25th Sept 2008
Kami telah meneliti penjelasan yang diberikan oleh Menteri Dalam Negeri berhubung penahanan Raja Petra Kamaruddin di bawah Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri (ISA) yang kejam lagi tidak berperi-kemanusiaan, dengan penuh rasa hairan lagi takjub. Menurut kenyataan Menteri Dalam Negeri, Raja Petra ditahan kerana menulis artikel yang menghina Islam. Yang menjadi persoalan pada setiap mereka yang berfikir, adakah Islam sendiri mengizinkan sebarang bentuk penahanan tanpa perbicaraan demi untuk memelihara kesuciannya daripada dihina oleh manusia yang seperti Raja Petra.
Kami ingin menekankan pernyataan bahawa terdapat bukti-bukti yang cukup jelas di dalam al-Qur’an yang menjamin kebebasan berfikir (hurriyat ar-ra’iy) yang secara umumnya merupakan sebahagian daripada kebebasan bersuara (hurriyat al-qaul). Setiap manusia bebas untuk menerima atau menolak sebarang bentuk kepercayaan atau dogma berdasarkan apa yang diyakininya, dan tidak ada sebarang bentuk tekanan luaran ataupun paksaan yang sepatutnya diizinkan. Doktrin asas yang utama di dalam al_Qur’an adalah: “Tidak ada sebarang paksaan di dalam urusan kepercayaan (beragama)” [2:256]
Setiap manusia mempunyai hak yang dijamin oleh al-Qur’an untuk menuruti dan menyuarakan kepercayaannya, samada kepercayaannya itu benar ataupun salah. Dengan menekankan hak manusiawi untuk bebas menuruti keyakinan yang ada di dalam hatinya, al-Qur’an sekaligus menjelaskan dasarnya yang sejak sebermula, yang dapat dijejaki dari zaman salah seorang Rasul yang paling awal iaitu Nuh a.s. “Berkata [Nuh]: Wahai kaumku! Apa pendapatmu, sekiranya benar aku berdiri di atas bukti yang nyata daripada Tuhanku, serta Dia mengurniakan rahmat kepadaku daripada sisiNya, kemudian bukti yang nyata dan rahmat itu menjadi kabur pada pandanganmu, sekiranya benar sedemikian itu, apakah mungkin kami memaksakan ia ke atasmu, sedangkan kamu tidak suka kepadanya?” [11:28]
Perutusan risalah dan mesej tentang kebebasan dalam beragama dan menganuti kepercayaan, serta seruan ke arah toleransi beragama diulang dan dijelaskan berkali-kali menerusi berbagai Rasul yang telah di utus kepada manusia sejagat, dan dapat dilihat dengan jelas di dalam perutusan Nabi Syu’ayb kepada kaumnya: “Dan sekiranya ada diantara kalian yang beriman dengan wahyu yang aku diutuskan untuk menyampaikannya, manakala segolongan pula tidak beriman, maka bersabarlah sehingga Allah menetapkan hukumNya diantara kita semua. Dialah juga sebaik-baik hakim!” [7:87]
Bukan sahaja al-Qur’an mengiktiraf hak seseorang di dalam kebebasan memilih kepercayaan, tetapi ia juga mengiktiraf hak kebebasan moral untuk beramal berdasarkan apa yang diyakini oleh mereka. “Katakanlah: Wahai kaumku (yang menentang kebenaran), Buatlah sedaya upaya kamu untuk menentang apa yang aku utuskan kepadamu, sesungguhnya aku juga tetap berusaha dengan bersungguh-sungguh (untuk mengembangkannya). Kelak kamu akan mengetahui siapakah yang akan didatangi azab yang menghinakannya, serta akan ditimpakan kepadanya azab yang berkekalan (di dalam kehidupan di akhirat nanti)!” [39:39-40]
Sesungguhnya tidak ada sesiapapun yang akan dapat mencari di dalam al-Qur’an ini sebarang keterangan yang dapat menjadi bukti sokongan untuk memenjarakan ataupun mengurung seseorang yang memilih untuk menuruti suara hati mereka sendiri, walaupun keyakinan tersebut bercanggah dengan idea kebanyakan orang ramai, hatta sehingga ke tahap yang boleh di anggap sebagai “menyeleweng”. Menggunakan Islam sebagai “alat” untuk mengizinkan penahanan tanpa bicara merupakan sesuatu yang bertentangan dengan prinsip-prinsip asas perundangan Islam yang bersandarkan “adl” (keadilan) dan “ihsan” (belas kasihan). Tindakan bacul dengan menggunakan ISA setiap kali adanya pandangan yang berbeza yang menentang kerajaan yang zalim serta ulamanya yang mementingkan kuasa bukanlah merupakan petanda yang baik bagi masa depan Malaysia yang bebas merdeka lagi demokratik. Tindakan sedemikian membuatkan kita terfikir apakah dari segi realitinya ia bertujuan semata-mata untuk mengekalkan kuasa hegemoni pihak pemerintah; dan kita sebenarnya tanpa disedari sedang menuju ke arah pembentukan sebuah “negara polis”.
Sekiranya kita meninjau kembali sejarah silam, faktor utama dunia Islam berkembang dengan pesatnya di zaman dahulu adalah kerana sifatnya yang tegas membela “kebebasan bersuara”, sepertimana yang dibuktikan oleh al-Hasyimi (sepupu kepada Khalifah al-Ma’mun) di dalam suratnya kepada musuhnya dalam usaha beliau untuk memenangi perubahan hati musuhnya itu melalui kebijaksanaan akal.
“Kemukakanlah apa sahaja alasan yang ingin kamu ketengahkan, dan ucapkanlah apa saja yang kamu mahu, serta suarakan apa yang ada di dalam fikiranmu. Sekarang ini kamu berada di dalam keadaan selamat sejahtera, maka suarakanlah apa saja yang kamu fikirkan, dan lantiklah hakim yang akan menghakimi diantara kita dengan adil, dan cenderunglah kamu kepada kebenaran, dan bebaskanlah diri kamu daripada runtunan nafsu. Sesungguhnya hakim yang sebenar adalah kebijaksanaan akalmu, yang mana dengannya Allah mempertanggungjawabkan kita di atas segala pilihan kita dalam perlakuan, samada balasan syurga ataupun siksaan neraka. Dengan itu aku telah berlaku adil kepadamu, dan memberikan kamu jaminan keselamatan, dan aku bersedia untuk menerima apa saja yang diputuskan oleh akal fikiranmu, samada ia cenderung kepadaku ataupun menyanggahiku. Kerana sesungguhnya: “Tidak ada sebarang paksaan dalam urusan kepercayaan (beragama)” [2:256] Dan aku mengajakmu untuk menerima hujjahku dengan hati yang terbuka, sepertimana aku juga telah menerangkan akan kesilapan peganganmu itu. Selamat sejahtera ke atasmu dan semoga kamu dirahmati Allah!”
