Permulaan
thread/status Facebook:
"Jijik
sangat ke perjuangkan nasib bangsa sendiri? Tanah air ini bukan wujud lepas
zaman pasca-kolonial. Kita meneruskan sejarah lampau yang panjang. Biarpun
perjuangan Melayu itu tercemar dek kezaliman gol. bangsawan tak kira UMNO etc.,
bukan hakikat perjuangan itu kotor sendiri.
- M. Rafiq: "man 'arofa nafsahu faqod 'arofa RABBahu"..inilah keyword bagi kekuatan sesuatu bangsa..siapa yg mengenal dirinya maka dia akan mengenal RABBnya..bukankah sekuat mana kita bergantung pada RABB maka sekuat itulah pertolongan RABB pada hambaNYA..bila bangsa(baca : melayu) meninggalkan makna dirinya maka Tuhan pun akan meninggalkan hambaNYA...
- Wan Aimran: "Kita meneruskan sejarah lampau yang panjang."
How far back
in history do we want to go? Will it involve an erasure and re-writing of our
past?
God knows
best.
- Wan Rausyanfikir: We should choose our datum when Islam reaches here. That's it. The rest are not as important as Islamic historical impact that lasted very much here.
- M. Rafiq: Banyak berbeza pendapat tentang teori sejarah buat ape..yg rugi org awam..aku setuju dgn Wan.."The rest are not as important as Islamic historical impact that lasted very much here."..ada yg lebih penting patut kita sedari bukan bermaksud denying the other historical fact..takkan dgn sejarah bangsa pun nak liberal kot? aneh2
- Nik
Azmi: "...We should choose our datum when Islam reaches here. That's
it..." In my opinion, that's exactly what Wan Aimran's question was trying
to extract, although what he intended to extract is up to him. The history of
nation cannot be conveniently cherry-picked, not can a cut-off date be
arbitrarily decided, lest we impair our own objectivity.... See MoreI am
certainly against introducing such a cut-off date for the reason stated above. "...The rest are not as important as Islamic historical
impact that lasted very much here..." And that depends on what is
"Islam" that's been discussed here. If Islam does not allow us to
disown our father, can we then disown our father's father, and their fathers
before that? (figuratively) Did the Prophet himself disown his own history
prior to Prophethood? If,
for example, we can rely just on "Islam" or "Islamic
history" to guide us into the future, one wonders if that can be
sufficient for mankind to reflect, especially Muslim history itself is riddled
with many un-Islamic events. Given the chance, would we place reliance on
"pre-Islam" history which is good, or do we rely on
"post-Islam" history which is bad?Why did the Quran bother to repeat the stories of the crushed nations were it not for us to learn from the "un-Islamic" history?As such, I am of the opinion that "pre-Islam" history is as important as the post one. Lest we forget that the Quran is full of stories so that we may reflect.Verily, Allah knows best
- Imran Mustafa: Bismillahirrahmanirrahim,
"We
should choose our datum when Islam reaches here."
When
actually did Islam 'reached' the Archipelago? What does 'reach' mean, anyway?
Surely one cannot say that Islam has 'reached' the Archipelago if there's only
a few hundred conversions in a very specific geographical area, or could one?
The idea itself is just wrong, as the development and spreading of religion
cannot be traced as easily as, say, the spreading of empires.... And I am quite
troubled by this notion of cherry picking, as Azmi said. If any previous
identity and practices were washed clean, then surely in the modern world we
would not have any cultural practices that are similar to that practiced by
Hindus. One might say that Malays have been 'Islamised' and things like this,
but that does not negate the fact that some of the practices are from local
influences that are not strictly 'Islamic'.
This idea simply compartmentalised history, which is wrong as
human beings do exchange things during their historical interactions. By saying
that, you simply show that you are not interested in anything that is not
within your agenda. That, as Azmi said, impairs objectivity, which is, quite
simply, the search for truth.
Without
objectivity, how can one be a public intellectual? How can one educate people
when one is not interested in the truth, rather, puts a line arbitrarily on the
ground?
"takkan
dgn sejarah bangsa pun nak liberal kot? "
Fakta adalah
fakta. Liberalisme adalah satu ideologi. Tak ada kena mengena fakta yang
liberal. In fact, tak masuk akal pun ayat tersebut.
Wallahua'lam
- Wan Rausyanfikir: @Imran and Nik:
T kasih
kerana sudi bagi komentar yang kritis. Tapi aku rasa kamu berdua agak tersasar
dalam menilai ma'na hujah aku yang sebenar.
Pertama,
premis yang aku berikan tiada bermaksud untuk disown mana-mana sejarah
pra-Islam sebagai satu yang nihil. Seperti mana fakta-fakta lain, rentetan
peristiwa itu masih merupakan fakta selagi mana ada pembuktian. Tetapi, fakta
tiada boleh disamakan dengan hakikat. Fakta sejarah dan hakikat sejaah berbeda
dari segi ontologi. Kita boleh lontarkan indeks fakta sejarah ribuan tahun tapi
tiada semua fakta itu boleh diberi kebenaran yang sama darjat....
Bertitik
tolak dari inilah para pemikir Barat dan Islam bersikap memusatkan datum
masing-masing pada titik yang paling signifikan dalam merangka jati diri bangsa
masing-masing.
Bagi Barat
seperti yang dikatakan Heidegger, mereka harus bermula mendefinisikan jati diri
mereka sebagai satu hakikat daripada Tamadun Yunani purba.
