We should constantly observe our elected MPs and view their contributions and effective participations in the legislature and their legislative competence.
In Malaysia, we still have more than 50% of the rakyat living below poverty level or just hovering around the touch-line of poverty. In the past months, we have concerns of rising fuel prices, rising Consumer Price Index, rising inflation, and lesser purchasing power parity. This should be of great cause for concern and we expect the MPs to spent more time to discuss and debate about it and to come up with some initiatives that would serve the rakyats interests.
At the same time, we also face the problem of lesser development opportunities due to the tightening of the national budget to enable the gradual reduction of national foreign debts, which translate to fewer available projects for the business corporations and had contributed to the stifling of the domestic output and consumption.
But instead of discussing these paramount issues, what actually transpired in the Parliament was nonsensical.
Jerai MP Datuk Badruddin Amiruldin’s spoke about a male newsreader on Astro who wore earrings, saying that it was “odd.” Chong Eng (DAP – Bukit Mertajam) pointed out that the first-born son in Indian families wore ear studs. “So you cannot say that this is odd,” she said. Badruddin replied: “I am talking about Muslims. I am not talking about keling.”
Lim Kit Siang (DAP – Ipoh Timur) then stood up to protest against the use of that word, saying: “You should apologise. The word is Indian, not keling. Where are the MIC MPs?”
Badruddin brushed that aside, explaining that in Kedah, keling was used by the northerners to refer to Indians. “I don’t mean it as an insult,” he said, but went on to say that Kedahans used terms such as keling jual roti and keling botol.
Badruddin later spoke about how Jakim’s guidelines on the attire of artistes and newscasters were often ignored by TV stations. He cited how newsreaders would “cover up” during tragic or sad events but on other days they would “open up.” Badruddin also pointed out that if the Speaker of the Dewan could wear a songkok, why was it that the female Parliament staff could not cover up. “I suggest that the officers respect the Dewan and cover themselves up. This should not be a problem; in fact, it is beautiful,” he said.
But Badruddin said: “This is the fasting month. I don’t want to argue with people who don’t understand, who do not fast.”
Who don't understand, En Badruddin, or shall I call you Datuk?
The Star made this comment in the reporting:
"IT SEEMS that some politicians do not know what is politically correct. "
Badruddin says, "Kedahans used terms such as keling jual roti and keling botol".
Well, Datuk Badruddin, what the Kedahan used to say is casual communication language and mostly at the coffee shops. But you are in Parliament, the highest office of our land, representing the people at large. That institution requires you to behave in a manner attributable to your standing. In the Web space and the blogging sphere, the people uses 4-letter words (F**K, Bast**d, Assholes, Moth**F**Ker, etc) ... do you mean to say we can use it in blogs, therefore you can use it in Parliament? And you are a Datuk, someone who is accredited with an honorarium, yet you behave like a monkey in the concrete jungle. And you tried to discredit your fellow Muslims. You are concerned about males with ear-rings, but did you look into yourself and probably, your children and their behaviors; I presumed that they could have behave like you - like father, like son. I hope they are not, probably because their mother knows how to educate them.
There is nothing in the Quran to stop a Muslim male from wearing ear-rings. Therefore, a muslim must not deviate from the Quran and introduce new doctrines contravening the preaching of the prophet.
Yusuf al-Qaradawi in his book 'The Lawful and The Prohibited in Islam (Al-Hala wal Haram fil Islam) raised the contention to the question of what ought to be halal and haram was a matter of great concern as the people had gone far astray and were utterly confused, permitting many impure and harmful things and prohibiting many things that were good and pure.
The Quran exposed the error of those who made halal what should had been haram:
When Islam came, one of it's initial accomplishment is to establish certain legal principles and measures for rectifying this matter and determining criteria on which the questions of what is halal and haram were to be based. Thus this vital aspect was determined according to the basis of the principles of justice.
Nothing is haram except what is prohibited by the sound and explicit nas from the Law-Giver, Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala. If the nas is not sound, as for example in the case of a weak hadith, or it is not explicit in stating the prohibition, then the original principle of permissibility applies.
Allah had only prohibited a few things for specific reasons and the sphere of prohibition is small.
"What Allah has made lawful in his Book is halal, and what He has forbidden is haram, and that concerning which He is silent is allowed as His favour." (19:64)
Accordint to Yusuf al-Qaradawi,the same principle is not limited to things and objects but also include all human actions and behaviors not related to acts of worship, which may be termed as living habits, or day-to-day affairs. It does include culture and traditions, including huggings, holding hands and wearing ear-rings. The principle is that what is not explicitly prohibited as haram in the Quran and restricted, they should be allowed without restriction.
The exception will be regarding the acts of worship which are purely religious acts and for this, only what Allah Himself reveals.
If the Syari'ah says something concerning these mundane matters, it is in order to teach good behavior. Accordingly, anything that leads to strife will be prohibited. Islamic principles of permissibility requires that everything must be done with due consideration for the kinds of activities involved, their magnitude and properties.
This principle is also supported in a sound hadith by the prophet's Companion, Jabir bin Abdullah. He said: "We used to practice 'azl (coitus interruptus, or withdrawal before ejaculation during intercourse) during the period when the Quran was being revealed. If the practice were to have been prohibited, the Quran would have prohibited it." Jabir therefore concluded that if the divine revelation was silent about something, it was permissible and the people are free to practice it.
The second principle is that Islam has restricted the authority to legislate the haram and the halal, taking it out of the hands of human beings, regardless of their religious or worldly position, and reserving it for the Lord Himself. Neither rabbis nor priests, kings, sultans and parliamentarians have the right to prohibit something permanently to Allah's servants (including Badruddin and UMNO Youth); if someone do this, he has certainly exceeded his limits, usurping the sovereignty which belongs to Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala alone.
While Islam reprimands all those who, on their own authority, declare what is lawful and what is prohibited, it is more strict with respect to those who voice prohibitions as this tendency is prevalent among some of those who go to the extremes in matters of religion. The prophet fought against this pseudo-pietism and zealotry by every means, warning those who indulged in it with the words, "The zealots will perish," repeated three times.
The Prophet characterized his message by saying:
"I have been sent with what is straight and easy".
The straightness of the message consists of belief in tawheed (the unity of Allah) and its ease in practice and legislation, in contrast to shirk and to the prohibition of good things of this life.
The prophet has mentioned all this in a hadith qudsi reporting the saying of Allah Ta'ala:
"They prohibited to people what I had made lawful for I created people upright (hunafah). Then the evil ones came to them and led them astray from their religion and commanded them to associate with Me that for which I had not sent down any authority."
Islam lays great stress on nobility of feelings, loftiness of aims, and purity of intentions. "Actions will be judged by intentions and everyone will be recompensed according to what he intended," the prophet enunciated.
The prophet also has this to say:
In this manner, whenever any permissible action of the believer is accompanied by a good intention, his action becomes an act of worship. In the case of haram, it remains haram no matter how good the intention and how honorable the purpose, or how lofty the aim may be. Islam can never consent to employing a haram means to achieve a praiseworthy end. Indeed, it insists that not only the aim be honorable but also that the means chosen to attain it be pure.
Datuk Badruddin, please read more of your own professed religion and stop crabbing about others; look unto yourself and spent some time in front of the mirror and ask God for directions.