Kami, daripada Muslim Professionals Forum yakin dan percaya bahawa yang sedemikian itulah sepatutnya jalan yang diambil oleh pihak kerajaan di dalam menangani isu yang seperti Raja Petra ini. Dengan memilih ruang perdebatan secara intelektual, apa saja perbedaan di dalam pendapat mahupun penafsiran akan dapat diperjelaskan. Kami dengan ini menyeru kepada Perdana Menteri Malaysia untuk membebaskan Raja Petra tanpa sebarang syarat, demikian juga kesemua tahanan ISA yang sedia ada. Kami juga menyeru kepada Perdana Menteri agar menghapuskan akta yang zalim ini yang jelas menyanggahi hak-hak asasi manusia seperti yang termaktub di dalam al-Qur’an sejak azali lagi.
Dr Farouk Musa
Dr Sheik Johari Bux
Dr Jeffrey Hassan
Dr Musa Nordin
Dr Mazeni Alwi
Muslim Professionals Forum [MPF]
25th Sept 2008
We read the statement issued by the Home Minister concerning the detention of Raja Petra Kamaruddin under the dreaded and inhumane Internal Security Act (ISA) with skepticism. According to the Home Minister, Raja Petra was detained because his articles ridiculed Islam. One is now left to wonder whether Islam itself allows such detention without trial in order to protect its sanctity from being ridiculed by people, the likes of Raja Petra.
We would like to stress the fact that there is ample evidence in the Qur’an which guarantees freedom of expression (hurriyat ar-ra’iy) that is generally accepted as a subset of freedom of speech (hurriyat al-qaul). Individuals should be able to accept or reject a particular faith or dogma on the basis of personal conviction, and that no amount of external pressure or compulsion should be permitted. The cardinal Qur’anic doctrine is that: “There shall be no coercion in matters of faith” [2:256]
Every single person has the right, guaranteed by the Qur’an, to freely follow and express his convictions, irrespective of whether he is right or wrong. By emphasizing people’s right to follow their conviction, the Qur’an reiterates a long standing position, which it traces back to one of the earliest known Prophets, Noah: “Said [Noah]: O my people! What do you think? If [it be true that] I am taking my stand on a clear evidence from my Sustainer, who has vouched safe unto me grace from himself – [a revelation] to which you have remained blind-: [if this be true] can we force it on you even though it be hateful to you? [11:28]
The message of freedom of belief and conviction, and the call to religious tolerance is reiterated time and again through various Prophets, as it is quite apparent in the message of Prophet Shu’ayb to his people: “And if there be some among you who have come to believe in the message which I bear, while the others do not believe, then have patience in adversity till God shall judge between us [and them]: for He is the best of all judges!” [7:87]
Not only does the Qur’an recognize the individual’s right to freedom of conviction, but it also recognizes his/her moral freedom to act on the basis of their conviction: “Say: O my [truth-denying] people! Do ye all that may be within your power, [whereas] I, behold, shall labour [in God’s way]: in time you will come to know who it is that shall be visited [in this world] by suffering which will cover him with ignominy, and upon whom long-lasting suffering shall alight [in the life to come]!” [39: 39-40].
Indeed, one cannot find in the Qur’an any support for the internment or incarceration for those who opted to follow their conscience, even though their convictions might be contrary to the mainstream idea, or even up to the level of “heretical” in nature. Using Islam as a “tool” to justify detention without trial is anathema to the basic principles of “adl” (just) and “ihsan” (benevolence) that formed the foundation of Islamic jurisprudence. Such cowardly act of invoking ISA every time when there were dissenting views against the authoritarian government and their despotic ulama’ will not augur well for the future of free and democratic Malaysia. One is then left to speculate whether such actions were in reality meant to maintain the political hegemony of the ruling elite and that we are actually gravitating towards the creation of a police state instead.
If one were to look back into history, the reason the Islamic world flourished during the earlier period was an early emphasis on “freedom of speech”, as summarized by al-Hasyimi (a cousin of Caliph al-Ma’mun) in the following letter to one of the religious opponents he was attempting to convert through reason:
“Bring forward all the arguments you wish and say whatever you please and speak your mind freely. Now that you are safe and free to say whatever you please, appoint some arbitrator who will impartially judge between us and lean only towards the truth and be free from the slyness of passion and that arbitrator shall be Reason, whereby God makes us responsible for our own rewards and punishments. Herein I have dealt justly with you and have given you full security and am ready to accept whatever decision Reason may give for me or against me. For “There shall be no coercion in matters of faith” [2: 256] and I have only invited you to accept our faith willingly and of your own accord and have pointed out the hideousness of your present belief. Peace be with you and the blessings of God!”
We, from Muslim Professionals Forum, believe that this is the recourse that should be taken by the government in handling issues pertaining to Raja Petra in particular. By resorting to intellectual discourse, any differences in opinions or interpretations could be ironed out in a civilized manner. We therefore call upon the Prime Minister of Malaysia, to release Raja Petra unconditionally, and all the other ISA detainees for that matter. We also call upon the Prime Minister to abolish this draconian Act that clearly violates the basic human rights that were enshrined in the Qur’an ever since.
Dr Farouk Musa
Dr Sheik Johari Bux
Dr Jeffrey Hassan
Dr Musa Nordin
Dr Mazeni Alwi
Muslim Professionals Forum [MPF]
Ya teruskan perjuangan Datuk Seri!
Reply
arra Reply:
October 15th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
alert(“Hello”)
Reply
selagi ‘be end’ memerintah, maka selagi itulah ISA tetap wujud & dipraktikkan pemerintah.
sama-sama kita terus mendoakan kejayaan Pakatan Rakyat membentuk kerajaan.
***kearah malaysiaku yang bermaruah***
Reply
boleh tanya…
live dari hong kong hari itu ade siaran ulangan tak?
sebab i miss live hari itu!
