The Chance to Debate in Malaysia

The search for truth is the most fundamental thing in to humans. It is something that is deep in the heart, but sadly it gets clouded by emotions and irrationality.

In today’s Malaysia, public debates are not common and this leads to many misunderstandings and large gaps between different groups, and even ignorance of what they say. To leave issues on differences to the side and to ignore them also leads to hidden feelings of hatred. This is all because often one side will give a distorted view of the opposition, but not get the chance to have the opposition clarify it, or that the laymen argue amongst each other and don’t actually have the sound understanding to represent one of the sides, thus promoting misunderstandings.

Rather what should be done is that the best/most suitable people from each side should be given platforms in the public to debate the differences, so then people can make informed decisions about which side is on the truth and what is correct. This should not just be done on political issues, but also on issues of religion.  

It is like when a person makes a claim against another person (and the religionists make claims about others), and the case gets taken to court to decide which side is right and each has to bring its evidences and witnesses. Otherwise anyone can claim whatever s/he wants, and deceive people.

For too long has there been hatred and misunderstandings between different religionists, it is time that they discuss their differences openly, so we (the people) can see who is with the stronger and logical arguments, and which side has the truth.

If a religion or belief claims that its book is holy, or that God exists, and another says that it is not, then the most knowledgeable person from each side should come up and prove their claim, and discuss and debate the matter. Even if it’s not the best person, then it should someone who is qualified (that is the minimum condition) in the matter. After all, if one scholar (whether Muslim, Hindu or Christian) is claiming with certainty that s/he has the truth, then the person should be able to prove that. If one can’t, then let people know that the person and belief doesn’t have any grounds for saying that what it believes is the truth whilst asking others to follow it.

It is time we went back to the times where open discussion and debate amongst different viewpoints was done in a civilised manner. Take the example of the Muslim world and the Byzantines, the Caliph sent Qadi Abu Bakr al-Baqillani to debate the best Christian scholars in the Byzantine empire, in front of the Emperor. Not only was there one or two debates, but they arranged another debate with the head of their church, in a great event attended by the emperor, politicians and people of influence in government and church.  Or take the example where an atheist asked that the best debater debate with him, so Imam Abu Hanifa debated and defeated the atheist in the Muslim empire.

And the example of the Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) is also well known where a Christian delegation from Najran came to the Mosque and debated with the Prophet. He didn’t quick them out or treat them badly, but had a public discussion and debate to reveal which side was on the truth. The Qur’an commented on this "Say, `O People of the Book, come now to a fair principle common to both of us, that we do not worship aught but God, that we do not associate aught with Him and that we do not take one another as lords besides God.' But if they turn away, then say, `Bear witness that we are Muslims.”[Qur'an, 3:64]

Many of us believe that we decide the truth through reason and objective evidence, so that is our common ground. Thus let us see which belief is supported by historical, logical, scientific evidences. Let us not appeal to emotions and prejudices in arguments. Let the representatives reveal the arguments to the public in front of the opposition, and let the people decide. They should be sincere in the search for the truth, and critically analyse the arguments of the opposition, and accept them if they’re the truth.

Imam Shafi’i said: “I have never debated with someone who I want to make a mistake. And I have never debated someone except I say to them, O’ Allah, put the truth in his heart and on his tongue. If I am on the truth he will follow me, and if he is on the truth then I will follow him.

But is the Malaysian public ready for it you may ask? But I ask “is any society ready for it?” You will always have some people who can’t reason, or who are not educated, but by having these platforms of debate, they can learn (by God’s will) to reason. This is by having intellectual/qualified people debating (they may say when debating “such is an emotional argument, not logical, and here is why...” and give thought provoking questions), not just some random people. 

Furthermore Muslim scholars should be free to speak their mind and make their own khutbas (unlike in many Malaysian states where the government sadly makes its own scripts and appoints its own Imams). It is a pity that Muslim scholars can speak more about Islam and make their own khutbas in the UK than in Muslim countries like Malaysia. Traditionally the image of many scholars has been destroyed when they have been perceived to be close to the government (although in some conditions it is allowed). This is because the independence of the scholars from all  governmental institutions is paramount and something that great scholars like Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal fought for.

 Sheikh Muhammad Ya'qoubi

Though different Muslims specialise on different topics, amongst the Muslim debaters willing to debate on the issue of secularism, Islam, or atheism in Malaysia is Hamza Tzortsis. He has debated leading secularist and atheist professors throughout the world masha’Allah. Others who are good at inter-religious debates throughout the world include Dr Zakir Naik and Sheikh Muhammad al-Ya'qoubi (he opposed the brutal Syrian govt, and debated leading orientalists (those who specialise in attacking Islam) and made them shiver through his logical and sound Islamic arguments in Scandinavia). So Malaysia can benefit through having Muslim speakers/debaters from outside Malaysia, or inside Malaysia, since we are all one body of believers as the Prophet said: "“Wisdom is the lost property of the believer; he takes it from wherever he finds.” (Tirmidhi)

Islam Under Attack? Review of Malaysian Insider Article of Syazwan

My friend brother Syazwan has written another in the Malaysian Insider (1). After the previous disastrous and erroneous article by him, this one is much better Alhamdulillah.  When I refer to “author”, I mean Syazwan.

I liked that he highlighted the Prophetic mercy and gentleness, and that some of the stuff done in Malaysia aren’t actually Islamic. So he had a good aim in that, I guess trying to give a good image of Islam to non-Muslims.  And Muslims definitely need to become pro-active, instead of reactive. However he made some errors which I deem should be corrected insha’Allah.

The area I found problematic is on Erykah Badu. It seems like she didn’t know that having Allah as a name as tattoo is wrong, and she should be informed and corrected of that, with wisdom. Whilst the Prophetic hadith about the man who urinated in the Mosque shows that we should be gentle in correcting people, or should use ways of wisdom in correction, the author has made a misleading point.  

The author said “[the Prophet] let the Bedouin man be because he did not know any better.”, where as in fact the Hadith/narration states “The Messenger of Allah called him (Bedouin) over and said to him, “Any kind of urine or filth is not suitable for these masjids. Instead they are only [appropriate] for the remembrance of Allah, the Prayer, and the recitation of the Qur’an,”” (Muslim). So the Prophet did inform the Bedouin of the error. And the Bedouin said ““The Prophet (saw) stood before me – may my mother and father be ransom for him – and he (saw) neither cursed nor scolded nor hit [me]“ (Ahmed).

