MGC: ‘Blasphemous’ remarks against Sikh Religion

3
370


Press Statement, ​23 Dec 2016

{“total_effects_actions”:0,”total_draw_time”:0,”layers_used”:0,”effects_tried”:0,”total_draw_actions”:0,”total_editor_actions”:{“border”:0,”frame”:0,”mask”:0,”lensflare”:0,”clipart”:0,”text”:0,”square_fit”:0,”shape_mask”:0,”callout”:0},”effects_applied”:0,”uid”:”579EB522-FA3B-4A83-A3C1-E4D4D7EA66EC_1482505916919″,”width”:700,”photos_added”:0,”total_effects_time”:0,”tools_used”:{“tilt_shift”:0,”resize”:1,”adjust”:0,”curves”:0,”motion”:0,”perspective”:0,”clone”:0,”crop”:1,”enhance”:0,”selection”:0,”free_crop”:0,”flip_rotate”:0,”shape_crop”:0,”stretch”:0},”origin”:”gallery”,”height”:460,”subsource”:”done_button”,”total_editor_time”:28,”brushes_used”:0}

The Malaysian Gurdwaras Council (MGC), which is the umbrella body of the Gurdwaras in Malaysia, is greatly disturbed at the many false facts stated about the Sikh Religion in Ahmad Iqram Mohamad Noor’s book titled “Yahudi, Kristian, Hindu dan Buddha berasal daripada Islam” in chapter 10 of Book. This narrow and biased writing about the Sikh Religion has caused anger among the Sikh community. It appears like the writer and the publisher are averse to the fallout that can be caused by this sensitive issue. The government of Malaysia has repeatedly stressed on the need for unity and harmony amongst the various religions in Malaysia and the actions of the writer of this controversial book is damaging the government’s noble efforts to promote unity and harmony.

In chapter 10 of Ahmad Iqram’s above quoted book, which is titled “ AGAMA SIKH BERASAL DARIPADA ISLAM” (Pages 304 to 314), the writer has stated many wrong facts on every page and given negative interpretation which have touched the sensitivities of the Sikhs regarding their religion.

Amongst the wrong facts stated are the following:-

1. The heading of chapter 10 itself that says “Agama Sikh berasal daripada Islam” (Page. 304) is itself very sensitive and factually and in truth wrong.

2. “Berdasarkan ajaran ini, maka ada golongan yang melihat Kabir sebagai printis kepada ajaran Sikhisme”. (Page. 25)
​ This is false, Kabir is not founder of Sikhism but one of the saints whose writings have ​ been accepted and included in the Holy Sikh Scripture.

3. “Selepas idea Kabir tersebar, maka lahirlah pengasas agama Sikh pada tahun 1469. Beliau bernama Guru Nanak Dev” (Page. 305) .
​ This statement again is incorrect. Guru Nanak is the founder of Sikhism which is ​ authentic, new and revolutionary religion at the time with its own spirituality and its
​ concept of God, Nature, Humanity and Society.

4. “Sementara umat Islam mengatakan Nanak adalah seorang Muslim kerana Nanak percaya pada Syahadah Islam dan sudah melaksanakan rukun Islam yang kelima, iaitu haji”.(Page 308).
​ This is again false. When Guru Nanak was asked by the Hindu and Sufi saints to state ​ whether he is a Hindu or a Muslim, Guru Nanak had declared categorically that he is ​ ​ Neither.

5. The following are the further inaccurate or false statements :

– Beliau (Nanak) berasa perbezaan ini tidak dapat menyatukan antara masyarakat Islam dan Hindu, maka beliau bertindak bagi melakukan sinkretis (percampuran) antara agama Hindu dan juga Islam. Hasil daripada percampuran ajaran kedua-dua agama ini, beliau menamakan agama Sikh (Page. 311).

– Kebanyakan daripada pengikut agama Sikh berasal daripada penganut agama Hindu yang masih mengikuti ajaran dan praktik keagamaan yang lain.(Page.312)

– Konflik-konflik politik antara menganut Sikh dengan penguasa Kerajaan Mughal membuatkan mereka benci kepada Islam dan umat Islam pada umumnya. (Page.312)

– Jelas, terdapat banyak unsur agama Islam yang turut diterapkan dalam agama ini. (Page. 312)

After having reviewed the contents in the book, especially chapter 10, the Malaysian Gurdwaras Council finds that the book contains too many factual errors regarding the history and development of Sikhism. The writer appears not to have done vigorous research on the matter and failed to refer to authoritative Sikh texts. This failure has resulted in the writer stating wrong facts and coming to wrong findings, as the author has done here.