Reply
Di mana peranan Mufti2 dan mengapa Mufti2 amat takut bercakap kecuali Mufti Dr Asri.
Sebabnya amat mudah iaitu Mufti2 di bayar gaji oleh Kerajaan.
Mereka di beri sa buah kereta dan drebar, rumah untuk tinggal.
Jikalau mereka membuat kenyataan menentang Kerajaan , seperti mana berlaku
pada al Marhum Mufti Ishak baharom terus di pecat.
Jadi masyarakat Muslim harus membayar gaji Mufti dari kutipan Zakat.
Kutipan Zakat adalah urusan UTAMA Amir/Khalifah [iaitu Sultan2].
Kita bayar dengan Wang Syariah iaitu Emas Dinar dan Perak Dirham
semoga teguran Mufti di dengar oleh Pemerintah.
Lain kali periksa betul “ijazah2″ Mufti adakah mereka ini mendapat “ijazah2 bertulis ” dari Ulama2 yang betul dalam bidang yang perlu.
Reply
The problem with the government is , they don’t care and will not listen. Openly a minister had resigned, disagreed with action taken by government. What is the reaction, just brushed aside and play stupid. Disgusting.
Reply
ASSALAMUALAIKUM,
KENYATAAN MPF AMAT JELAS BOLIH MERUNGKAI SEGALA PERMASAALAHAN YANG TIMBUL SEKARANG INI. SEBAGAI SEBUAH KERAJAAN YANG MENGANGGAP ADIL SAKSAMA, PERLU MENELITI DENGAN TELITI POINT-POINT PENTING. JANGAN LAH PENDAPAT SEBEGINI DIANGGAP TIDAK RELEVEN DIKALANGAN ULAMAK-ULAMAK TERSOHOR DALAM PENTADBIRAN KERAJAAN PINPINAN PAK LAH NAJIB.AMAT PENTING DINILAI, JANGAN LAH KERANA MENJAGA PERIOK NASI SENDIRI, SEMUA YANG DINYATAKAN ITU TIDAK BOLIH DITERIMA LANGSONG. SYABAS! MPF BERANI MENYATAKAN YANG BENAR.
Reply
Syabas, saya ucapkan kepada sahabat-sahabat Dr Farouk Musa, Dr Sheik Johari Bux, Dr Jeffrey Hassan, Dr Musa Nordin dan Dr Mazeni Alwi yang sudi memberi pendapat mereka yang munasabah dan adil. Dengan ini kita dapat mengukuhkan lagi harapan kita supaya rakan-rakan dan pejuang-pejuang demokrasi kita itu dapat keadilan sewajarnya.
Reply
TEGURAN DAN KRITIKAN ADALAH UBAT UNTUK MAJU DAN BERJAYA.
KITA MAMPU MENULIS DAN MENGIRA KERANA TEGURAN DARIPADA GURU !
KEJAYAAN DALAM KERJAYA JUGA KERANA TEGURAN DAN KRITIKAN.
SIKAP MENOLAK TEGURAN DAN KRITIKAN OLEH BN AMAT MENGECEWAKAN.
LEBIH MALANG, KRITIKAN DITOLAK DENGAN HUKUMAN.
SATU KESILAPAN JIKA BN MENGANGGAP IA ‘TERLALU SEMPURNA’ & KRITIKAN TIDAK DIPERLUKAN !
ORGANISASI YANG SIHAT ‘MEMBAYAR’ KHIDMAT KAUNSELOR UNTUK TEGURAN DAN KRITIKAN !
TETAPI BN MUNDUR KE BELAKANG DENGAN MENGHUKUM PENGKRITIK DAN PEMBERI NASIHAT.
SUNGGUH MALANG. SUNGGUH MEMALUKAN ! SUNGGUH MERUGIKAN !
BN SUDAH ‘BUTA NILAI’ !
SUDAH TIDAK KENAL MANA BAIK DAN MANA YANG MUDHARAT !
JIKA SAYA SEORANG GURU..KEPUTUSAN BN IALAH “GAGAL” !
MAKA, ORANG GAGAL TIDAK LAYAK MEMIMPIN ORANG LAIN UNTUK BERJAYA !
Reply
kalau RPK boleh ditangkap dibawah ISA…kenapa pula NABI MELAYU…si KAHAR dan AYAH PIN tidak diletakkan bawah kuasa ISA…kerana merekan berdua ini adalah lebih jelas dan TERBUKTI terang terang mempersendakan ISLAM…kenapa pula KAHAR boleh dibicarakan….mungkin sebab..KAHAR ini hanya daripada kalangan orang biada yang tak tau mak buat BLOG..tulis itu..tulis ini..korek sana korek sini…jadi mnteri buat tak kisah aje…kenapa tak guna kuasa dan tanda tangan dia..untuk masukkan KAHAR kedalam kem tahanan ISA…kenapa MALAYSIA sekarang ini ada undang undang yang pilih kasih dan pilih bulu…
Reply
Adakah apa-apa agama yg menyokong tatasusila ISA.(tangkap tanpa perbicaraan)Kita mungkin perlu ke masjid-masjid,kuil-kuil,gereja-gereja utk mendapatkan kesahihan pendirian agama.(mungkin ada juga agama yg tidak diketahui kita, yg menyokong ISA)Semua agama di Malaysia agar mewakili setiap bangsa .Oleh demikian,kita bolih mendapatkan pandangan dari agama-agama.
Reply
MY DEAR BROTHERS AND SISTERS OF MALAYSIA, PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE ABOUT THE BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS IN ISLAM!
PLEASE FREE RPK AND OTHER ISA DETAINEES!
CHAPTER TWO
BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS
The first thing that we find in Islam in this connection is that it
lays down some rights for man as a human being. In other words it
means that every man whether he belongs to this country or that,
whether he is a believer or unbeliever, whether he lives in some forest
or is found in some desert, whatever be the case, he has some basic
human rights simply because he is a human being, which should be
recognized by every Muslim. In fact it will be his duty to fulfil these
obligations.