He made an erroneous claim when he said “even though the singer was able to perform in the most populous Muslim nation in the world: our neighbour Indonesia.” So basically he is saying that just because she could have her concert in Indonesia, she should be able to have it in Malaysia too. Its like saying that if Indonesia allows prostitution and corrupt leaders to have refuge in Indonesia, then Malaysia should do it too! Rather the correct way is that we shouldn’t compare Malaysia with other countries, except in trying to make Malaysia more Islamically correct. Furthermore we should compare Malaysia and its actions/policies with Islam, and make them more Islamic.

As for the idea of concerts, all traditional/Sunni scholars would agree that these concerts are haram since there’s 1) a woman singing in front of men, 2) she is not covering her awra (private parts like hair, chest etc), 3) has musical instruments, 4) singing songs that aren’t Islamic and don’t remind one of Allah swt. The combination of all of those factors make the concert haram. So when an event is haram, Muslims shouldn’t host them, and should actually try to ban them.

This is based on the Hadith where the Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever amongst you sees anything objectionable, let him change it with his hand, if he is not able, then with his tongue, and if he is not even able to do so, then with his heart, and the latter is the weakest form of faith." (Muslim)

The Malaysian government did right for banning it (even if the reasons given are different) Alhamdulillah, and they should ban more haram stuff that destroys the morals of society.

The author tries countering it (I anticipate) by saying “Do we stop the photos from circulating on the Internet then? Should we shut down Google image search just to ensure that the vulnerable and fragile minds of our youngsters are protected from seeing the “evil” photo?”

In Islam, we are required to do our best in stopping an evil. So take the example of pornography. The Malaysian government should try its best to block pornographic sites, and shouldn’t give permission for them (or other haram) to be hosted in Malaysia. But for stuff beyond its control, it is not held responsible. It can’t stop google, since it leads to other good searches.

See the Hadiths (many of the hadiths are authentic. Note even the use of the feminine word for singer) where the Prophet said:

“When my Ummah begin doing fifteen things, they will be inflicted with tribulations, and (from those 15 things He said): “When female singers and musical instruments become common” (Sunan Tirmizi).

“Song makes hypocrisy grow in the heart as water does herbage” (Sunan al-Bayhaqi).

“On the day of Resurrection, Allah will pour molten lead into the ears of whoever sits listening to a songstress” (Recorded by Ibn Asakir & Ibn al-Misri).

Furthermore the writer says, about the picture of a female showing her awra, “For your information, this writer is looking at the photo (again) as he writes. Alhamdulillah! My faith is intact, insyaAllah.”

That admission of a sin is not something to be glad about.  The Qur’an says "Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: And Allah is well acquainted with all that they do” (Surah Nur, v30)

A Muslim is not allowed to look at the awra of another person on purpose. The Prophet said “The fornication of the eyes is looking at that which is forbidden.” (Muslim)

Sayyidina Anas said: “I was once on my way to see Uthman ibn Affan (RA) when I passed a woman on the way so I looked at her and my eyes focused upon her beauty. I then met Uthman who said to me: ‘a person comes to me with the signs of zina (fornication) apparent in his eyes. Do you not know that the zina of the eyes is looking. You will repent or i will punish you.’ I said: ‘a revelation sent down after the Prophet?’ he replied: ‘No, this is firasah (insight of believer)”.

In my humble opinion, I think the author has made the title misleading and grossly exaggerated the situation. People who propound the views that Syazwan refuted (like the raiding Mosque one) will never succeed, and will remaina  minority. Islam is not under major attack or threat from “conservatives”, but is from Islamophobes and ignorant Muslims, or westernised liberal Muslims who reject the Qur’an and Sunnah and instead invent an Islam that suits their desires. So the author would do much more benefit in tackling that issue and removing the ignorance of the knowledge of Islam amongst many ”Muslims.”

For the previous article of Syazwan Zainal, see: "A criticism of Islamic practices in Malaysia"
http://muslim-lion.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/criticising-islam-malaysian-insider.html

1)      1) Islam under attack in Malaysia? By Syazwan Zainal http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/opinion/article/islam-under-attack-in-malaysia

Versi pendek mengenai sahabat

Sister Acia translated an article of mine into Malay, may Allah swt reward her for the efforts, here it is:

Kita akan dapat dan hilang persahabatan dalam kehidupan. Ini menunjukkan bahawa Allah swt adalah ‘sahabat sebenar `kita dan kita seharusnya membina persahabatan yang didasari niat kerana Allah tanpa ada terikat niatnya kepada dunia semata-mata.

Di dalam al-Qur’an juga telah dinyatakan tentang ‘Hari Perhitungan’ iaitu masa dimana kita memerlukan bantuan,(43:67) “sahabat pada hari itu akan menjadi musuh antara satu sama lain, kecuali mereka yang beramal soleh(saling bersahabat dengan niat yang benar)”

Sahabat yang baik akan memeberikan banyak kebaikan, dan sahabat yang jahat akan selalu memberikan kesan yang sebaliknya.

Manfaat sahabat yang baik:

1)      Memperbaiki peribadi diri dan mengurangkan kerosakan pada diri sendiri(terutamanya kerosakan hati)

2)      Memperbaiki ilmu kita

3)      Meningkatkan perbuatan baik dalam diri seseorang.

4)      Dapat membantu ketika kita memerlukan samaada di dunia terutamanya di akhirat kelak.

5)      Persahabatan akan berkekalan selagi mana persahabatan dibina kerana Allah Ta’ala, melalui kesabaran, ,rahmat, akhlak yang baik serta kasih sayang.

6)      Membantu kita dengan keikhlasan.

7)      Membimbing kepada keredhaan Allah Ta’ala dan mendekatkan diri kepada-Nya.

8)      Mengingatkan kita kepada Allah Ta’ala.

Allah swt berfirman, : Cinta Aku adalah wajib bagi orang-orang yang mencintai satu sama lain demi Aku dan duduk bersama demi Aku dan yang saling mengunjungi demi Aku dan yang memberi dengan murah hati kepada satu sama lain demi Aku[muwatta’]

Tuntasnya, marilah kita insyaALLAH saling mengasihi kerana Allah dan bukan kerana kepentingan diri atau manfaat dunia semata.

Loss of Adab- Dr Naquib al Attas

Welcome Address by Professor  Naquib al-Attas

Your Royal Highness Prince El-Hassan bin Talal of the Hashemite Kingdom Of Jordan, Distinguished Scholars, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen:

1.      It is indeed a great pleasure and honour for me on behalf of the  International Institute of Islamic Thought and Civilization (ISTAC), to welcome you who have journeyed from all over the world to gather in conference with us here to celebrate the lasting legacy of this brilliant star in the firmament of Islamic thought, one who is among the greatest in the galaxy of Muslim luminaries.

