to administer State affairs according to a system which, in the view of Islam, is evil. Furthermore, Islamic ‘Jihad’ also refuses to admit their right to continue with such practices under an Islamic government which fatally affect the public interest from the viewpoint of Islam.

I am glad the President of the non-Muslim supporters club of that particular party has seen the light and has challenged the party leadership to come clean on the issue of Hudud.  For those non-Muslims who think that a rule by that party will not affect them, let us see another part where that party mimics Abul A’la Maududi:

Non-Muslims would also have to pay a special tax known as jizya. This tax is applicable to all able adult non-Muslims, except old and women, who do not render military service. Those who serve in the military are exempted. All adult Muslim men are subject to compulsory military service, whenever required by the Islamic State. Jizya is thus seen as a protection tax payable to the Islamic State for protection of those non-Muslim adult men who do not render military service.

Isn’t that happening already in one of the states under their control?  Oh, and what about your rights to the next concert by Michael Learns To Rock?  Forget Mariah Carey in skimpy bikini because members of that party will demonstrate at the venue:

Copying cultural practices of non-Muslims was forbidden in Islam, having very disastrous consequences upon a nation; it destroys its inner vitality, blurs its vision, befogs its critical faculties, breeds inferiority complexes, and gradually but assuredly saps all the springs of culture and sounds its death-knell. That is why the Holy Prophet has positively and forcefully forbidden the Muslims to assume the culture and mode of life of the non-Muslims.

And for those who plan to vote for them or any of their partners that would put them in power as well, to form the next government, read this:

Islam (in Abul A’la Maududi’s twisted view) wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam, regardless of the country or the Nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of its own ideology and programme, regardless of which nation assumes the role of the standard-bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State. Islam requires the earth—not just a portion, but the whole planet …. because the entire mankind should benefit from the ideology and welfare programme [of Islam]

So, if you vote for them, you are voting for the Abul A’la Maududi’s version of Islam.  Now, going back to the “BABI” issue.  Now Section 14, as I mentioned above, says that it is a crime to bugger someone’s rear orifice other than that of your wife.

However, in trying to twist words around, the party’s foul mouthpiece contradicted itself:

Now let us see what the Malaysian Penal Code says about screwing someone’s ass, be it your wife or not:

Anyway, a few people and I confronted the MP from Kuala Selangor over his uttering of the word “BABI” to a fellow MP.  We all felt that as an MP representing a party that champions Islam, it was very unbecoming.  This is what he had to say in reply:

So it is okay for him to swear at another because his twisted version of the religion of Islam says it is okay to do so.  And this is based on his understanding of Imam Abu Hamid al-Ghazali’s teachings.  It would be interesting to see what another Islamic scholar had to say about Imam Ghazali:

If we assume that someone narrated the view of the salaf but what he narrated is far removed from what the view of the salaf actually is, then he has little knowledge of the view of the salaf, such as Abu’l-Ma’aali, Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, Ibn al-Khateeb and the like, who did not have enough knowledge of hadith to qualify them as ordinary scholars of hadith, let alone as prominent scholars in that field. For none of these people had any knowledge of al-Bukhari and Muslim and their hadiths, apart from what they heard, which is similar to the situation of the ordinary Muslim, who cannot distinguish between a hadiith which is regarded as sahih and mutawatir according to the scholars of hadith, and a hadith which is fabricated and false – Ibnu Taimiyyah

Imagine all the crap oozing out from that party.  But how surprising can it be coming from a party that only has sex on its mind as illustrated by the kind of advertisements they have on their official online mouthpiece:

What more can I say?