1. The Right to Life
The first and the foremost basic right is the right to live and
respect human life. The Holy Quran lays down:
Whosoever kills a human being without (any reason like) man
slaughter, or corruption on earth, it is as though he had killed
all mankind … (5:32)
As far as the question of taking life in retaliation for murder or the
question of punishment for spreading corruption on this earth is con-
cerned, it can be decided only by a proper and competent court of
law. If there is any war with any nation or country, it can be decided
only by a properly established government. In any case, no human
being has any right by himself to take human life in retaliation or for
causing mischief on this earth. Therefore it is incumbent on every
human being that under no circumstances should he be guilty of
taking a human life. If anyone has murdered a human being, it is as if
he has slain the entire human race. These instructions have been
repeated in the Holy Quran in another place saying:
Do not kill a soul which Allah has made sacred except through the due
process of law … (6:151)
Here also homicide has been distinguished from destruction of
life carried out in pursuit of justice. Only a proper and competent
court will be able to decide whether or not an individual has forfeited
his right to life by disregarding the right to life and peace of other
human beings. The Prophet, may God’s blessings be on him, has
declared homicide as the greatest sin only next to polytheism. The
Tradition of the Prophet reads: “The greatest sins are to associate
something with God and to kill human beings.” In all these verses of
the Quran and the Traditions of the Prophet the word ‘soul’ (nafs) has
been used in general terms without any distinction or particularization
which might have lent itself to the elucidation that the persons belong-
ing to one’s nation, the citizens of one’s country, the people of a
particular race or religion should not be killed. The injunction applies
to all human beings and the destruction of human life in itself has
been prohibited.
‘The Right to Life’ has been given to man only by Islam. You
will observe that the people who talk about human rights if they have
ever mentioned them in their Constitutions or Declarations, then it is
clearly implied in them that these rights are applicable only to their
citizens or they have been framed for the white race alone. This can
clearly be gleaned by the fact that human beings were hunted down
like animals in Australia and the land was cleared of the aborigines for
the white man. Similarly the aboriginal population of America was
systematically destroyed and the Red Indians who somehow survived
this genocide were confined to specified areas called Reservations.
They also penetrated into Africa and hunted down human beings like
wild animals. All these instances go to prove that they have no respect
for human life as such and if they have, it is only on the basis of their
nationality, colour or race. Contrary to this, Islam recognizes this right
for all human beings. If a man belongs to a primitive or savage tribe,
even then Islam regards him as a human being.
2. The Right to the Safety of Life
Immediately after the verse of the Holy Quran which has been
mentioned in connection with the right to life, God has said: “And
whoever saves a life it is as though he had saved the lives of all
mankind” (5:32). There can be several forms of saving man from
death. A man may be ill or wounded, irrespective of his nationality,
race or colour. If you know that he is in need of your help, then it
is your duty that you should arrange for his treatment for disease or
wound. If he is dying of starvation, then it is your duty to feed him so
that he can ward off death. If he is drowning or his life is at stake,
then it is your duty to save him. You will be surprised to hear that the
Talmud, the religious book of the Jews, contains a verse of similar
nature, but records it in altogether different form. It says: “Whoever
destroyed a life of the Israelite, in the eyes of the Scripture, it is as
if
he destroyed the whole world. And whoever protected and saved one
life of the Israelite, in the light of the Scripture, it is as if he saved
the
whole world.” Talmud also contains the view that if a non-Israelite is
drowning and you tried to save him then you are a sinner. Can it be
given a name other than racialism? We regard it as our duty to save
every human life, because it is thus that we have been enjoined in the
Holy Quran. On the other hand, if they regard it necessary to save
the life of a human being at all, it should be the life of an Israelite. As
far as other people are concerned, according to this view, they do not
seem to be human enough to deserve protection of their persons. In
their literature the concept of ‘Goyim’ for which the English word
‘Gentile’ and the Arabic word ummi (illiterate) is used, is that they
enjoy no human rights; human rights are reserved only for the children
of Israel. The Quran has mentioned this belief of the Israelites and
quotes the Jews saying: “There is no blame on us (for anything we
may do) with regard to the unlettered folk (i.e. the ummi)” (3:75).
3. Respect for the Chastity of Women
The third important thing that we find in the Charter of Human
Rights granted by Islam is that a woman’s chastity has to be respected
and protected under all circumstances, whether she belongs to our
own nation or to the nation of an enemy, whether we find her in the
wild forest or in a conquered city; whether she is our co-religionist or
belongs to some other religion or has no religion at all. A Muslim
cannot outrage her under any circumstances. All promiscuous relation-
ship has been forbidden to him, irrespective of the status or position
of the woman, whether the woman is a willing or an unwilling partner
to the act. The words of the Holy Quran in this respect are: “Do not
approach (the bounds of) adultery” (17:32). Heavy punishment has
been prescribed for this crime, and the order has not been qualified by
any conditions. Since the violation of chastity of a woman is
forbidden in Islam, a Muslim who perpetrates this crime cannot escape
punishment whether he receives it in this world or in the Hereafter.
This concept of sanctity of chastity and protection of women can be
found nowhere else except in Islam. The armies of the Western powers
need the daughters of their nation to satisfy their carnal appetites even
in their own countries, and if they happen to occupy another country,
the fate of its women folk can better be imagined than described. But
the history of the Muslims, apart from a few lapses of the individuals
here or there, has been free from this crime against womanhood. It has
never happened that after the conquest of a foreign country the
Muslim army has gone about raping the women of the conquered
people, or in their own country, the government has arranged to
provide prostitutes1for them. This is also a great blessing which the
human race has received through Islam.2
4. The Right to a Basic Standard of Life
Speaking about the economic rights the Holy Quran enjoins upon
its followers:
And in their wealth there is acknowledged right for the needy and
destitute. (51:19)
The words of this injunction show that it is a categorical and un-
qualified order. Furthermore this injunction was given in Makkah
where there was no Muslim society in existence and where generally
the Muslims had to come in contact with the population of the
disbelievers. Therefore the clear meaning of this verse is that anyone
who asks for help and anyone who is suffering from deprivation has a
right in the property and wealth of the Muslims; irrespective of the
fact whether he belongs to this nation or to that nation, to this
country or to that country, to this race or to that race. If you are in
a position to help and a needy person asks you for help or if you come
to know that he is in need, then it is your duty to help him. God has
established his right over you, which you have to honour as a Muslim.
5. Individual’s Right to Freedom
Islam has clearly and categorically forbidden the primitive
practice of capturing a free man, to make him a slave or to sell him
into slavery. On this point the clear and unequivocal words of the
Prophet (S) are as follows: “There are three categories of people
against whom I shall myself be a plaintiff on the Day of Judgement.
