达祖丁《星洲网》专栏评论:
先知从未因为历史原因
而杀害他人
本文是马来学者达祖丁２０２０年１０月３１日发表于<星洲网>的专栏评论，原标题：先知从未因为历史原因而杀害他人。
作者一针见血地指出，马哈迪是用“以牙还牙”来合理化他的说辞，而先知穆罕默德却没有这样（“以牙还牙”）的思想。他一语道破大多数马来穆斯林遭受那些极端思想的传教士和那些刻意标榜自己比较“伊斯兰化”以捞取支持和选票的政治人物所误导的事实，并在文末睿智地指出，伊斯兰的问题从来不是关于伊斯兰和先知，而是穆斯林本身的无知和复仇论述。
全文内容如下（上图和文内小标题为<人民之友>编者所加）——
全世界对像敦马这样的政治人物最近针对法国尼斯发生与侮辱先知的漫画有关的袭击案所发表的文章感到震惊。敦马在文章中辩称，穆斯林有权对法国人在过去历史上对他们所做的事情感到愤怒。文章中有一段话激怒了国际领袖，他看似是在为穆斯林杀害法国公民辩护，因为过去法国人对穆斯林的态度恶劣。
马哈迪的说辞,是一种常见论述
敦马用“以牙还牙”来合理化他的看法。许多人对他的言论感到震惊，但我没有。正如敦马的言论那样令人毛骨悚然，我发现他的论述实际上也是我在与接受过良好教育和没有接受过教育的马来穆斯林对话时的一种常见论述。例如，当我试图反对伊斯兰恐怖组织滥杀无辜时，我的许多友人对受害者没有任何同情，他们只是说：“这些人在过去对穆斯林做得更过分”。这样的论述在大马主流穆斯林群体中并不足为奇，我也认为这种论述在整个伊斯兰世界以及生活在西方国家的弱势群体中普遍存在。这种论述涵盖了各个年龄层、城市或乡区，或甚至是各个教育水平的群体。只要看看大马的宗教官员和神职人员对受害者表示多少同情，如有的话。除了伊斯兰发展局（JAKIM）总监和政府外，我没有听过任何政治人物谴责袭击案并对受害者表示同情。我假设如果有一名马来政治人物对受害者，尤其是对那位老师表示同情，那么马来人将以太过自由和宽容对待嘲讽先知的行为为由而拒绝这名政治人物。
先知穆罕默德生前的３个故事
在本文中，我想以我所了解的先知的价值观，针对过去曾犯下过暴行而展开袭击一事，做出澄清。阿纳斯朱比迪（Anas Zubedy）多次提及《可兰经》是如何对待侮辱上苍和先知的人。《可兰经》只是要求穆斯林远离这些人，而不是杀害或斩首。我还会转述伊本希山（Ibn Hisham）所写的《先知传记》里的3个先知穆罕默德生前的故事。
这位传统主义者记录说，当先知的信息被麦加人拒绝时，他去了附近一个叫做塔伊夫（Ta-if）的地方。在那里，他向老年人传达了伊斯兰的信息。老年人不仅拒绝他，还叫年轻人用石头砸向他，导致他流血受伤。其中一段敍述了穿着血衣的先知向阿拉祈祷，据说当时天使加百列现身并要摧毁塔伊夫，但先知阻止了他。现在，如果有人将这段文字当成隐喻来读，那他们可能会认为先知将恨意藏在心底并发誓要等待报复时机。好吧，很多年之后时机到了，先知带领着一大军队征服了麦加，随后也征服了塔伊夫。当使团到来向他表示投降时，先知没有伤害他们。因此，先知并没有因为过去有些人伤害了他，而杀害妇女、儿童、老人和成人。正如敦马所写的，在此事件中，“以牙还牙”的原则在哪里？
先知没有"以牙还牙"复仇思想
在第二起事件中，先知在没有经过任何激战的情况下征服了麦加，并向在天房（Kaaba）或阿布苏富扬（Abu Sufyan）房子内避难的人大喊和平。现在，阿布苏富扬曾是麦加部落的首领，拥有巨大的权力和财富。就是他和其他几位领袖让先知不好过并密谋在先知入睡时谋杀他。先知不得不与他的同伴阿布巴卡（Abu Bakar）逃到麦地那。阿布苏富扬也在巴德尔（Badr）和武侯德（Uhud）发动战争。但当先知取得胜利时，他放过很多人，包括阿布苏富扬，而且先知从来没有因为过往的事情而让复仇蒙蔽了他。再一次，没有“以牙还牙”。
我想讲的第三个故事是瓦赫许（Wahshi）的故事。瓦赫许是一名刺客，可以准确无误地投掷标枪。阿布苏富扬的妻子杏德（Hind）雇用了他，因为她的亲人和儿子在巴德尔战役中被杀害。当麦加人发动武侯德战争时，瓦赫许投身作战，但他不是军人，而是作为刺客加入战争，他的目标就只有一人──哈姆扎（Hamza），即先知的叔叔，后者一直奋力抵抗像阿布苏富扬这样的麦加人。瓦赫许看到哈姆扎忙着作战，就向他投掷出标枪，并导致哈姆扎当场身亡。也有记录说，杏德在战争结束后找到了哈姆扎的尸体，在挖出了他的心脏后咬了一口，以此显示她的复仇。她还割下了哈姆扎的鼻子。当先知发现他的叔叔时，他对叔叔被肢解感到难过。
先知穆罕默德并没有提倡复仇