2.      He was a man gifted with wisdom and adorned with authentic knowledge.  The illumination radiating from his sagacious intellect shed the light that separated and distinguished the true from the false, the real from the illusory, the genuine from the counterfeit.  His contributions in the spiritual and intellectual domains of religion, in the realms of Islamic thought and civilization as a whole, are of such magnitude as to be recognized and acknowledged by a knowing and grateful Community throughout the ages.  He lived at a time of great religious and intellectual upheaval brought about by the challenges of an alien worldview surreptitiously introduced into Muslim thought and belief by Muslim philosophers and their followers, as well as by religious deviationists of many sorts.  Ours is also a time fraught with similar challenges posed by the secular modern Western philosophy and science, its technology and ideology which seek to encroach on our values, our modes of conduct, our thought and belief, our way of life, in order to bring about radical changes congenial to the secular worldview.  Even though  our present predicament is more serious, widespread and profoundly urgent in nature than that encountered by al-GhazÂali in  his time, yet the lesson he taught and the remedy he indicated are eminently relevant.

3.      The rise of the modernist movement, whose leaders were from among the ‘ulama’ of  less authoritative worth, heralded not so much the emergence of a Muslim religious and intellectual awakening and sobriety; it marked rather the beginnings of a widespread and systematic undermining of past scholarship and its intellectual and religious authority and leadership, leaving us to inherit today a legacy of cultural, intellectual and religious confusion.  They and their imitators and followers among traditionalist ‘ulama’, and scholars and intellectuals who derive inspiration mainly from the West, are responsible for what I have called the disintegration of adab, which is the effect of the corruption of the knowledge of IslÂm and the worldview projected by it, and for the emergence in our midst  of false leaders in all fields due to the loss of the capacity and ability to recognize and acknowledge authentic authority.  Because of the intellectual anarchy that characterizes this situation,  the common people become determiners of intellectual decisions and are raised to the level of authority on matters of knowledge.  Authentic definitions become undone and in their stead we are left with vagueness and contradictions.  The inability to define; to identify and isolate problems; to provide for right solutions; the creation of pseudo-problems; the reduction of problems to mere political, socio-economic and legal factors become evident.  Pretenders abound, effecting great mischief by debasing values, imposing upon the ignorant, and encouraging the rise of mediocrity.  It is not surprising if such a situation provides a fertile breeding ground for the emergence of deviationists and extremists of many kinds who make ignorance their capital.

4.      It is with the rise of oriental studies aligned to colonial ideology that we first find al-GhazÂali being insinuated as the efficient cause of Muslim intellectual stagnancy that gradually set in over the centuries after he dealt a fatal blow to Greek philosophy.  We can understand their antipathy towards al-GhazÂali seeing that in Western cultural history every chapter, be it of logic, of science, of art, of politics and even of theology begins with the Greeks.  Greek philosophy is the very acme of all thought, the consummate personification of reason itself!  Western religious and orientalist thought, their scholarship and even their science have always laboured against the Christian background of the problem of God: the problem of the discord between revelation and reason, which is not a problem in IslÂm.  Their claim that everything philosophical in IslÂm is taken from the Greeks is far-fetched and must be rejected.  They do not see that many fundamental ideas in Greek philosophy itself were taken by their philosophers from revealed religion or revelation, or to use ibn Rushd’s words –something resembling revelation”; these ideas did not originate from their intellects or from reason alone without the aid of revelation.  This is why Muslim philosophers, theologians and metaphysicians did not reject everything Greek in their thought, for a great many things the Greek philosophers said in metaphysical, ethical and political matters they also found already expressed in the Qur’Ân.  Al-KindŒ’s remark in the book addressed to al-Mu‘ta?im that he wanted to complete what the Greek philosophers did not fully express points to the fact that the Muslim thinkers did not look upon the Greek philosophers from the position of imitators; on the contrary, even though they respected them for their rational endeavour and achievements, they at the same time saw their errors and inadequacy in arriving at knowledge about the ultimate nature of reality through the effort of reason alone.  In fact the failure of the rational endeavour of Greek philosophy to arrive at truth and certainty in knowledge about the ultimate nature of reality is proof enough for those with understanding that reason alone without the aid of revelation cannot attain to such knowledge.  It ought to be clear that al-GhazÂali’s attack on the philosophers, both the Greek and the Muslim, was not aimed at philosophy as such, that is as ?ikmah, because ?ikmah as revealed in the Qur’Ân is God’s gift; and ?ikmah is what I think ibn Rushd meant when he referred to –something resembling revelation” in his Fa?l al-MaqÂl.  The application of reason with wisdom, not only in religion but in philosophy and the sciences is commendable.  It is significant to note that in the Qur’Ân the major Prophets were not only given the Book, that is al-kitÂb, but also the Wisdom, that is al-?ikmah, which I think explains our accord between revelation and reason.  What al-GhazÂali attacked was the metaphysical and religious theories of the Greek philosophers, and their belief and the claim of the Muslim philosophers with regard to the primacy of the intellect as the sole guide to knowledge of the ultimate reality.

5.      But the modernist Muslim thinkers and their followers and those of like mind became captive to the subtle deception of orientalist scholarship and echoed their insinuations, and they blamed al-GhazÂali for the degeneration of Muslim thought and action even to this day.  They include not only Arabs, Turks and Persians, but other thinkers from the Indian subcontinent notably Iqbal who was very much influenced by Western Christian problems of religion and philosophy and confused them with those of IslÂm and the Muslims.  They set ibn Taymiyyah up as the relevant leader to emulate and reflected in their thought and action the same contentiousness and contradictions.  They failed to see that if al-Ghazali had not existed it would have been impossible for ibn Taymiyyah to engage the Greek philosophers and confront the Muslim philosophers, for a great deal of what the Hanbalite knew of logic and effective methodology was derived from the lesson taught and demonstrated by al-GhazÂali.  It was in fact ibn Taymiyyah who lashed at logic, denounced definition, stifled syllogism, attacked analogical reasoning, so that if we are looking for someone to blame for the degeneration of Muslim thought and action - although there are other causes for that - then surely ibn Taymiyyah’s influence is a major cause of our present intellectual confusion.  That is why the inability to define; to identify and isolate problems; to provide for right solutions; the creation of pseudo-problems; the reduction of problems to mere political, socio-economic and legal factors become evident today.  Ibn Taymiyyah’s influence is also evident in the reduction of knowledge and correct perception of IslÂm and the worldview projected by it to merely its ritual and legal aspects.  In this way the meaning of‘ibÂdah has become restricted because the fundamental knowledge obligatory for all Muslims, that is the farÇ ‘ayn, has been reduced to its bare ritual and legal essentials and made static in fixity at the level of immaturity.  The intellectual and cognitive aspects of the farÇ ‘ayn, that render right balance in ‘ibÂdah which requires them in order to reach full maturity, have been neglected.  The restriction of the meaning of ‘amal or activity to its physical aspects follows and leads to the kind of activism that is productive of social, political and legal unrest and narrow-mindedness.  The modernists and their followers must see that the activism urged in the activity of ‘ibÂdah is not merely a physical one but also, in addition to that, an intellectual one.  The intellectual activism I mean is not of the modernist kind, and is not to be confused with Iqbal’s notion of the search for rational foundations in IslÂm.  The need for a rational foundation in religion was made to be felt by intellectually westernized modernists who unwittingly got themselves involved in the Western scholastic and intellectual context of problems related to their religion.  Religion according to us is not, on its doctrinal side, merely –a system of general truths” as defined by Iqbal echoing Whitehead and later adopted by Fazlur Rahman; a system of general truths whose specifics –must not remain unsettled”.  That was Whitehead’s understanding of what religion is based solely on his experience and reflection of his own religion.  There is no reason why such a ‘definition’ of religion must be applied to IslÂm.  Moreover, IslÂm does not need, on its doctrinal side, a rational foundation because a rational foundation is already built into the very foundation of the religion and the worldview it projects.