In our case,
the Malay-ness of Malay has a very intimate ontological connection with Islam
thus could best be described the Malay-ness and Islam as "isi dan
kuku".
Sudah tentu
kita perakui akan kewujudan pengaruh Hindu dan Buddha dalam the Malay-ness of
our Jati Diri tapi telah diIslamisasikan dengan jayanya oleh para ulama'
mutahaqqiqun. Kita masih lagi menerima konsep budi dan jiwa yang bukan asal
daripada bahasa Arab Islami tapi MA'NA kata kunci tersebut tiada mencerminkan
HAKIKAT MA'NAWIYYAH-nya yang asal sebelum Islam datang.
I guess my
last piece of advices are do read Islam dalam Sejarah dan Kebudayaan Melayu
carefully. You might disagree now but perhaps if you get clear understanding of
Prof. Al-Attas' elucidation of everything from the historical facts of
Islamization process, its empirical evidences, its context etc. Insya-Allah wou
will be able to understand my line of thoughts in this matter. Some people have
read it but they have not read it carefully or ignorantly (yes, reading great
works requires some preparation) due to the epistemological error they have in
their worldview (this is where liberalization of Historical facts could happen
from MISLED INTERPRETATION) thus leading to erroneous conclusion EVEN being
presented with CORRECT FACTS.
Once you are
back in Malaysia, perhaps we can pay a visit to some Attasian scholars for a
better explanation.
I'm just a
student. Not an authority.
By the way,
I have not go deeper into 'Assabiyyah yet. Later.
Wallahua'lam.
- Nik Azmi: I understand all that you have said above, except for that I disagree with the "pre-Islamic... not as important".
And I am familiar with what Al-Attas elaborated about Malay
history before I came to know him.
It is the "Islamisation" part which I have
"issues" with. I will not say disagreement, but I must state that
this is open to contest, as I do not see how "Islamisation" changes
things in the way that Al-Attas asserted....
Having said that, I am also aware (as you have also said)
that the "Islamisation" as proposed by Al-Attas has yet to be
completed. This is the point of contention, I may argue, as the idea of
"Islamisation" per Al-Attas seems to be something novel. Is it not
"completed" or is it something that cannot be completed i.e. a
continuous process of evolution, as Islam really is?
I have also questioned before if this means reinventing the
wheel, or is it a continuation, or an upgrade of the works of Al-Ghazali (and
those before and after him)? I have also asserted that reinventing the wheel
would be something at a different level altogether, although I cannot be sure
unless I read more.
I can only form my opinion if a few questions around this
area is satisfactorily answered. Until then, I will have to leave it where it
is now.
To relate to the topic above, as you have clarified, it is
not about disowning history literally. Yet again, I must re-emphasise that
pre-Islam history is yet ever as important if we want to ensure that
objectivity is not in any way compromised, as you have yourself said,
"fakta tiada boleh disamakan dengan hakikat".
However, allow me to also quote from your own line, "Fakta
sejarah dan hakikat sejaah berbeda dari segi ontologi".
What is the
truth?
A muhaqqiq, as I understand it, cannot afford to impair his
objectivity by doing a selective examination. This is different, of course, if
a discourse has been qualified in the very beginning, where the outcome of a
discourse is expected to be partial. However, as far as a claim to the truth is
concerned, nothing can be left out.
When quoting Heidegger, I assume that you also recognise that
he can be as wrong as we are, if not worse, and vice versa. If he choses to
anchor his identity to ancient Greece/Greeks, that is simply a matter of
choice, although the current Pope's official stance is that Europe's identity
and root is in Christianity.
As far as the Malay identity is concerned, I cannot come to
comfort myself that "Malayness" lie in Islam, when many others,
whether Indonesian, Filipinos or Cambodian, has yet to move on to embrace
Islam. Whether that is the truth or not, I cannot say, although that is a fact.
That does not mean that Malayness and Islam are mutually
exclusive, as we in Malaysia are aware that the two are interwoven within our
social fabric. What I am trying to get at here is that there are many parts of
the Malay world, which gives us the Malay identity, still fall outside the
circle of Islam, and to ignore that is a great injustice to our own history,
and our own self.
My proposal is that to recognise that there is a Malay-Muslim
identity that we have now in Malaysia, and also in the greater part of
Southeast Asia, and at the same time do not deny our pre-Islam heritage, and
recognise the non-Muslim Malay's claim to the Malay heritage.
Islam is, afterall, a universal religion, a "din"
which goes beyond all boundaries, social, cultural or otherwise.
To anchor the Malay identity to Islam is not wrong, but to
detach the non-Islamic, to the point of rejecting what is alive and in
existence, does not seem to be something that a man of truth would do.
Verily,
Allah knows best.
Pada saya
masalah yg timbul bila kita mahu menyamaratakan keutamaan semua peristiwa
sejarah.Para sejarawan muslim bercanggah kesimpulannya ada beberapa
kemungkinan.Kalau mereka merujuk rekod yg sama tetapi berbeza kesimpulannya
sudah pastilah kesan dari kesalah fahaman salah seorang dr mereka. Ini pun
mungkin salah satu kesan dari ideologi yg menjadi dasar pemikiran mereka.Jika
sumber rekod yg berbeza pastilah juga berbeza kesimpulannya.
Sesungguhnya,
Allah sahaja yang Maha Mengetahui :)
No comments:
Post a Comment