几年后，当先知与他的军队接管麦加时，许多伤害过他的人前去请求他的宽恕并接受伊斯兰教义。先知原谅了他们所有人。当轮到瓦赫许时，先知认出了他，并问他如何杀死哈姆扎。当瓦赫许讲述该过程时，先知表情严肃并带着沉重的心情，他告诉瓦赫许不要再出现在他面前，因为这为他的心灵带来很多伤害。瓦赫许听从先知的话从此避开他，直到先知去世。瓦赫许发誓要做善事，为杀害先知的叔叔一事赎罪。当先知死后，穆赛利迈（Mussaylima）宣称本身是先知时，接替先知领导穆斯林的阿布巴卡与他开战。瓦赫许再次以刺客的身分作战，当机会到来时，他用杀死哈姆扎的同一把标枪杀死了穆赛利迈。因此，这个故事再次显示先知穆罕默德没有提倡复仇。
马哈迪复仇论与先知言行相悖
敦马的复仇论述与他所给予的理由与先知的一言一行不符。问题就出在这里。敦马通过阅读先知的历史来学习伊斯兰，但他却没有深入了解先知。大多数马来穆斯林都是这样。他们准备好杀人或认为杀害侮辱先知的人是无罪的，而他们自己却不了解先知曾经是怎样的人。他们对先知的了解来自极端思想的传教士以及喜欢炫耀自己比较“伊斯兰化”以捞取支持和选票的政治人物。伊斯兰的问题从来不是关于伊斯兰和先知，而是穆斯林本身的无知和复仇论述。
（以下为作者发表于星洲网英文版的原文内容）
....................................................................................................................................
The Prophet never justified
murder because of history
By Prof Dr. Mohd Tajuddin Mohd Rasdi
Professor Dr. Mohd Tajuddin Mohd Rasdi is Professor at a local university.
Tun M gave his justification with the tribal law of an eye for an eye principle. Many are shocked at his statement but, I was not. As gruesome as the implications of Tun M statement was, I find that the narrative he presented is actually a common narrative in my conversations with both educated and less educated Malay Muslims. For instance, when I try to argue against the murders of innocent victims in IS related killings, many of my friends would not have any pity for the victims but simply say, "these people had done worse to Muslims in the past". Such a narrative is unsurprising among the mainstream Muslims in Malaysia and I assume is common throughout the world of Islam and the minorities living in Western countries. This narrative cuts across age groups, urban or country upbringing or even education levels. Just look at how much pity, if any, shown by religious officials and clerics in Malaysia to the victims. Except for JAKIM head and Wisma Putra office, I have not heard any Malay politician condemning the killing and expressing pity to the victims. I am of the assumption that if a Malay politician expressed pity for the victims, especially the teacher, then that politician will be rejected by the Malays for being too liberal and condoning the act of caricaturing the Prophet.