6.      Then again, encouraged by charges of inconsistency and even contradictions in al-GhazÂali by ibn Rushd followed by ibn Taymiyyah, orientalist scholars and their modernist disciples among whom was the late Fazlur Rahman have made al-GhazÂali out to be some sort of scholastic enigma.  Their failure to assign to him a definite place in their minds have made them brand him as a difficult and even deceptive thinker.  Was he really a theologian masquerading as a philosopher?, was he Ash‘arite and yet a —äfŒ at the same time? - and so they insisted on forcing their either/or attitude on one who defied such neat compartmentalization.  Yet their unfair charges of inconsistency and contradictions have never been conclusively proven nor demonstrated to be true!  Why should a man like al-GhazÂali not be philosopher, theologian, Ash‘arite and —äfŒ at the same time without being inconsistent or being involved in contradictions?  Indeed to Muslims generally al-GhazÂali is the embodiment of a synthesis of religion and philosophy, a synthesis whose great and beneficial value is acknowledged by the various intellectual levels of the Community.  But to those who preoccupy themselves with philological exercises, textual criticisms, incessant research to determine conceptual origins, they only speak to themselves among themselves in their academic circles, and are oblivious or incapable of relating GhazÂali’s ideas to the solution of modern problems.  One is reminded of the story of the elephant and the four blind pundits.  Since they could not see with their eyes they had to grope with their hands to feel and describe to their imagination the creature that stood before them. One stroked its leg and declared: –This creature is a pillar;” –No!,” said another who grasped its twisting trunk:  –It is a big snake;” the third disagreed as he groped its broad back saying:  –It is a throne;” –You are all in error,” the last one contended feeling the huge ear: –It is indeed a carpet!”. Afterwards they each wrote learned books disputing the other and affirming their own imaginary vision of the creature to be the true one.

7.      The problem of the corruption of knowledge has come about due to our own state of confusion as well as influences coming from the philosophy, science, and ideology of modern Western culture and civilization.  Intellectual confusion emerged as a result of changes and restriction in the meaning of key terms that project the worldview derived from Revelation.  The repercussions arising from this intellectual confusion manifest themselves in moral and cultural dislocation, which is symptomatic of the degeneration of religious knowledge, faith, and values.  The changes and restriction in the meaning of such key terms occur due to the spread of secularization as a philosophical program which holds sway over hearts and minds enmeshed in the crisis of truth and the crisis of identity.  These crises, in turn, have become actualized as a result of a secularized system of education that causes deviations, if not severance, from historical roots that have been firmly established by our wise and illustrious predecessors upon foundations vitalized by religion.  One must see that the kind of problem confronting us is of such a profound nature as to embrace all the fundamental elements of our worldview that cannot simply be resolved by groping in the labyrinths of legalism and struggling in the socio-political arena of activism which throbs in the veins of Muslim modernism.

8.      A most important and original idea of al-GhazÂali that orientalist and Muslim scholars have not given the attention it deserves, due to the fact that they have failed to discover it and to realize its novelty and its great significance for our time, is the idea of how semantic change and restriction in the Islamic key terms pertaining to knowledge in a science that is considered as praiseworthy renders the science to become blameworthy; and this will ultimately bring about confusion and corruption in knowledge.  This is because the key terms in the basic vocabulary of the Islamic language serve a conceptual network of interrelated fields of meaning which ultimately project in the Muslim mind the worldview they are meant to describe.  Al-GhazÂali pointed out in the I?yÂ’ that even in his time key terms such as fiqh, ‘ilm, taw?Œd, dhikr, and ?ikmah have been tampered with by change and restriction in their original and authentic meanings.  Similarly in the TahÂfut he demonstrated that the philosophers have changed the original and authentic meaning of the important concepts conveyed by the terms fi‘l and f‘il to suit their own ideas which contradict the teachings of IslÂm with respect to the nature of God and of creation.  We see that if even a few of Islamic key terms were changed or restricted in their meanings, or were made to convey meanings which are not authentic and authoritative - by which I mean whose intentions no longer reflect those correctly understood by the early Muslims - then this would inevitably create confusion and error in the minds of Muslims and disrupt intellectual and spiritual unity among them.  Moreover, it would render sciences once considered praiseworthy to become blameworthy.  Unity has two aspects: the outward, external unity manifested in society as communal and national solidarity; and the inward, internal unity of ideas and mind revealed in intellectual and spiritual coherence that encompasses realms beyond communal and national boundaries.  Understanding pertains to the second aspect, which is fundamental to the realization of the first. The coherence of this second aspect depends upon the soundness and integrity of concepts in language, the instrument of reason which influences its users.  If the soundness and integrity of concepts in language is confused, then this is due to a confusion in worldview caused by the corruption of knowledge.  I am not here suggesting something that may be construed as not allowing language to develop, to unfold itself according to its potential powers of tracing the rich tapestry of life as it unfolds, to evolve with ideas as they evolve, to grasp reality-truth as it manifests itself in the fleeting passage of time.  I am only suggesting, deriving from the lesson al-GhazÂali taught, that the basic vocabulary in the Islamic language can only develop from its roots, and not severed from them, nor can they develop from roots stunted in restriction.  Secular and materialistic value systems have their initial locus in minds, then they are translated into linguistic symbols, and afterwards become manifest in the external world first in urban areas whence they spread like a raging contagion to the rural masses.  The problem related to language and semantic change is not simply a matter of language as such, but a matter of worldview.  Semantic confusion as a result of misapplication of terms denoting key concepts in the Islamic basic vocabulary does adversely affect Muslim perception of the worldview of IslÂm which is projected by both al-kitÂb wa al-?ikmah.