Of these three, one is he who enslaves a free man, then sells him and
eats this money” (al-Bukhari and Ibn Majjah). The words of this
Tradition of the Prophet are also general, they have not been qualified
or made applicable to a particular nation, race, country or followers
of a particular religion. The Europeans take great pride in claiming
that they abolished slavery from the world, though they had the
decency to do so only in the middle of the last century. Before this,
these Western powers had been raiding Africa on a very large scale,
capturing their free men, putting them in bondage and transporting
them to their new colonies. The treatment which they have meted
out to these unfortunate people has been worse than the treatment
given to animals. The books written by the Western people themselves
bear testimony to this fact.
The Slave Trade of Western Nations:
After the occupation of America and the West Indies, for three
hundred and fifty years, traffic in slave trade continued. The African
coasts where the black-skinned captured Africans were brought from
the interior of Africa and put on the ships sailing out from those
ports, came to be known as the Slave Coast. During only one century
(from 1680 to 1786) the total number of free people who were
captured and enslaved only for British Colonies amounts, according to
the estimate of British authors, to 20 million human beings. Over the
period of only one year (1790) we are told that 75,000 human beings
were captured and sent for slave labour in the Colonies. The ships
which were used for transporting the slaves were small and dirty.
These unfortunate Africans were thrust into the holds of these ships
like cattle right up to the top and many of them were chained to the
wooden shelves on which they could hardly move because these were
only eighteen inches apart, kept one on top of the other. They were
not provided with suitable food, and if they fell ill or were injured, no
attempt was made to provide them with medical treatment. The
Western writers themselves state that at least 20% of the total number
of people who were captured for slavery and forced labour perished
during their transportation from the African coast to America. It has
also been estimated that the total number of people who were
captured for slavery by the various European nations during the
heyday of the slave trade comes to at least one hundred million. This
is the record of the people who denounce Muslims day and night for
recognizing the institution of slavery. It is as if a criminal is holding
his finger of blame towards an innocent man.
The Position of Slavery in Islam:
Briefly I would like to tell you about the position and nature
of slavery in Islam. Islam tried to solve the problem of the slaves that
were in Arabia by encouraging the people in different ways to set
their slaves free. The Muslims were ordered that in expiation of some
of their sins they should set their slaves free. Freeing a slave by one’s
own free will was declared to be an act of great merit, so much so that
it was said that every limb of the man who manumits a slave will be
protected from hell-fire in lieu of the limb of the slave freed by him.
The result of this policy was that by the time the period of the
Rightly-Guided Caliphs was reached, all the old slaves of Arabia were
liberated. The Prophet alone liberated as many as 63 slaves. The
number of slaves freed by ‘Aishah was 67, ‘Abbas liberated 70, ‘Abd
Allah ibn ‘Umar liberated one thousand, and ‘Abd al-Rahman
purchased thirty thousand and set them free. Similarly other
Companions of the Prophet liberated a large number of slaves, the
details of which are given in the Traditions and books of history of
that period.
Thus the problem of the slaves of Arabia was solved in a short
period of thirty or forty years. After this the only form of slavery
which was left in Islamic society was the prisoners of war, who were
captured on the battlefield. These prisoners of war were retained by
the Muslim Government until their government agreed to receive
them back in exchange for Muslim soldiers captured by them, or
arranged the payment of ransom on their behalf. If the soldiers they
captured were not exchanged with Muslim prisoners of war, or their
people did not pay their ransom money to purchase their liberty, then
the Muslim Government used to distribute them among the soldiers of
the army which had captured them. This was a more humane and
proper way of disposing of them than retaining them like cattle in
concentration camps and taking forced labour from them and, if their
women folk were also captured, setting them aside for prostitution.
In place of such a cruel and outrageous way of disposing of the
prisoners of war, Islam preferred to spread them in the population and
thus brought them in contact with individual human beings. Over and
above, their guardians were ordered to treat them well. The result of
this humane policy was that most of the men who were captured on
foreign battlefields and brought to the Muslim countries as slaves
embraced Islam and their descendants produced great scholars, imams,
jurists, commentators, statesmen and generals of the army. So much
so that later on they became the rulers of the Muslim world. The
solution of this problem which has been proposed in the present age is
that after the cessation of hostilities the prisoners of war of the
combatant countries should be exchanged. Whereas Muslims have been
practising it from the very beginning and whenever the adversary
accepted the exchange of prisoners of war from both sides, it was
implemented without the least hesitation or delay. In modern warfare
we also find that if one government is completely routed leaving her in
no position of bargaining for the prisoners of war and the winning
party gets its prisoners easily, then experience has shown that the
prisoners of war of the vanquished army are kept in conditions which
are much worse than the conditions of slaves. Can anyone tell us what
has been the fate of the thousands of prisoners of war captured by
Russia from the defeated armies of Germany and Japan in the Second
World War? No one has given their account so far. No one knows how
many thousands of them are still alive and how many thousands of
them have perished due to the hardship of the Russian concentration
and labour camps. The forced labour which has been taken from them
is much worse than the service one can exact from slaves. Even perhaps
in the times of ancient Pharaohs of Egypt such harsh labour might not
have been exacted from the slaves in building the pyramids of Egypt, as
has been exacted from the prisoners of war in Russia in developing
Siberia and other backward areas of Russia, or working in coal and
other mines in below zero temperatures, ill-clad, ill-fed and brutally
treated by their supervisors.
6. The Right to Justice
This is a very important and valuable right which Islam has given
to man as a human being. The Holy Quran has laid down: “Do not let
your hatred of a people incite you to aggression” (5:2). “And do not
let ill-will towards any folk incite you so that you swerve from dealing
justly. Be just; that is nearest to heedfulness” (5:8). Stressing this
point
the Quran again says: “You who believe stand steadfast before God as
witness for (truth and) fairplay” (4:135). This makes the point clear
that Muslims have to be just not only with ordinary human beings but
even with their enemies. In other words, the justice to which Islam
invites her followers is not limited only to the citizens of their own
country, or the people of their own tribe, nation or race, or the
Muslim community as a whole, but it is meant for all the human beings
of the world. Muslims therefore, cannot be unjust to anyone. Their
permanent habit and character should be such that no man should ever
fear injustice at their hands, and they should treat every human being
everywhere with justice and fairness.