In view of the above, the Malaysian Gurdwaras Council requests the following action be taken immediately :

1. Requests the government to immediately withdraw the book titled “Yahudi, Kristian, Hindu dan Buddha berasal daripada Islam” from circulation.

2. Investigate the writer and the publisher of the book under the Penal Code for blasphemous remarks and under the Publication and Printing Act.

3. That the writer and publisher apologise for their errors as above and give undertaking not to repeat them.

The Malaysian Gurdwaras Council also calls upon the Ministry of Home Affairs to be more vigilant and disallow such books from being published. Where the writer is giving views on other religions, those other religions must be consulted.

The Malaysian Gurdwaras Council remains ever willing and ready to vet books and materials containing write-up on the Sikh religion.

……………………………….
(JAGIR SINGH)
President
Malaysian Gurdwaras Council
1

3 COMMENTS

  1. Source: MalaysiaKini (26 Dec 2016)

    ‘Many errors about Buddhism in Ahmad Iqram’s book’
    Rahula Thor
    26 Dec 2016, AM 10:21 (Updated 26 Dec 2016, AM 10:23)
    buddhism letters

    I refer to the book, ‘Yahudi, Kristian, Hindu dan Buddha berasal daripada Islam?’ by Ahmad Iqram Mohamad Noor, Chapter 7 (Agama Buddha Berasal Daripada Islam). There are too many mistakes. Suffice to mention a few here:

    1. The author alleged that the concept of God is found in Buddhism (p209-214). The concept of God was rejected by the Buddha (eg Brahmajala Sutta, Kevaddha Sutta, Patika Sutta, etc). It has also been consistently rejected throughout Buddhist history.

    2. On p211, the author quote a passage from Udana (8.3) to show that the concept of God is found in the Buddha’s teachings. This passage is also found in Itivuttaka 37. It is worth noting that the Buddha’s own commentary does not point to a metaphysical entity, a first cause or some such thing; rather, we see that the Buddha is referring to a transformational experience, nirvana, the state, the characteristic, of being free from the conditions of hatred, greed, and ignorance.

    3. On Metteyya. The quotation attributed by the author (p215) to Cakavatti Sihanada Sutta is not found in the said sutta or any other suttas.

    4. On p227, we find that the author was academically dishonest to quote Walpola Rahula out of context to suggest that there were intention to distort the Buddha’s teachings. In the Mahaparinibbana Sutta, the Buddha mentioned to Ananda that the monastic order may abolish the minor rules after his passing. Many of these rules are concerned with etiquette of the monastics, rather that morality.

    The council decided against changing the rules, “not because they felt the rules were ultimate truth, but because the people had come to measure the purity of the sangha by how closely monks followed the rules of the Vinaya; changing the rules might have created a crisis of confidence among the laity”. This episode can be found in Cullavagga XI.

    5. On p228, the author seems confused as he provided conflicting reports on the Second Council. To clarify, while the monastic community split during the Second Council, the matter of dispute was a matter of monastic discipline, not doctrinal issue. The Theravada account of the Second Council can be found in Cullavagga XII.

    6. On p229, the author mentioned that Mahayana arose from the conflict on Vinaya (monastic discipline). Mahayana was not in origins, and really never was, a rival sect (Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations by Paul Williams (2008), Routledge, p5).

    The earliest Mahayana texts often uses the term Mahayana as a synonym for Bodhisattvayana. Mahayana existed as a certain set of ideals, and later doctrines, for bodhisattvas – emulating the Buddha in every detail, following his example so precisely that one becomes a Buddha rather than an Arhat. (A Few Good Men: The Bodhisattva Path According to the Inquiry of Ugra (Ugrapariprccha) by Jan Nattier (2005), University of Hawaii Press)

    7. The author alleged that many sects exist during Asoka’s reign, which led him to be concerned that it could affect his rule, therefore he convened the Third Council (p229-230).

    While it is true that the monastics had separated into many lineages, the circumstances which led to the Third Council is not due to this, but the infiltration of non-Buddhists into the monastic community (Sangha) in Buddhist monasteries, due to the generosity of King Asoka towards the Sangha, thus corrupting the Sangha and Buddhism. (Dipavamsa VII, Mahavamsa V)

    8. While some scholars disagree, the Pali Commentaries maintain that the Abhidhamma was recited during the First Council. Regardless, it was certainly not introduced by Asoka as alleged by the author (p230 ). The Abhidhamma appears to be technical classification or elaborations of what is found in the suttas.