9.      In the languages of Muslim peoples including Arabic, there is a basic vocabulary consisting of key terms which govern the interpretation of the Islamic vision of reality and truth and which project in the Muslim mind the worldview of IslÂm in correct perspective.  Because the words that comprise this basic vocabulary have their origins in the Qur’Ân and in the Prophetic Traditions, these words are naturally in Arabic and are deployed uniformly in all Muslim languages reflecting the intellectual and spiritual unity of Muslims throughout the world.  This basic vocabulary is composed of key terms denoting important concepts related to one another meaningfully and altogether determining the conceptual structure of reality and existence projected by them in conformity with the Qur’Ân.  Language reflects ontology.  Introducing key concepts foreign to a language involves not merely the translating of words, but more profoundly the translating of symbolic forms belonging to the super system of a foreign worldview not compatible with the worldview projected by the language into which such concepts are introduced.  Those responsible for introducing them and advocating their currency are the scholars, academics, journalists, critics, politicians and amateurs not firmly grounded upon knowledge of the essentials of religion and its vision of reality and truth.  One of the main causes for the emergence of intellectual confusion and anarchy is the changes and restrictions which they have effected in the meanings of key terms that project the worldview of IslÂm which is derived from Revelation.

10.  But the modernist thinkers and their immediate disciples and later followers which include some traditionalists ignored authentic and authoritative usage of Quranic Arabic and violated its etymological principles in order to introduce foreign meanings in the key terms involving changes and restrictions which run counter to their original intentions and which displace their purpose in the conceptual structure of the worldview of IslÂm.  Respecting interpretation of the Qur’Ân, from which a new form of Arabic is derived, they have consistently advocated hermeneutic methods whose character depended largely upon learned conjecture and subjective speculation and the notion of historical relativism.  They are unaware that Muslims are now being confronted by the same challenges as in the past, albeit more intensive and of greater magnitude, in having to grapple with foreign concepts and to find suitable words and terms to denote them without violating the etymological and semantic structure of Arabic words and terms and displacing their purpose in the Islamic conceptual system.  In their haste to assimilate foreign concepts without understanding that they serve a different perception of reality and of truth, and unaware of their own perception of worldview, the modernist thinkers and intellectuals have introduced into current Muslim thought and linguistic usage rampant confusion.  Their tampering of important terminologies belonging to the conceptual system which depicts the worldview of IslÂm is made widespread by being disseminated in their translations and interpretations of foreign terms and concepts in dictionaries of modern Arabic, in Arabic dictionaries of the various sciences, in modernist writings in Arabic literature, in journals and the writings of secular scholars and intellectuals and their traditionalist counterparts, and in the mass media.  The changes in meaning that result are caused by (i), restriction or reduction of the original pattern of meaning and its scope in its various meaningful contexts; (ii), introduction of new meaning that goes beyond what is demanded by etymology and contextual precision; (iii), introduction of key concepts from another worldview not compatible with that of IslÂm by means of arabization and dissemination in current usage; (iv), introduction of a new interpretation of worldview that is influenced by modern scientific developments; and (v), imitation by other Muslim languages of what is current in modernist Arabic usage and thought.  Their arabization and introduction of concepts peculiar to secularization as a philosophical program into contemporary Muslim thought, such as ‘development’, ‘change’, ‘freedom’, ‘progress’, and secularity itself and other concepts aligned to them, have tremendously contributed to the confusion in the Muslim understanding of the meaning of religion itself and of the fundamental elements that project its worldview such as the nature of God, of Revelation, of Prophecy, of man and the psychology of the human soul, of knowledge and cognition, of ethics and its goal, of purposeful conceptualization of the meaning of education.  Muslims must realize that our dialogue today is with the powerful forces of secularization as a philosophical program whose underlying philosophy and ideology have created a separation between truth and reality and between truth and values.  It is only through thorough knowledge of IslÂm and its worldview, coupled with the knowledge of Western thought and civilization and the understanding of its evolutionary history of intellectual and religious development, that we can engage ourselves in this profound dialogue with success, as al-GhazÂali, under similar circumstances and in his own milieu, had demonstrated.

From http://cis-ca.org/kalam/2003/2003-articles.htm

Criticising Islam- A Malaysian Insider article

In the name of Allah Most High, and in whose name we seek Aid.
May the peace and blessings be upon the beloved, best of creation, the light of all times, Sayyidina Muhammed, and upon his family and companions.

A nice brother Syazwan Zainal I know has written a second article on Malaysian Insider (1), and it has gotten a lot of positive publicity lately. The reasons for that will insha'Allah be explained later, but I have felt a strong need to write on it, primarily because there are gross errors in the article, and my love for truth and Allah Most High means that I have to refute my friend.

I plan to take his arguments down one by one insha'Allah, and I seek Allah's aid in defending the truth here.

(Note that whenever I refer to the word "author", I mean brother Syazwan Zainal, and red writing is his.)

The author seems to think that it is his duty to correct the "evil" Islamic practices of the day, as he says "

This article is a humble attempt to point out what appears to me to be the faults of Islamic practices in Malaysia whilst trying to keep my feet planted firmly on earth."

He also thinks that this is only a few of the errors that he has spotted of the Muslim scholars in Malaysia as he says "A few examples are given. Needless to say these are non-exhaustive. This is not a comprehensive assessment of Islamic practices in Malaysia. "

And then he goes on further to label his opponents as "anti-intellectuals" and "non-Islamic" as he says "

It should also be noted that these are not “Islamic” practices per se, but rather an anti-intellectual culture that is embedded in our psyche as axiomatically non-Islamic."

With that, we already see the aim of the author here and what he thinks about others.

Considering the context, the author even thinks non-Muslims should tell us about what our Islamic practices should be, as he says "

Indeed I think it would do the nation good if our non-Muslim friends would give us constructive criticism and if need be, slap some sense into us."

Can the author give us examples where the non-Muslims can correct our Islam taught by our scholars?

This opinion about us being taught the correct Islam by non-Muslims is despite the fact that Allah said “And so amongst men and crawling creatures and cattle, are they of various colours. Those truly fear Allah, among His Servants, who have knowledge: for Allah is Exalted in Might, Oft-Forgiving.” (35:28)

And

“This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as the religion” (5:3 Qur’an).

 Thus we see that we are not in need of non-Muslims telling us about what Islam is, since Allah has taught us that already and confirmed that those with knowledge fear Him. And obviously non-Muslims don’t fear Allah, since they don’t believe in His Qur’an and commands, so they don’t have knowledge of Islam that has entered their hearts. And what value is learning Islam from one whose heart has not been opened by Allah Most High? How can someone say that the non-Muslims know something about Islamic law that we don't? After all, it is we who preserved the religion and believed in it, and Allah swt gave us the complete religion.

