Silence of the Tax Authorities (LHDN) In High-Profile Corruption Cases

  

Silence of the Tax Authorities (LHDN) In High-Profile Corruption Cases

M. Bakri Musa

October 11, 2026

(Excerpt from my ongoing series, Qur’an, Hadith, and Hikayat: Exercises In Critical Thinking, which will resume next week.)

The utter silence of Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri (LHDN)—the federal agency charged with safeguarding public revenues—amid the parade of high-profile corruption cases shuffling through our courts is both perplexing and damning. Are those civil servants in LHDN, like their counterparts across the civil service, merely waiting for orders?

         That, unfortunately, remains the default and laidback tradition of the Malaysian civil service, epitomized by the passive sign-off historically affixed to official correspondences: “Kami yang menurut perintah” (We who follow orders!).

         That tagline, unchanged until 2018, faithfully reflects the subservient mindset of Malaysian civil servants right to the very top—along with its destructive consequences. Consider the November 2019 court testimony of former Chief Secretary Ali Hamsa during the 1MDB trial:

“…[M]odifications [on the 1MDB report] were done to protect the image of the country, government, and prime minister from being compromised by political opposition.”

          Notice the slippery, passive phrasing: “Modifications were done!” It echoes the infamous Watergate hearings of the Nixon era, where bureaucrats deftly declared, “Mistakes were made.” Left conveniently unsaid was who made the mistakes—and who ordered the modifications.

          Nor are the highly-touted “executives” in our glut of government-linked corporations (GLCs) any better, as evidenced by the recurring scandals in Tabung Haji and elsewhere. In his 2019 testimony, former 1MDB CEO Arul Kanda admitted he failed to initiate any internal investigation despite reading the June 2016 US Department of Justice civil forfeiture complaint naming “Malaysian Official No. 1.”

          By contrast, consider the United States. President Barack Obama played golf with Najib Razak in Hawaii over Christmas 2014—a rare honor accorded to a foreign leader. Yet that photo-op did not deter Obama’s Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, from vigorously doing her job. Back home in Putrajaya, Najib promptly forced the early retirement of (read: fired) Attorney-General Gani Patail just as he was drafting charges to arrest the Prime Minister. Gani quietly slunk away, observing the “Kami menurut perintah” mantra all too faithfully.

         To its credit, LHDN eventually pursued bankruptcy proceedings against Najib, his wife, and his children. Yet I wonder why the tax authority has not seized Najib’s palatial residence—the very estate where he hopes to serve out his comfortable house arrest. Being far from intellectual, Najib lacked the foresight to hide his assets inside sophisticated trusts or offshore structures; after all, he possesses merely a general degree from a provincial British university. Why then the hesitation by LHDN?

The Illusions of Anwar’s Anti-Corruption Crusade

The Anwar Administration relentlessly brags about its crackdown on corruption. Yet measured by actual convictions, the results remain dismal. High acquittal rates point directly to amateurish investigations and incompetent prosecutions. Local talent in our enforcement agencies has proven severely outmatched.

           It is time to engage seasoned foreign professionals—not from the bureaucratic labyrinths of Egypt or India, but battle-tested investigators from the FBI and Scotland Yard. Short of that, the government should hire top-tier private-sector litigators on an ad hoc basis and establish specialized anti-corruption courts dedicated solely to mega-fraud cases.

          Our statutory framework also requires radical modernization:

• Global Tax Enforcement: As the Panama and Pandora Papers revealed, wealthy Malaysians routinely stash assets overseas beyond LHDN’s reach, including individuals currently sitting in Anwar’s cabinet. Malaysia must emulate the U.S. model: mandate annual declarations of all foreign and domestic financial assets (reporting minimum and maximum yearly values) and tax worldwide income.
• Mandatory Financial Disclosures: Require the top 100 public officials—including royalty, ministers, and their spouses—to file comprehensive annual public financial disclosures modeled after the U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE Form 278e). Excepting Donald Trump, these filings are concise, accessible online, and take up mere megabytes of data.
• Enforceable Whistleblower Protections: The Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 exists in name only. Its first—and unsuccessful—prosecution took over a decade to materialize. A law without enforcement is a useless law.

          Ultimately, Malaysia’s official "war on corruption" remains a farce: high on grandiloquent rhetoric, low on tangible results. Prime Minister Anwar compromised his moral standing from day one by appointing a Deputy Prime Minister burdened by dozens of corruption charges. While Ahmad Zahid Hamidi subsequently received a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA), we can only hope the Malaysian Bar’s legal challenge overturns that questionable outcome.

          "Innocent until proven guilty" is the standard for criminal conviction in a court of law. For appointment to high public office, the standard must be vastly higher: absolute integrity, free from even the faintest whiff of impropriety. Had Anwar held his administration to that standard from the outset, he would not be saddled with his compromised deputy today—and Malaysia would be infinitely better served.

Excerpt from my Qur’an, Hadith, and Hikayat:  Exercises In Critical Thinking will resume next week. 