    9. The author also mentioned about Katthavathu, a text attributed to Mogaliputta-Tissa. It is interesting to note that the sectarian difference among the various schools are carefully gone through, but theism and content of the suttas are not the issues.

    10. On p231, the author alleged that some of the monks expelled during the Third Council might be those who uphold the true teachings of the Buddha. This is not true. To begin with, those who were expelled weren’t even Buddhists. They were expelled based on the Brahmajala Sutta.

    11. It is not true that Asoka had aligned Buddhism to his whims and fancy. Asoka was beset by guilt – his men had beheaded several Buddhist monks – and was referred to Moggaliputta-Tissa, who was on a solitary retreat in a mountain.

    Asoka had to make three requests before Moggaliputta-Tissa agreed to return to meet Asoka. Moggaliputta-Tissa allayed his guilt, and later, convened the Third Council. It is unlikely that Asoka had any political interest. More likely, he was a genuine Buddhist, trying to set things right.

    12. There is no Mahayana Vinaya as alleged by the author (p233). East Asian Buddhism follows the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, while Tibetan Buddhism follows the Mulasarvastivada Vinaya. Dharmaguptaka and Mulasarvastivada stem from Sthaviravada.

    13. With regards to the preservation of the Buddha’s teachings, he had instructed that monks, “should come together and recite them, setting meaning beside meaning and expression beside expression, without dissension, in order that this holy life may continue and be established for a long time for the profit and happiness of the many out of compassion for the world and for the benefit, profit and happiness of devas and humans.”( Pasadika Sutta, DN 29).

    This is the origin of chanting which we still see today.

    14. With regards to the author’s accusation that the Buddha’s teaching was distorted, we can be confident that the Pali Nikayas is not. An equivalent body of texts exists in Chinese, known as Agamas. The Chinese texts belonged to a different school that was located in a different part of India using a different Prakit than Pali. This particular body of texts then was Sanskritised before it was translated into Chinese.

    Now both the traditions of the Pali Texts and the Chinese equivalent were separated by much distance, and importantly not interacting for over 2000 years, and it is obvious that both these bodies of texts separately under went a lot of handling before they found their final forms.

    But when they are compared the correspondences are nothing short of remarkable, being often identical in the phrasing and wording in the doctrinal issues, and there are no doctrinal discrepancies. Doctrinal discrepancies are found in the secondary and later literature. The point is that the monastics who preserved the word of the Buddha took quite seriously the charge given them by the Buddha.

  2. Falsifying Hinduism & Sikhism Records
    I do not believe in burning books, but Ahmad Iqram Mohamad Noor’s book titled ‘YAHUDI, KRISTIAN, HINDU, DAN BUDDHA BERASAL DARI ISLAM’ published by PTS and ‘KAU SEMBAH APA?’ published by PUTEHPRESS are hurtful books.  It is laced with his personal opinions which cannot be proved factually.  He also does not understand the ‘Sivapuranam’ and the consequence is he narrates the most damning story to demean, damage and disparage Hinduism and Sikhism.  It is people like him, fundamentalist Muslims (how many and how powerful are they?) who bring Muslims in bad light. Hinduism pre-dates Islam.
     
    I suggest that a panel discussion on Ahmad Iqram’s books be organized at an international forum like the Association of Asian Studies (AAS) conference and invite Ahmad Iqram to attend and dialog with participants. After this, it would be in order to sue him and the publishers for slander? 
     

  3. MHS Menggesa Tarik Balik Buku-Buku Kontroversial
    Ranee Narendranath December 20, 2016 0 Comments
    Religion

    HENTIKAN EDARAN BUKU-BUKU OLEH AHMAD IQRAM MOHAMAD NOOR BERJUDUL ‘YAHUDI, KRISTIAN, HINDU, DAN BUDDHA BERASAL DARI ISLAM’ TERBITAN PTS DAN ‘KAU SEMBAH APA?’ TERBITAN PUTEHPRESS.

    Sri Kasi Datuk RS Mohan Shan, Presiden, Malaysia Hindu Sangam (MHS) mengesa Kementerian Dalam Negeri untuk menarik balik dua buah buku oleh Ahmad Iqram Mohamad Noor berjudul ‘Yahudi, Kristian, Hindu, Dan Buddha Berasal Dari Islam’ (ID Produk : 9789674117658 ) terbitan PTS Publishing House Sdn Bhd dan ‘Kau Sembah Apa?’ (ID Produk : 9789673693344) terbitan Putehpress.

