I was looking at the pictures of my stint in Montreal and a picture that I took in Ottawa struck me. It reminded me of the short conversation I had with Hadi and Ust Hannan just before I took that picture.It was a picture of the sun. I was looking at it and I was amazed by the rainbow rings that I saw emanating from the sun. So I asked both Hadi and Ust Hannan if they saw what I saw. They didn’t cos this is what they saw..

and so I was wondering, that is not possible because we are looking at the same sun and this is what I saw..

I only realised my error when Hadi said, “cermin mata kau tu.. mestilah kau nampak lain” (your specs.. of course you see it different).
This is a classic example of how we sometimes view things differently from others. Same thing, different lenses and voila different results.
And this post shall be about perceptions and views and to whose views are we subscribing to and should we subscribe to.
In my conversations with members of Sekapur Sirih we realise that most of the time we subscribe, consciously or not, to perceptions and views of people who do not exactly appreciate and understand the context of the things they problematise. It is only then that we begin to realise the conscious need to move away from whatever dominant ideas that are prevalent and to give a fair appraisal of the issue at hand.
We are, whether fairly or not, ‘forced’ to subscribe to certain views and perceptions for the fear of us being the ‘Other’. One example that I would like to bring up would be the view that the Westerners have with regards to the hudud laws that Muslims have. To these Westerners, the hudud laws are barbaric, uncivilised and inhumane as this directly transgresses the Western view of humanity and civility. Without fully understanding (or choosing to ignore) the context or the reasons as to why the hudud laws are present, these Orientalist writers condemn the Muslim law as it differs from their conception of law. Worse, when Muslims themselves subscribe to this view without understanding their own religion.
One needs to understand that hudud laws are not meant to punish but rather to act as a deterrent towards an act of evil. And hudud is so specific that it only applies to those that are explicitly mentioned in the Quran. Anything beyond that would fall into the category of ta’zir. Also, the most important thing about hudud is that it is extremely strict. The different qualifications and characteristics needed for hudud to be passed is extremely stringent to ensure that hudud laws are metted out fairly. It is to ensure that one is not unfairly judged. Thirdly, we need to understand the context of society that needs to be present for hudud laws to be implemented. I sometimes am just puzzled about some Muslims states or parties wanting to implement the hudud laws just because they are seen as an Islamic form of law without even understanding the context of society that needs to be present before the hudud law is implemented. For hudud to be present, the society in itself needs to be just, humane, civil etc. The practice of amar maaruf and nahi mungkar is imbued in the daily lives of the people within society. Neighbours care for one another and feel a duty towards one another, the qadhi is fair, the mufti understands his society, the government is not corrupt, the waqf system is benefitting the poor, the stratification of society does not breed contempt, the rich needs the poor and vice versa, arkanul iman and arkanul Islam is manifested in the lives of the people and many other traits that one might deem to be a ‘utopian’ state of living. However this state of living has already been achieved under the time of the Prophet (pbuh) and his Companions. So the purpose of the hudud is merely a preventive measure as the society will help to correct an offender. Only if he himself confesses to his sins and wishes to be placed under hudud law only will it be served. Even the Prophet (pbuh) himself does not wish to implement hudud all the time for he believes that forgiveness and repentance is more important than punishment. So we now realise, that the hudud laws to a certain extent can be seen as redundant. It is only there as a safe guard measure to ensure that people conform to laws.
The issue at hand is not about hudud per se, but rather about the imposing of Western standards upon us all. And those who do not subscribe to them are seen as ‘deviant’. It is disappointing when one readily accepts the Western view without even a meek attempt at discerning it. What’s worse is this dominant thought that the Western idea is always better than that of a local one. How many of us even know, let alone understand our own local scholars? How many of us who knows, even appreciate their writing or simply discard it as mere trash?
We always need to question, by whose standards are we basing something upon. Problem is, the whole world subscribes to what the Westerners deem as ‘moral standards’. We allow ourselves to be dictated even on our standards and views. The colonisation era may have passed but the colonisation of the mind certainly hasn’t.
IF WE DO NOT DEFINE OURSELVES, THEN OTHERS WOULD DEFINE US! and once we reach that state, everything will be dictated by them.
So we as Muslims cannot afford to perpetually continue the Western view of what Muslims are so that their view does not become dominant. We need to stop with the ‘acts of freedom’ that we feel is right, for what is our ‘freedom fighter’ is their ‘terrorists’. If we continue to do so, we are indeed subscribing to their ideology. In truth we need to understand that we Muslims do not hold the dominant power in the world. We do not dictate the terms, they do it for us. As such we need to realise the need to wake up from our drunken stupor and move on with time. We can no longer afford to react in a ‘radical’(in their terms) manner. What Muslims need to do is to empower ourselves with knowledge and to not allow Western intellectual hegemony to continue defining us.
There is a need to distinguish between anti-Western and anti-secular. Going by my definition of secular being the absence of God, I agree that I am anti-secular. However I am not anti-Western. It is just that I believe a pertinent need to discern certain ideologies and views that have been imposed upon us and then readily accepted by us as we feel that their ideas are ’superior’ compared to our own. It is disheartening to see local scholars who are supposed to understand the context in which society is present continue to subscribe to Western ideas who might not even understand what society goes through.
To sum up,
1. We need to define our standards and not readily allow the imposition of other people’s standards
2. The empowerment of knowledge. Muslims need to be educated and introduced to the different ideas present and formulate what’s best for Muslims
3. The need to define our Muslim identity and not allow others to dictate that term
4. Muslims need to wake up!