7. Equality of Human Beings
Islam not only recognizes absolute equality between men
irrespective of any distinction of colour, race or nationality, but makes
it an important and significant principle, a reality. The Almighty God
has laid down in the Holy Quran: “O mankind, we have created you
from a male and female.” In other words all human beings are brothers
to one another. They all are the descendants from one father and one
mother. “And we set you up as nations and tribes so that you may be
able to recognize each other” (49:13). This means that the division of
human beings into nations, races, groups and tribes is for the sake of
distinction, so that people of one race or tribe may meet and be
acquainted with the people belonging to another race or tribe and
cooperate with one another. This division of the human race is neither
meant for one nation to take pride in its superiority over others nor is it
meant for one nation to treat another with contempt or disgrace, or
regard them as a mean and degraded race and usurp their rights.
“Indeed, the noblest among you before God are the most heedful of
you” (49:13). In other words the superiority of one man over another
is only on the basis of God-consciousness, purity of character and high
morals, and not on the basis of colour, race, language or nationality,
and even this superiority based on piety and pure conduct does not
justify that such people should play lord or assume airs of superiority
over other human beings. Assuming airs of superiority is in itself a
reprehensible vice which no God-fearing and pious man can ever dream
of perpetrating. Nor does the righteous have more privileged rights over
others, because this runs counter to human equality, which has been
laid down in the beginning of this verse as a general principle. From the
moral point of view, goodness and virtue is in all cases better than vice
and evil.
This has been exemplified by the Prophet in one of his sayings thus:
“No Arab has any superiority over a non-Arab, nor does a non-Arab
have any superiority over an Arab. Nor does a white man have any
superiority over a black man, or the black man any superiority over the
white man. You are all the children of Adam, and Adam was created
from clay” (al-Bayhaqi and al-Bazzaz). In this manner Islam established
equality for the entire human race and struck at the very root of all
distinctions based on colour, race, language or nationality. According to
Islam,God has given man this right of equality as a birthright. Therefore
no man should be discriminated against on the ground of the colour of
his skin, his place of birth, the race or the nation in which he was born.
Malcolm X, the famous leader of African Negroes in America, who had
launched a bitter struggle against the white people of America in order
to win civil rights for his black compatriots, when he went to perform
the pilgrimage, and saw how the Muslims of Asia, Africa, Europe,
America and those of different races, languages and colours of skin,
were wearing one dress and were hurrying towards God’s House-the
Ka’bah and offering prayers standing in one row and there was no
distinction of any kind between them, then he realized that this was the
solution to the problem of colour and race, and not what he had been
trying to seek or achieve in America so far. Today, a number of non-
Muslim thinkers, who are free from blind prejudice, openly admit that
no other religion or way of life has solved this problem with the same
degree of success with which Islam has done so.
8. The Right to Co-operate and Not to Co-operate
Islam has prescribed a general principle of paramount importance
and universal application saying: “Co-operate with one another for
virtue and heedfulness and do not co-operate with one another for the
purpose of vice and aggression” (5:2). This means that the man who
undertakes a noble and righteous work, irrespective of the fact whether
he is living at the North Pole or the South Pole, has the right to expect
support and active co-operation from the Muslims. On the contrary he
who perpetrates deeds of vice and aggression, even if he is our closest
relation or neighbour, does not have the right to win our support and
help in the name of race, country, language or nationality, nor should
he have the expectation that Muslims will co-operate with him or
support him. Nor is it permissible for Muslims to co-operate with him.
The wicked and vicious person may be our own brother, but he is not
of us, and he can have no help or support from us as long as he does not
repent and reform his ways. On the other hand the man who is doing
deeds of virtue and righteousness may have no kinship with Muslims,
but Muslims will be his companions and supporters or at least his well-
wishers.
Reference:
HUMAN RIGHTS IN ISLAM
by ‘Allamah Abu al-’A'la Mawdudi
al Tawhid Journal, vol. IV No. 3 Rajab-Ramadhan 1407
Reply
Shobhan Reply:
September 29th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Great piece of info. Thanks for the immense propagation of knowledge. This a must read for all. This is the very same philosophy that our great soul or Maha Atma was propagating and this great person is now behind bars. I hope that BOTAK TAK OTAK, SHA, has read or is reading this.FREE RPK AND ALL OTHERS NOW!!!!
Reply
Penahanan RPK ni menunjukkan BN amat takut dengan bayang-bayang sendiri, apa cerita BN ni, ISA pun dah jadi bahan mainan. Tu yang BN jadi bahan lawak kat Malaysia ni.
RPK mungkin ada bukti-bukti tentang penyalahgunaan kusa sesetengah pemimpin di negara ini. Yang peliknya, bila ada bukti , beliau pula kena cekup ntah hapa-hapa.
sekarang ni tuan-tuan dan puan-puan, kalau kita buat report kat polis, dan perkara yang kita report tu ada kaitan dengan somebody, kita yang kena tangkap. Polis malaysia ni ntah hapa-hapa. baik lagi polis angkasa gaban.
Reply
saya amat tertarik dengan pertikaian yang dibuat oleh DSA tentang ISA dan sebagainya, ISA sebenarnya masih relevan untuk sesetengah perkara, tetapi untuk dijadikan ianya telus dan lebih adil, saya rasa keputusan untuk mengambil keputusan dan tindakan hendaklah dibuat dengan undian di parlimen, seperti mana kita tahu, parlimen adalah tempat semua wakil- wakil yang dipilih oleh rakyat berkumpul. contohnya kalau diandaikan PET telah menyebabkan ketenteraman dan mengancam negara dengan perbuatannya, sekurang-kurangnya 3/4 ahli parlimen mesti menyokong. Ini adalah kerana pada pendapat saya ISA masih boleh diguna pakai tetapi cara mesti di tukar.
Saya pun agak keliru dengan pendirian DSA, jika DSA mengatakan bahawa agama sendiri melarang seseorang itu di tangkap tanpa bicara, mengapa dari dahulu DSA tidak membawa usul ini di Parlimen, Janganlah memberi alasan takut terhadap Mahathir atau perkara itu tidak mendatangkan popular, kerana DSA sekarang ini dilihat seperti benar-benar memperjuangkan perkara-perkara tersebut.