Furthermore the Prophet said “"There will always be a group from my Community that fight for truth and remain victorious until Judgment Day.” (Bukhari). Note the Prophet used “my community”, i.e. the Muslims, not “non-Muslims”. So the truth is found amongst the Muslims in regards to Islamic practices. It can’t be that all the Muslims be wrong, and then a non-Muslim comes and points out the correct way of Islam. That would contradict the above hadith and the hadiths on ijma (see later in my article).

And the Prophet even said: "My Community will split into seventy-three sects.  All of them will be in the fire except one group.  They asked: Who are they, O Messenger of Allah?  He said: Those that follow my way and that of  my companions." (Tirmidhi).

So which non-Muslim knows about the way of the Prophet and his companions and follows them, and thus can even be in a position to teach us Islam or criticise us on it?

The way our Islamic knowledge works is through the concept of isnad. The isnad connects the teacher to the Prophet, and so that is where the authorisation to teach comes from (and is given through the concept of ijazah). 

Imam Abd Allah ibn al-Mubarak (Allah be pleased with him) said: Isnad is part of religion (deen), and if it was not for Isnad, one would have said whatever one desired. When it is said (to the one who speaks without an Isnad):  Who informed you? He remains silent and bewildered. (Introduction to Sahih Muslim). He also said “The one who seeks matters of his deen without an Isnad is similar to the one who climbs to the roof without a ladder”/

The first assumption/generalisation the author makes is "At a time when Europe is fiercely atheistic, " 

Obviously that's wrong since Europe is a Christian majority continent. France, UK, Spain, Germany and Italy are majority Christians, and Christianity is their largest official religions.

Then he uses that false assumption to say ", it is laughable that some commentators still invoke Christianity as the justification for the complete ban on Muslims to celebrate Christmas" (bold is my edit)

Well pretty much all known Sunni scholars ban Muslims from celebrating Christmas because of Christianity (the origins of Christmas being Christianity or pagan), so its not a case of just a few or some. Its actually the case of the vast majority (probably the consensus) of all the scholars (including Shi'ites). And I've not come across any Sunni or Shia scholar to allow Muslims to celebrate Christmas.

It doesn't matter even if the majority of people celebrating Christmas are atheists. The issue is whether its still practised as a religious thing by some, and what it is associated with. There still are many Christians that take Christmas as a religious celebration. Even if you ask a 5 year old kid, "what is Christmas?", he will say "when Jesus was born, and he was son of God". So its haram. But if in 1000 years time, if no one is Christian, and people don't associate Christmas with any religion, and its just a cultural thing, then it could be different case.

I guess his own statement "If you want to make a case against something, at least make sure that the case would be able to withstand public scrutiny." applies to himself too.

And then he contradicts himself here "It might appear that you are merely doling out these edicts and invoking the most convenient stereotype as an excuse.". Clearly he made a stereotype by claiming that Europe is fiercely atheistic, and then he condemns Muslim scholars for their supporting a stereotype!

Now what is strange is that this author seems to not know in regards to why Muslim scholars ban Muslims from celebrating Christmas. He seems completely oblivious to the fact that many modern day scholarly fatwas already consider the fact that there are many atheists that celebrate Christmas. I would have hoped that the author had done some research before bashing scholars and the Muslim community.

My own discussions with an insightful and well-educated local scholar (who Syazwan could easily ask if he wanted) showed that he already knew of the current practice of Christmas and that some people celebrate it for cultural reasons and are atheists. Yet he still declared it haram/prohibited for Muslims to partake in Christmas since its origins are pagan and Christian and still it is partaken of by significant number Christians as a Christian thing. However in the past only Christians would celebrate Christmas, so scholars in the past gave the fatwas against it with an added reason of "imitating the religious traditions of another religion". Actually it still applies since Christmas is a religious tradition of the Christians, and Muslims are warned against celebrating in the religious traditions of other religions (and Sayyidina Umar (RA) expressely forbade it).

This is due to the hadith about festivities of other people or where certain practices are unique to non-Muslims, “Whoever imitates or resembles a people is one of them” (Bukhari)

The issue where traditions are banned, even though it is no longer religious, is explicitly shown by the fatwas against halloween and valentines day, since it is obviously hardly believed to belong to any modern religion (2)

The Prophet also prohibited people from being similar to non-Muslims in their unique features, as he said “Act contrary to the polythesists, trim closely the moustache and grow the beard." This is despite the fact that not all polytheists didn’t have beards, and some polytheists did have beards.

And so how will the author understand this Hadith and command? Will he say that many people had beards at the time and weren’t Muslim and we can all challenge the Prophet? Will he say the Prophet should not have made statements that are not “able to withstand public scrutiny”?

May Allah Most High save us!

Furthermore if one considers the fact that in the past, some people celebrated Christmas, yet were atheists (even though in the minority), you see the fatwas still don’t become inapplicable now.

How many people must celebrate a religious festival for non-religious reasons, for the festival to become halal to celebrate? This the author doesn’t answer, so he hasn’t proved that the situation has changed enough from the past to require a different fatwa. I guess its because he isn’t a scholar nor trained in the Islamic sciences.

Then the author says "Personally I do not see anything particularly wrong with joining in another faith’s celebration as long as one’s faith is not compromised. " Obviously this is his personal opinion and not the opinion of Islam, since it clearly contradicts the Hadith above, and the practice of the Sahaba and Sayyidina Umar (RA). They encountered many other religions, yet they did not partake in their religious practices. Furthermore by merely partaking in another faith’s celebration, one’s faith is compromised (unless there is a valid reason like the scholars just attending a Christmas celebration for the sake of community relations).

Indeed the verse about entering Islam completely was revealed due to a Muslim person wanting to celebrate Sabbath! It looks like the author wants to take us to the days of jahiliyya (pre-Islamic days). See the tafsir of the verse “O you who have believed, enter into Islam completely [and perfectly] and do not follow the footsteps of Satan. Indeed, he is to you a clear enemy.” (2:208)

Before understanding the legal ruling with regards to celebrations, it is worth remembering here that imitation (in certain cases) of the non-Muslims is something that Islam strictly disapproves of. Please see an explanation of it in the fatwa given in the reference (4).

The author says:
"Besides, Christianity is probably the last thing on the minds of many of the people who celebrate Christmas each year. Christmas is wildly popular in Japan and China even though, Christianity is merely the minority religion in both countries."