Antara Mengurangkan Kemudaratan Dan Melakukan Kebaikan

 Antara Mengurangkan Kemudaratan Dan Melakukan Kebaikan

M. Bakri Musa

Petikan daripada buku saya, Qur’an, Hadith, And Hikayat: Exercises In Critical Thinking (2021)

8 Oktober 2026

Renungkan seorang polis trafik yang meninggalkan tugasnya di sebuah persimpangan jalan yang sibuk hanya untuk menunaikan solat Jumaatnya. Semasa ketiadaannya, kesesakan lalu lintas menjadi lumpuh, memicu rentetan kemalangan maut dan melambatkan ambulans yang membawa pesakit kritikal ke hospital.

Seterusnya, pertimbangkan hal ini. Semasa berkhidmat sebagai pakar bedah di Malaysia pada tahun 1970-an, saya pernah menegur seorang doktor muda kerana melakukan perkara yang sama persis: meninggalkan pesakit yang dalam keadaan rapuh di Wad Kecemasan untuk ke masjid bagi solat Jumaat. Dalam fikirannya, keselamatan rohnya di akhirat mengatasi kelangsungan hidup pesakitnya. Tidak terlintas dalam fikiran beliau bahawa menyelamatkan nyawa insan mungkin merupakan jalan sebenar kesyurga. Lebih buruk lagi, beliau benar bingung mengapa saya—seorang sesama Muslim—berani mengenakan tindakan disiplin terhadapnya kerana memenuhi kewajipan agamanya.

Membezakan Yang Sejagat Daripada Yang Khusus

Melihat dari sudut yang lebih luas, kegagalan mematuhi hari Sabat pada hari Sabtu hanya merupakan satu pelanggaran hukum dalam agama Yahudi; begitu juga, meninggalkan solat Jumaat hanya berat hukumnya bagi umat Islam. Namun, memandu dalam keadaan mabuk adalah kemudaratan yang merentasi pegangan agama. Ia menimbulkan ancaman secara langsung kepada sesiapa sahaja di jalan raya—Muslim mahupun bukan Muslim, pemandu mahupun orang awam yang tidak berdosa. Oleh itu, masyarakat mempunyai kewajipan yang jelas untuk bertindak menanganinya.

Namun, perbuatan minum arak itu sendiri tidak saksama maknanya dengan menjadi mabuk atau bersifat keras. Walaupun meminum adalah dosa besar bagi umat Islam, tetapi tidak sedemikian bagi penganut agama lain. Rentas pelbagai budaya, ia merupakan satu bahagian dalam kehidupan mereka, teranyam dalam majlis perkahwinan, ritual keagamaan, serta sambutan kemasyarakatan.

Kerajaan boleh memilih untuk menghadkan perbuatan meminum arak di tempat awam, atau lebih jauh dengan melaksanakan pengharaman secara penuh. Pengalaman besar di Amerika Syarikat dengan dasar mengharamankan arak (prohibition) memang berjaya mengekang perbuatan meminum arak di tempat awam. Namun ia menghasilkan natijah yang jauh lebih buruk: keracunan maut daripada wiski haram (moonshine), kemusnahan harta benda secara berleluasa, dan kebangkitan jenayah terancang. Hujah moden untuk menghalalkan serta mengawal selia kanabis dan bahan terlarang yang lain dipetik secara langsung daripada iktibar dasar pengharaman tersebut.

Mungkinkah kemungkaran seperti kuman bahaya? Dalam jumlah yang amat sedikit, kuman tersebut boleh dilemahkan dan bertindak sebagai inokulan, membina imuniti terhadap malapetaka yang jauh lebih besar. Sekiranya berlebihan, ia memusnahkan sesebuah badan. Bergitu juga dengan masyarakat, sepertimana candu melumpuhkan masyarakat Cina semasa Dinasti Qing.

Kurang bijaksana membendung maksiat kecil sekiranya penguatkuasaan itu menghasilkan sesuatu yang jauh lebih buruk. Kefahaman inilah yang menjadi teras kepada strategi kesihatan awam moden mengenai pengurangan kemudaratan (harm reduction). Anda tidak boleh menghapuskan dorongan diri yang merosakkan akibat ketagihan dadah secara serta-merta, namun anda boleh mengurangkan kadar kematian sekunder dan penularan wabak penyakit dengan menyediakan jarum steril serta prasarana pelupusan yang selamat.

Kegagalan Moral Dan Kekejaman Masyarakat

Pertimbangkan hal berkaitan seksualiti manusia. Hubungan seks haram membawa padah kepada kesihatan awam; penyakit HIV dan jangkitan kelamin tegar yang lain adalah peringatan nyata tentang hakikat tersebut. Namun, menghukum ibu tanpa nikah tidak akan menghapuskan seks haram. Sebaliknya ia akanmendorong wanita yang terdedah ini ke arah pengguguran haram di lorong belakang atau tindakan terdesak membuang bayi—suatu tragedi kemanusiaan dan moral yang jauh lebih besar, di mana mangsa akhirnya ialah anak yang tidak berdosa. Krisis ini telah mencapai tahap epidemik di Malaysia moden.