Saya juga agak terkilan kerana pada pengetahuan saya, DSA adalah orang yang menentang UMNO satu masa dulu, menentang UMNO di pentas PAS. tetapi akhirnya DSA duduk bersama-sama dengan UMNO. Pada masa itu saya melihat, DSA akan membawa perubahan, tetapi saya merasakan tidak ada beza dengan ahli UMNO yang lain. DSA dikatakan begitu ghairah untuk mengejar jawatan Perdana Menteri. Dan akhirnya DSA dikeluarkan dari UMNO, dengan tidak ada tindakan yang cemerlang terhadap ISA, IPP dan sebagainya. Kroni dan Korupsi masih berleluasa termasuk orang- orang yang saya kenal itu adalah dari jentera DSA.
regu antara Mahathir dan ANwar adalah regu yang paling hebat, tetapi akhirnya Mahathir yang dulunya mengangkat DSA telah menjatuhkan DSA. Saya amat amat memerlukan penjelasan terhadap perjalanan Politik DSA, kerana sebagai seorang bakal Perdana Menteri, kami perlu kenal.
pada saya, jika DSA telah didakwa sebagai kaki sontot, itu terpulangla kepada DSA, Wan Azizah dan yang penting terhadap Allah s.w.t kerana saya yakin bahawa jika Tuhan ingin menunjukkan balasan, tentu DSA akan menerima padahnya.
Yang penting saya berharap agar seorang perdana Menteri dapat membuat dan mencipta kemajuan untuk Malaysia. dan saya juga berharap, DSA bukan hanya pandai berkata-kata
Sekarang ini saya memang merasa kecewa terhadap perjuangan UMNO, kerana kebanyakannya hanya memenuhkan periuk nasi masing-masing. Tidak semuanya, kerana bapa saya sendiri merupakan pejuang Umno, tidak pernah meminta peruntukan untuk dirinya. Tanah yang didalam genggaman hasil anugerah pun sanggup dilepaskan kerana tapak rumah itu telah diduduki.
Harap dapat penjelasan dari DSA, dan harap saya dapat menyokong tindakan DSA.
Suhaila
Reply
Anda adalah golongan minoriti yang tidak sependapat dengan golongan majoriti. Majoriti rakyat Malaysia telah memilih BN untuk berkuasa dan BN telah memilih Menteri untuk menjalankan kuasa dan dalam menjalankan kuasanya yang telah diberi oleh ‘majoriti’ rakyat RPK didapati wajar di tahan di bawah ISA. Inilah demokrasi dimana majoriti memilih BN yang berjanji mengekalkan ISA dan menolak pembangkang yang berjanji nak mansuhkan ISA. Jadi hormatlah suara majoriti. Kalau dalam PRU 13 nanti majoriti rakyat menolak ISA, maknanya pembangkang akan menang dan BN akan menjadi minoriti dan perlu menghormati kehendak majoriti yang amahukan ISA dihapuskan.
Reply
ok la kalau kuuuo
Reply
HI! CIK SUHAILA.
RELEVAN TAK RELEVAN ITU TERTAKLUK KEPADA KEPIMPINAN SESEORANG INDIVIDU.TATKALA NEGARA KITA DIPIMPIN OLEH TUN MAHATHIR, SERINGKALI BELIAU TAKUT AKAN KRITIKAN RAKYAT JELATA TERMASUK ORANG DALAM KABINET,DAN TUN GUNA SENJATA ISA, INI AKAN MENGUKUHKAN KEDUDUKAN BELIAU DAN SETERUSNYA MENGHAIBAKAN FIKIRAN RAKYAT YANG BERANGGAP HANYA TUN YANG BOLEH PERINTAH MALAYSIA.SECARA LANGSUNG ATAU TIDAK LANGSUNG SITUASI INI TELAH MEMPERBODOHKAN CENDIAKAWAN DAN PEMIMPIN YANG MUNGKIN LEBIH PANDAI DARIPADA TUN SENDIRI.
TAHU TAK DENGAN UNDANG UNDANG ISA RAKYAT MALAYSIA TELAH KEHILANGAN RAMAI PEMIMPIN YANG BERWIBAWA SEMASA PEMERINTAHAN TUN.CUBA FIKIRLAH WAHAI SAUDARI, ADAKAH WAJIB SESEORANG MEMERINTAH NEGARA UNTUK 22 TAHUN! INI BERERTI RAKYAT TAK PEKA TENTANG KEMAJUAN MINDA SESEORANG INSAN .KALAU PUN CIK SUHAILA NAK BANDING DENGAN PEMIMPIN LAIN NEGARA UMPAMA KATA LEE KUAN YEW.TAHU KAH ANDA BERAPA BANYAK SIMPANAN KHAZANAH MEREKA DAN BAGAIMANA JENTERA KERAJAAN MEREKA BEROPERASI.UPTODATE! KITA KETINGALAN BEBERAPA TAHUN.
MEMANG PUN! OTAK TUN BUKAN SEBARANGAN! BELIAU TARIK DSAI SEMATAMATA UNTUK MENGABURI MATA RAKYAT MALAYSIA TERUTAMA AHLI UMNO KERANA PADA MASA ITU DSAI MEMANG SEORANG PEMIMPIN BERWIBAWA,PENGETAHUHAN AGAMA ISLAM YANG MENDALAM, MUDA , PANDAI PERPIDATO DAN BOLEH MERANGASNG FIKIRAN PEMUDA DAN TUA.DENGAN INI TUN SENANG BOLEH TAKE CONTROL MELALUI DSAI.DO MORE RESEARCH HOW TUN INTRODUCE LAWS AND HOW WE LOST BILLION OF DOLLARS DURING HIS TENURE AS PM.
I PUN TAK TAHU MACAM MANA PEMIKIRAN RAKYAT KITA! MASIH MUNDUR DAN TAK MASAK LAGI. BERILAH PELUANG KEPADA DSAI ATAUPUN MANA MANA PEMIMPIN BARU.MENGAPAH KITA NAK TAKUT PADA BAYANG KITA SENDIRI.I AM BORED WITH THE LEADERSHIP SYSTEM OF MALAYSIA!
OH GOD! PLEASE SAVE THIS NATION! WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF THE TIME! PEOPLE ARE STILL IN OLD ERA!
FREE RPK AND OTHER ISA DETAINEES.WHY NOT MALAYSIAN CHOOSE DSAI, RPK, TOK GURU AND FROM OTHER VARIOUS SEGMENT OF LEADERS!
TUKAR SELERA SIKIT! CHANGE! IF BARRACK OBAMA CAN! WHY NOT DSAI!