But those countries aren’t Muslim, and so they don’t have the concern of maintaining the purity of Islam. They’ve adopted many things like the culture of consumerism and materialism from America, so should we follow them too? You’ve seen how the beliefs of the Japanese and Chinese on family have been compromised by following things seen as “harmless”, like consumerism.
The Prophet forbade prostration to people, because he feared that it would lead to shirk, as people would become closer to doing shirk. That's how Islam has been able to be fiercely monotheistic, by clearing itself of foreign elements.
Also these countries are following America and Europe in Christmas, and who are they (and the atheists etc) following or imitating in celebrating Christmas? Well they're imitating the current Christians. So there you have it in another way, Christmas being celebrated by misguided Muslims would fulfill the Hadith about imitating the non-Muslims.
The Prophetic example is the best. He didn't have Christmas trees, nor did anything that was tied to another religion or non-Muslims uniquely. He didn't say "we need to have some pictures of the Quraysh idols so that we can show intercommunity faith-building" or any of that nonsense used to justify haram practices.

Then the author says ". I hardly think that to have a Christmas tree inside your house and to exchange presents on December 25 each year counts as a radical departure of faith."

The author can also say against the Prophetic hadith on beards "I hardly think that to not keep a beard is a radical departure of faith". This is a misunderstanding of Islam, because Islam a complete religion based on following the commands of Allah and His Prophet. Furthermore, the issue of Christmas is more serious because it involves shirk and polytheism/idolatry, the precise things the Prophet came to take away and remove, and protect Islam from..

Is the author going to say “we can wear crosses on our necks because many punks wear crosses even if they’re atheist”? There are many logical flaws that arise by the reasoning of the author.

It still is a departure nevertheless to put Christmas trees, due to scholars pointing out that it resembles a religious tradition. But such a point aside, why should we put them?

After all, the author linked recently in facebook to the article (3) about the large loss of trees in Malaysia. I suppose if Christmas trees become more common in Malaysia, even more trees will be lost and the environment damaged for the sake of consumerism and greed (after all, Syazwan says it isn't for religion, but for other reasons).  So having Christmas trees doesn't lead to much benefit to people, but damages the environment, what a way to go! What is the benefit of having the trees, that we're destroying the environment for?

Also the author ignores certain other reasons why scholars prohibit Christmas celebrations. That is based on the fiqh principle of "blocking the means"/sad adh-dhara'i. This is because Islam is a practical religion and based on history, wants to stop Muslims from engaging in the dilution of the religion, and engagement in the haram.

Indeed the Qur’an shows the principle many times. Like with alcohol. Alcohol was prohibited because it would lead to some people committing bad things, like murder and discord, even though not everyone drinks to that level.

So Islam is prohibiting us from taking part in other religion’s festivities because it will eventually dilute our religion, like it did with the Christians and Jews. The Christians get their Christmas ideas from the pagans in many ways. And the Jews got their ideas from the Greeks. And it all started from the idea “oh we’ll accept their festivities because they’re no longer religious and everyone else does them”

The author then said ". Quite a number of us Muslims for example seem to think that just because an individual holds an opinion dissimilar to an ulama, it becomes an act worthy of condemnation."

Actually if a person holds an opinion that contradicts the consensus of the scholars/Ulema, then does the opinion of the unqualified person become worthy of condemnation. If s/he follows the opinion on which there is a difference of opinion, then the person is not condemned.

However the intention of the author (based on the context of this article) is that it is wrong to condemn people for holding opinions that disagree with all the scholars. This view of the author is incorrect and contradicts the Prophetic hadiths on following the majority. The Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) strongly condemned disagreement with the ijma/consensus as he said: "My community shall never agree upon misguidance, therefore, if you see divergences, you must follow the greater mass or larger group” (Ibn Majah)

In another Hadith: "Verily Allah will not make my community (jama'a) agree on error, and Allah's hand is with the largest congregation."  Tirmidhi said: "And the meaning of "jama`a" according to the people of knowledge is: the people of jurisprudence, learning, and hadith (i.e. the Ulema/scholars).”

If one sees the meaning of the hadith from

And proof for following scholars is found in the last part of this verse:

"O you who believe, obey Allah and obey the Prophet and those of authority among you" (4:59).

And in the Hadith “Scholars are the heirs of the Prophets” (Abu Dawud).

So knowledge of Islam is preserved with the scholars, and we don’t need to go any further for the knowledge of Islam. We shouldn’t diminish the status of scholars and think that we are of the same authorisation in Islam.

He says "

I remember a particularly controversial moment during the Projek Amanat Negara. A participant pointedly dismissed Zainah Anwar as unworthy of commenting on Islamic law simply because she did not have an Islamic Law degree."

What if Zainah was talking about how to do a heart operation in medicine, and making recommendations on that? If someone said she's unworthy of commenting on it, would the author or anyone else have complained for telling her the plain truth? Hardly!

So you see the logical contradictions facing the author and his followers. They make Islam as the exception and think that anyone can comment on Islam, but for other sciences, you need to be a doctor or have a degree in physics and so on to have your opinion as worthy of consideration and worth anything.

But why exclude Islam? The author thinks he MUST have his opinion taken into consideration, he MUST be thought of as worthy and at the same value as other people who spent 20 years studying and mastering the sciences of Islam.

However Islam needs even more restrictions in terms of who can speak about Islam or give opinions on it, since Islam deals with the soul and its eternal condition, thus more important than medicine is for the body.

I mentioned the importance of Isnad in Islamic scholarship and in learning religion. In fact we also have the Prophet only allowing very few people to give fatwas (decisions on Islam to others). This Prophetic example is the best and soundest example to follow. Yet Syazwan has given the decision to others that Christmas is halal to celebrate.

The Prophet also warned us on making fatwas without Islamic knowledge as he said:

"Whoever gives fatwa without knowledge, the angels of the heaven and the earth curse him" (Suyuti)

And he also said:

"Whoever interprets the Qur'an without knowledge should make his abode in Hell." (Tirmidhi)

Seriously we should look at the example of the Sahaba and how they were hesitant on giving their opinions on Islamic matters.  Ibn Jareej used to attend the majlis (sitting) of Abdullah ibn Umar, Radi-Allahu anhuma. "In answer to more than half the questions he used to say I don't know." Ibn Abi Layla saw 120 Sahaba (companions). "Whenever one of them was asked a question he wished that someone else would answer it." (5)

The author then tried to prove everyone can comment and issue opinions and criticisms on Islam as he said "It was reported that when Umar wanted to put a maximum cap on the amount of Mahr for marriages, a woman stood up and invoked a verse from the Quran establishing that the Mahr is the right of the woman, hence the Caliph had no authority or power to put a cap on the amount of Mahr. Umar immediately agreed and discontinued the policy.  "

However the woman was not a person ungrounded in Islam, but she had the necessary Islamic knowledge to correct him, since she knew the relevant Islamic proof from the Qur'an and Sunnah (since she quoted the proof), and learnt from the Prophet directly, and knew Arabic. Apart from the narration being weak (since its broken, see Bayhaqi and its relevant commentary on who it was), the Sahabi knew Arabic (if its a real incident), and had met the Prophet, and that makes the analogy to now very different and wrong, where the people don't know Arabic, let alone the Arabic to understand the Prophet.