In this article, I wish to clarify what I know to be the Prophet's values with regard to committing murder just because there were atrocities done in the past. Anas Zubedy had written several times about how the Qur'an deals with people who insult God and His Prophet. The Qur'an merely ask Muslims to leave these people and says nothing about killing or beheading them. I will add three different stories of the Prophet Muhammad during his lifetime as recorded in the Sirah Ibn Hisham.
Traditionists recorded that when the Prophet's message was rejected by the Meccans, he went to a nearby place called Ta-if. There he met the elders and preached the message of Islam to them. Not only did the elders rejected him, they set about the young people to torment him with stones and rocks being pelted and thrown at his person causing him much pain and anguish. One tradition narrated how the Prophet, bleeding in his clothes was praying to Allah when it was said that the Angel Gabriel appeared at the head of a large horde of angels to decimate Ta-if but the Prophet forbade him. Now, if someone were to read this text as a metaphor, it could be that the Prophet felt vengeance in his heart and vowed retribution when the time came. Well, the time came many years later when the Prophet rode at the head of a large army and conquered Mecca and then set about to conquer Ta-if. When the delegation of surrender came to him, the Prophet did them no harm. Thus, the Prophet did not justify the killing of women, children, the elderly and the adults simply because in the past, some of these people had hurt him physically. Where was the eye for an eye principle in this incident as Tun M wrote in his message?
In the second incident, the Prophet conquered Mecca without any fierce battle and entered into its precinct with a Muslim shouting peace for those who take refuge at the Kaaba or the house of Abu Sufyan. Now, Abu Sufyan was the leader of the Meccan tribes and held immense power and wealth. It was he and several other leaders who made the Prophet's life a living hell and conspired to murder him in his sleep. The Prophet had to escape to Medina travelling only with his companion, Abu Bakar. Abu Sufyan also made war on the Prophet at Badr and Uhud. But when the time came and the Prophet was victorious, he spared many people including Abu Sufyan and he never let vengeance overtake him because of a past deed that was done to his person. Again, no eye for an eye vengeance justification.
The third incident I wish to narrate is the story of Wahshi. Wahshi was a hired assassin who can throw a javelin with remarkable accuracy. He was hired by Hind, the wife of Abu Sufyan because her kinfolk and son were killed in the Battle of Badr. When the Meccans launched the Battle of Uhud, Wahshi came to the battle not as a soldier but as an assassin seeking only one victim, Hamza, the dear uncle of the Prophet who defended his person and honor from the Meccans like Abu Sufyan. Wahshi saw Hamza busy fighting and he launched the javelin striking Hamza who fell and died. It was also recorded that Hind came after the battle had ended to seek the body of Hamza, tore his liver or heart and took a bite to quench her vengeance. She also cut off Hamza's nose. When the Prophet found his uncle in that condition he was most saddened by the mutilation. Years later when the Prophet entered Mecca with his army, many of those who wronged him came to ask forgiveness and accept Islam. The Prophet forgave them all. When Wahshi presented himself, the Prophet recognized him and asked how he managed to kill Hamza. When he recounted the story, the Prophet was grim and heavy-hearted and told Wahshi to never come face to face with him again for the sight of him brings much anguish to his soul. Wahshi did as he was told and avoided the Prophet till the Prophet's death. Wahshi vowed that he would atone for his sin of murdering the Prophet's dear uncle by doing a heroic deed. When Mussaylima proclaimed that he was the Prophet, Abu Bakar, who took over the leadership of the Muslims after the Prophet's death, made war with him. Wahshi followed into battle again as an assassin and saw his chance and killed Mussaylima with the same javelin that killed Hamza., Thus, this story once again shows the magnanimity of the Prophet Muhammad in not contemplating vengeance.
Tun Mahathir's vengeance narrative and his justification does not seat well with the Prophet's actions. And there lies the problem. Tun M learns Islam from reading post Prophetic history and never dwell with the person of the Prophet. Most Malay Muslims are like that. They are ready to kill people or justify the killing of innocence who they deem insult the Prophet while they themselves hardly know who the Prophet was. Their knowledge of the Prophet comes only from extremist preachers and politicians who like to show off their 'Islamicness' in order to gain popularity and votes. The problem of Islam has always been never about Islam and the Prophet but the ignorance and vengeful narratives of the Muslims themselves.#
0 comments:
Post a Comment