Reply
terima kasih atas respon, ini yang saya suka, dan ini yang dimaksudkan dengan perbincangan terbuka, Saya masih di zaman universiti apabila anwar dan paklah dipentas parti pembangkang, membangkang kerajaan pada masa itu. memang benar DSA adalah seorang yang petah bercakap, dan memang ramai yang akan terpengaruh dengannya. itu lah tujuan seorang pemidato, untuk menang dalam apa jua yang dihujah dan itu penting. saya juga semakin pening dengan keadaan di malaysia, walaupun mereka ini berbangsa melayu dan islam, tetapi mereka seolah-olah tidak kisah dengan pengiktirafan Munafik bagi mereka. tak kira la dari pihak kerajaan atau pembangkang. walaupun pihak pembangkang mahukan demokrasi, tetapi demokrasi kah mereka. ramai jugak pembangkang yang keluar dari parti mereka dengan alasan pihak atasan yang tidak betul, masih sama dengan pihak kerajaan.
Bagi saya, ada benarnya pembangkang diberi peluang untuk memerintah malaysia, lihat saja Pas yang memerintah kelantan, sehingga kini kelantan masih kuat dipegang oleh pas. maknanya penerimaan orang bukan islam terhadap pas pun kuat disana.
Cuma apa yang saya khuatiri, apabila orang yang pandai bercakap dari tindakan yang diambil duduk di atas tahta pemerintahan. Pada saya Anwar boleh diklasifikasikan kepada orang yang pandai bercakap dari pandai membuat keputusan.
kalau benar dia tidak puas hati didalam kerajaan, sepatutnya dia berundur diri, seperti menteri dalam negeri yang dengan beraninya tidak puas hati dengan tindakan ISA keatas Pet. Letak jawatan, tunjukkan pendirian.
tapi DSA tidak bijak membuat keputusan, kalau sebelum dia ditangkap oleh mahathir dulu, dan dia berjuang diaatas tiket menentang kerajaan. Saya dapat membayangkan betapa ramai orang akan sayangkan dia.
Memang jika difikirkan sekarang ini, bila DSA tidak dapat menjawat jawatan Perdana Menteri dari dalam kerajaan, dipenjarakan dan dihukum, baru dia nak bertindak, maknanya bila kena pada diri sendiri baru nak bertindak. Sedangkan pada zaman nya bersama Mahathir, sudah berapa banyak tindakan yang diambil oleh mahathir.
Saya memang inginkan perubahan, tetapi bukan dengan DSA menjadi perdana Menteri. Jika ingin menukar kerajaan pun, pada pendapat saya biar la Pas yang mengetuainya, sebab mereka telah terbukti menerajui kelantan. walaupun kurang maju, tetapi ekonomi tetap stabil dan rakyatnya hidup makmur.
sekian,
suhaila_b@yahoo.com
Reply
HI! CIK SUHAILA ! SETIAP INSAN DI DUNIA MATERIALISTIK INI PASTI MENGHADAPI SUKA DUKA DALAM PELBAGAI BENTUK RUPA. SAUDARI DENGAN IKHLAS MENYATAKAN PENDAPAT SAUDARI, BAHAWA DSAI TAK LAYAK MEMIMPIN NEGARA TETAP DSAI SEKARANG ADALAH MANUSIA YANG DAH INSAF.BELIAU TELAU MELALUI SATU PERJALANAN POLITIKING YANG PENUH DENGAN ONAK DAN DURI.DSAI SEKARANG CUKUP PERGALAMAN DALAM ARENA POLITIK NEGARA.
PERNAHKAH CIK DIPENJARAKAN!PERNAHKAH CIK KENA TUMBUK SAMPAI MUKA BENGKAK UNTUK KESALAHAN YANG SAMPAI SEKARANG BUKTI BUKTI DARI PIHAK PENDAKWA MASIH BOLEH DIPERSOALKAN!
PERNAHKAH ANDA DI NAYA OLEH SESIAPA!WALAUPUN SELEPAS DI NAYA DSAI MASIH NAK BERJUANG! ITULAH SIKAP PEJUANG. CIK SUHAILA SILA TUNJUK DIDALAM ERA KITA BERAPA ORANG AHLI POLITIK MELALUI CARA SEBEGINI.SEMUA PEMIMPIN DI NEGARA INI MENJAWAT JAWATAN KERANA GUNAKA ISU ISU TERTENTU YANG KEBANYAKAN BERBAU KAUM DAN AGAMA.TETAPI DSAI KINI MAHU MENUKAR PERSEPSI INI DAN NAK BERJUANG UNTUK SEMUA RAKYAT MALAYSIA DISAMPING MENGEKALKAN HAK PRIBUMI DAN INSTUTUSI RAJA! INI LAH YANG KITA DOK IMPIKAN!BERILAH PANDANGAN POSITIF DAN PELUANG SEKALI LAGI UNTUK DSAI MEMIMPIN BUMI YANG KITA CINTA INI.KALAU DSAI MASIH MACAM DULU, KITA MASIH BOLEH PILIH ORANG LAIN MUNGKIN CIK SUHAILAH BOLEH BERTANDING.BE POSITIF.KALAU DSAI TERUK ORANGNYA, MACAMMANA BELIAU BOLEH MEMPEROLEH UNDI YANG BEGITU BANYAK DI PERMATANG PAUH!
FRANKLY SPEAKING I AM NOT A POLITICIAN OR ANY PARTY MEMBER, BUT AS A LEGITIMATE CITIZEN. I FEEL WE NEED TO CHANGE PRESENT LEADERSHIP.ITS FULL OF DIRT AND RUBBISH!
KENAL DAK MANDELA? KENAL DAK FIDEL CASTRO! BACA DAHKAH SEJARAH NABI MUHAMMAD SAW SEBELUM BAGINDA DAPAT WAHYU DARIPADA YANG MAHA ESA! BACA DAH BIOGRAPHY MAHATMA GANDHI. TAK PAYAH PI JAUH ADAKAH CIK SUHAILA PERNAH BACA ARTIKEL ARTIKEL YANG DI TULIS OLEH MAHATMA MALAYSIA RAJA PETRA( RPK) DENGAN MINDA YANG TERBUKA.TERPULANG KEPADA ANDA! ITS ALL IN YOUR MIND AND HEART!
MY WISH, FREE RPK AND ALL OTHER ISA DETAINEES!
Reply