Curtailment of Friday Sermon in Perak

Ustaz Nik Aziz and Ustaz Abdul Hadi, PAS Spiritual Leader and President respectively, were barred recently from giving Friday sermon (khutbah) in the Perak State Mosque in Ipoh purportedly by the Crown Prince of Perak (presumably representing the Sultan of Perak as the Head of Islamic Affairs in the state) on the ground that mosques should not be used for political purposes. Was the restriction decreed purely by the Perak Palace or was it done under political pressures from the local UMNO leaders ? It is a common practice of UMNO to exercise such restriction in states controlled by them, but Perak is now under the People's Front rule headed by a Chief Minister from PAS (Note : PAS also has her chief ministerialship in Kedah and Kelantan states respectively).
To my personal knowledge, these renowned religious scholars and leaders are not known to have abused the Friday sermons as political platforms.
If it is from the Palace, the Crown Prince must have been ill-advised in issuing the restriction which effectively segregates Islam from politics. But Islam is wholesome, it is a complete way of life. How could politics be separated from Islam ? Only the secularists like UMNO would subscribe to this notion of separation.

Muqabalah with DAP

Now that PAS leadership has renounced any possibility of merger talks with UMNO much to the relief of anxious members of PAS at the grassroot levels. Their mission to dislodge UMNO and BN from the seat of power is not accomplished yet. In this light, the political onslaughts against UMNO/BN must be sustained more concertedly in collaboration with PKR (People's Justice Party) and DAP (Democratic Action Party) respectively under the banner of the People's Front (Pakatan Rakyat, PR). They have the resolve to get the job done.
I see this tri-partite scheme of things is an opportune window for PAS to reach out to DAP to clarify the idealisms which PAS upholds in a 'muqabalah' with DAP leadership. The People's Front shall be strengthened further if rough edges between PAS and DAP could be smoothened out cordially and amicably on the principles of the Convenant of Madinah. This 'treaty' was essentially an agreement entered into during the time of Prophet Muhammad S.A.W. between the Muslims and the Jews in Madinah to govern their relationship. The Jews were identified in the Holy Quran as "the people of the Scripture".
Membership of the DAP comprises largely Chinese and, to a lesser proportion, Indians who are Buddhists and Hindus respectively by their religious affiliation, although a small number among the two communities profess Christianity. But unlike the Jews, the Buddhists and Hindus are not categorised as 'the people of the Scripture' though.
According to the Covenant of Madinah, the religion and the properties of the Jews were recognised legally and given protection. The Jews who were allied to the Muslims and entered into peace were entitled to equal treatment and assistance and they should suffer no injustice nor crime (the aggressors and the criminals were excepted). The perpetrators of such acts prejudiced themselves and their immediate relatives. Each party shall advise and counsel the other for the good as opposed to the evil. Assistance belonged to the sufferer of injustice, not its perpetrators.
The Covenant was a protection against treachery, but no protection was here implied for the perpetrator of injustice or crime. It formed the basis of a New Social (world) Order built on peace, a peace built upon reason. Under this New World Order, the non-Muslims may enjoin the Muslims as equal citizens of the State. Their religion, culture, social, economic and political institutions and properties remained intact. But they must however renounce aggressions against the State and isolationism.
It promoted peaceful interchanges on religious, intellectual and cultural levels among the people which formed the substance of freedom, the freedom to convince others of one's views as well as to be convinced of theirs. The non-Muslims were not only free to present their case but were invited to do so.
The Muslims did not give up their duty to call the non-Muslims to Islam, but their call was conducted 'with wisdom and comely presentation'. Under no case whatsoever may any human be coerced or pressured to change his religion.

" (There is) no coercion in religion. Truth and error are manifest. Whoever wishes to accept the Faith may do so at his own accord and will to his own personal credit. Whoever does not may do so to his own personal discredit (with God)" [Quran 2 : 256]

In PAS' single-minded pursuit to establish Islamic Law in the country, the concerns, fears and anxiety of the Buddhists, the Hindus and the Christians in Malaysia should not be sidelined or ignored. They should be encouraged to establish their own religious courts to hear cases of their adherents according to their own laws respectively.
Under the Covenant of Madina, the Jews were required to set up their own court of law to judge themselves by the precepts of Jewish Laws according to the Torah.


Reference : Ismail Rajhi al-Faruqi : Islam and the Problem of Israel
The Other Press, Kuala Lumpur (2003)

Why PAS Can NEVER Be Sharing the Same Bed With UMNO ?

These are entirely personal observations and deductions based on my informal interactions and discourses with some UMNO members I happen to meet and be acquainted with. The observations I have made may not necessarily reflect the actual traits of UMNO members in general but they nonetheless could form some basis for judgement.
It basically goes down to divergent sets of value systems adhered to by the opposing parties. One firmly believes that in order to raise the economic status of the Malays, they must be granted licences to operate casinos while the other considers it absolutely "haram" (strictly forbidden); it is okay to invest in pig-rearing, brewery, and casino projects to derive economic benefits for the Malays, which the other party considers them abhorrent. It is okay for them to imbibe alcoholic drinks while the other detest them. They say they can use interests (usury) from their saving deposits for the purpose of performing the Hajj when the other opposes such edict. Their dress codes are distinctly different from each other. Yes, all of them perform the solat (prayers), observe the fast, pay zakat (tithes), perform the Hajj but that's where their similitudes end. Though they both believe in Allah, one of them simply rejects the Syari'ah Law dismissing it as inappropriate for a multi-racial country like Malaysia.
Given the stark differences in value systems of PAS and UMNO, certainly they make very strange bedfellows.