    Buku ini khususnya Bahagian 2 Bab 6 bertajuk Agama Hindu Berasal Daripada Islam (m.s. 138 – 199) merakamkan perkara-perkara yang tidak dibuktikan oleh sejarah, atau sejarahnya boleh dipertikaikan, dan bertujuan untuk menyeleweng fakta sebenar dan kesucian agama Hindu.

    Buku ‘Yahudi, Kristian, Hindu, Dan Buddha Berasal Dari Islam’ khususnya Bahagian 2 Bab 6 bertajuk Agama Hindu Berasal Daripada Islam (m.s. 138 – 199) merakamkan perkara-perkara yang tidak dibuktikan oleh sejarah, atau sejarahnya boleh dipertikaikan, dan bertujuan untuk menyeleweng fakta sebenar dan kesucian agama Hindu.

    Agama Hindu bukan suatu agama yang diturunkan oleh Nabi Ibrahim seperti yang didakwa oleh penulis. Agama Hindu merupakan suatu agama tertua di dunia, dan agama Hindu tidak ada seorang pengasas seperti agama lain. Tambahan pula, agama Hindu adalah agama yang sentiasa berkembang, dan menyesuaikan dirinya mengikut kehendak zaman.

    Penulis, seorang bukan Hindu dan tidak ada kefahaman mendalam tentang agama Hindu dan tidak harus membuat sebarang andaian atau kesimpulan bahawa agama Hindu adalah sudah tidak asli dan sudah diselewengkan.

    MHS membantah kenyataan bahawa dakwah dan ajaran Nabi Ibrahim diterima oleh masyarakat Arya dan berlaku penyelewengan apabila dibawa masuk ke India yang terkenal dengan pemujaan dan penyembahan patung dewa yang pelbagai amalan yang dilakukan oleh Masyarakat Dravida.

    Dalam mukasurat 253, 254 dan 255 dalam buku ‘Kau Sembah Apa?’, penulis mempersoalkan tentang kisah dalam Sivapurana, sebuah kitab suci agama Hindu. Penulis juga mempersoalkan kepercayaan kepada teori Karma, kelahiran semula dan menceritakan kegiatan dakwah yang dilakukannya terhadap seorang Hindu bernama Jayabalan.

    MHS menggesa agar satu siasatan dilakukan terhadap si penulis buku ini dan penerbit yang menerbitkan buku-buku yang menyentuh tentang agama Hindu. Perbuatan penulis ini yang tidak bertanggungjawab ini berupaya untuk menimbulkan kemarahan penganut agama Hindu dan juga mengancam ketenteramaan dan perpaduan masyarakat majmuk di negara ini.

    MHS mewakili masyarakat Hindu di Negara ini amat kecewa dengan perbuatan ini yang tidak berkesudahan. Jika agama-agama lain tidak boleh menyentuh buku suci agama Islam dan terdapat lebih 40 perkataan yang dilarang dari disebut atau digunakan oleh orang bukan Islam dan dilarang sama sekali menulis apa-apa juga mengenai agama Islam. Maka apakah hak orang Islam untuk menginterpretasi buku suci agama Hindu atau agama lain dan memutarbelitkan fakta sebenar mengenai agama kami? Bolehkah masyarakat Islam di negara ini menerima sekiranya, penganut agama lain mempersoalkan agama Islam? Persoalan saya mengapa pihak KDN tidak melarang penerbitan buku-buku sebegini.

    Pihak Malaysia Hindu Sangam mengharapkan perhatian serius dan intervensi segera daripada Kementerian Dalam Negeri (KDN) bagi mengatasi masalah penghinaan agama yang berterusan keatas masyarakat Hindu di Malaysia dan memohon penjelasan secara bertulis mengapa perkara ini terus menerus berlaku di negara kita yang pelbagai agama di mana isu ini adalah amat sensitif di kalangan masyarakat negara ini dan apakah tindakan pihak KDN untuk memberhentikan penerbitan dan pengedaran buku-buku ini di kedai-kedai buku di negara kita.

    MHS juga sedang berbincang dengan Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST) untuk mengambil tindakan bersama bagi menggesa penarikan balik buku-buku tersebut.

    Sri Kasi Datuk RS Mohan Shan

    Presiden Kebangsaan

    Malaysia Hindu Sangam

    http://www.malaysiahindusangam.org/2016/12/20/mhs-menggesa-tarik-balik-buku-buku-kontroversial/

LEAVE A REPLY