Furthermore, Syazwan's opinion of anyone (especially laymen) commenting on Islam, and the above basis being used as proof of that, is refuted by his own words as he says "the rest of the companions of the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. are all Islamic intellectuals in their own right." So obviously these companions weren't ordinary people, and no one today, even if all of humanity alive today were put on one side of the scale, and one of the sahaba put on another side, the value of the one sahabi would outweigh them all. In fact Syazwan deems the Sahaba all intellectuals, and thus qualified in Islamic matters. So using the sahaba example is not relevant to his arguments

So I'll let Syazwan decide how his proof works now.

However I will point out the fact that most of the companions were not qualified in giving Islamic opinions or criticisms, and only a handful of the Sahaba were allowed to give fatwa.

Note that the author’s opinion would also logically mean that this was okay to speak against the Prophet:

While the Prophet was distributing something, 'Abdullah bin Dhil Khawaisira At-Tamimi came and said,"Be just, O Allah's Apostle!" The Prophet said, "Woe to you ! Who would be just if I were not?" (Bukhari)

Note that the people who acted like that were compared to the khawarij (I’ll let readers research on who such people are).

Then  the author says “It would seem that by extension, criticism of a government policy, even if it is based on an Islamic injunction, is not wrong per se.”

The criticism is valid if some conditions are fulfilled:

1)      The person criticising is qualified in Islamic matters

2)      The person criticises based on Islamic sources like the Qur’an and Sunnah

3)      The person criticises not those matters of Islam which have an ijma’

However to criticise Islam or Islamic law is a serious crime and sin.

Now lets take issue with the belief that the understanding of all the Muslim scholars could be wrong, and so we need the laymen to correct them.

We know that the scholars are the heirs of the Prophets, and we know that the scholars won’t agree on error (based on the Hadith), and we know that Islamic rulings are based on the necessary knowledge (such as Arabic) of Islam, and we know that the Qur’an commanded to follow scholars. And we know the Prophet commanded to follow the Qur’an and Sunnah, and he only appointed very few people to give Islamic opinions to people. And we know that the din is based on isnad (which is basically only what the scholars have). Thus we know that to give an Islamic opinion, and to criticise, one needs to KNOW what one is criticising, such as the legal premises, the various evidences and ways of analysing the evidences and so on. This means one must know the Arabic language, the science of tafsir, fiqh, hadith, qiyas and so on.

Thus any layman who criticised scholars, is criticising from a prima facie position of ignorance. He is lacking the tools to analyse the evidences and the issue at hand. His opinions have no worth. He will draw the wrong conclusions because the Prophet guaranteed that the Ulema are right. It is like a kid who has just done GCSE Physics challenging Einstein on the theory of relativity. How preposterous is that kid! Yet Islamic law is harder than physics.

With Islamic law, it is beyond thinkable that the laymen come up with the truth that the Ulema/scholars don’t have. After all, the Prophet assured us that the jama’ah (and it means the Ulema) won’t agree on error, and that the majority group in every age is on the right path. And if you see the meaning of ijma, it means what the scholars agree upon. Thus if you see a layman criticising the whole body of the Ulema, then know that the Prophet guaranteed the layman is wrong.

Now instead of following laymen, let us follow the example of these people: “The Abdal are in Syria, and they are 40 men. Whenever one of them dies,Allah substitutes another in his place. By means of them, Allah brings down the rain, givesvictory over enemies, and diverts punishment from the people of Syria.” (Ahmad)

And amongst these Abdals, in modern times was Sheikh Ahmad al-Habbal. Now we ask ourselves this question:

Who do we follow? Laymen about whom we can’t see any signs of wilaya (friendship with Allah swt), or scholars in whom we can see that they Walis? Indeed Allah swt has made the lights of guidance clear, even in this day and age through the miracles they have been given, and the extraordinary love for Allah and His Messenger. So we should follow them.

The article of Syazwan has got a lot of publicity due to the following reasons:

1) lack of knowledge amongst people

2) the want of people to follow their desires and to rationalise their desires

3) it favours non-Muslims, 

Thus you see many non-Muslims spreading and promoting the article. 

The author has been taking the Islamic law module by Dr Shaheen at Warwick, a woman who isn’t qualified in Islamic matters, and makes many blunders (like claiming that the Islamic law schools are against women and indirectly claiming that 1200 years of Islam were wrong).  That probably explains somewhat why the author has made many blunders in this article.

Also note that I'm not saying one can't follow one's own opinion. People are free to believe whatever illogical stuff they want. I'm just saying that it is a dangerous slope to issue one's own opinions, and that one can't expect one's opinion to be taken seriously when one isn't qualified. And the Prophet warned against it.

Alhamdulillah we have the Malaysian Insider (6) posting a beneficial article for once, as it defends scholars in the piece.
I also am not saying that Syazwan can't give his opinion in a public platform. I'm just saying that Islamically he shouldn't, because he's not qualified, and the Prophet warned against it, although no one will force anything upon Syazwan. And readers should realise that he's not an authority in the matter.
The fatwās of unqualified individuals are considered “null and void,” according to  Sayyidina Umar (RA), second caliph of the Prophet.
I leave you with a beautiful and intelligent Hadith that is being fulfilled now as we speak and reflect upon what has happened and is happening, and how the Prophet viewed people who give opinions without being Islamic scholars:

The Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Truly, Allah does not remove Sacred Knowledge by taking it out of servants, but rather by taking back the souls of Islamic scholars [in death], until, when He has not left a single scholar, the people take the ignorant as leaders, who are asked for and who give Islamic legal opinion without knowledge, misguided and misguiding" (Bukhari)

May Allah Most High guide us to the straight path, ameen 

References:

1) http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/opinion/article/a-criticism-of-islamic-practices-in-malaysia
"A criticism of Islamic practices in Malaysia" by Syazwan Zainal 

2) http://spa.qibla.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=6903&CATE=1

3) http://spa.qibla.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=2106&CATE=115

4) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/8295896/Malaysia-destroying-its-forests-three-times-faster-than-all-Asia-combined.html

5) http://www.albalagh.net/food_for_thought/fatwa.shtml

6) http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/of-ulama-and-misconceptions-muhammad-imran-mustafa/ "Of ulama and misconceptions" By Muhammad Imran Mustafa