Sama kejamnya ialah amalan masyarakat umum serta pemerentah yang mencap bayi yang lahir daripada ibu Muslim tanpa nikah dengan nama penaung sepanjang hayat "bin (atau binti) Abdullah" pada sijil kelahiran rasmi. Menerusi dekri birokrasi, masyarakat memaparkan stigma ke atas anak yang tidak berdosa ini seumur hayatnya.

Kemudian pertimbangkan pula hukuman Islam untuk seks haram—hukuman mati secara sebat atau rejam dengan batu. Tidak syak lagi, ia sesuatu yang biadap mengikut mana-mana piawaian budaya. Walau bagaimanapun, pertimbangkan cara untuk membuktikan kesalahan. Anda memerlukan empat orang saksi lelaki dewasa yang melihat perbuatan itu secara nyata. Maknanya, anda mestilah melakukan zina itu di tempat terbuka dan pada siang hari yang terang-benderang.

Kita mesti mengekalkan pemisahan yang jelas antara dosa dengan pelakunya. Lebih penting lagi, masyarakat serta pemerentah tidak boleh mengenakan kemudaratan sampingan berbentuk hukuman ke atas pihak ketiga yang tidak berdosa.

Privasi, Pihak Berkuasa, dan Semangat Bedouin

Terdapat satu riwayat mengenai Khalifah Umar yang melakukan rondaan malam—suatu bentuk awal "pengurusan meronda" (walkabout management)—apabila beliau terdengar perbualan pasangan bukan mahram di dalam sebuah kediaman peribadi. Khalifah Omar terus memecah pintu rumah mereka dan masuk mengisytiharkan mereka bersalah atas tuduhan zina, satu kesalahan yang membawa hukuman berat.

Lelaki tersebut memandang pemimpin termulia terus menjawab dengan tenang bahawa walaupun beliau dan pasangannya memang telah berdosa kepada Allah, tetapi si Khalifah pula sebaliknya telah melakukan kesalahan yang jauh lebih berat. Yakni membelakangkan hak ilahi mereka terhadap privasi peribadi.

Umar, rah, —dengan menunjukkan sifat tawaduk seorang pemimpin sejati—meminta maaf lalu berundur. Beliau memahami bahawa Allah Maha Pengampun lagi Maha Pemurah berupaya mengampuni kegagalan moral peribadi. Seorang manusia bagaimanapun jarang sekali mempunyai sifat pemaaf sedemikian. Dengan menceroboh rumah mereka, Khalifah Umar telah berdosa secara langsung terhadap rakyatnya. Dalam perundangan Islam, wujud perbezaan yang amat mendalam antara pelanggaran terhadap Allah (Huquq Allah) dengan pelanggaran hak sesama manusia (Huquq al-'Ibad). Allah mungkin mengampuni solat yang kita tinggalkan; namun Dia tidak membebaskan anda daripada kezaliman yang anda lakukan terhadap jiran anda melainkan mangsa tersebut memaafkan anda terlebih dahulu.

Kisah itu juga menjelaskan sesuatu yang jauh lebih jelas. Yakni, keberanian minda kaum Bedouin awal. Mereka tidak tunduk kepada gelaran, tidak terpesona dengan kuasa, dan tidak teragak-agak untuk mencabar pemimpin mereka. Malah Khalifah Umar sendiri dituntut bertanggungjawab secara bersemuka. Nabi Muhammad (s.a.w.) sendiri kerap dipersoal dan dicabar oleh penduduk Makkah yang ragu semasa peringkat awal dakwah baginda.

Sebuah masyarakat tidak akan dapat mencapai keagungan—tidak juga dapat menyesuaikan diri dengan dunia yang sentiasa berubah—sekiranya warga rakyat terlalu takut untuk mempersoalkan pihak berkuasa. Di Malaysia kini, mengkritik tokoh politik boleh menarik perhatian Cawangan Khas polis. Manakala bagi para Sultan pula, mereka dianggap sebagai wakil Allah di bumi dan dengan itu mereka kekal dilindungi daripada kritikan awam. Jarang sekali yang berani bertanyakan soalan yang lebih teras: Mengapa Yang Maha Kuasa memerlukan seorang wakil diraja di bumi?

Seterusnya: Kebaikan Menentang Kejahatan

 

Harm Reduction Versus Doing Good

M. Bakri Musa

Excerpted from my Qur’an, Hadith, And Hikayat: Exercises In Critical Thinking (2021)

October 4, 2026

Consider a traffic policeman who abandons his duty at an intersection in order to attend Friday prayers. In his absence the traffic snarls into gridlock, precipitating a series of fatal crashes and delaying an ambulance carrying a critically ill patient.

 

Then consider this. While practicing surgery in Malaysia during the 1970s, I reprimanded a junior doctor for doing precisely that: abandoning a fragile patient in the Casualty Ward to rush off to the mosque for his Friday prayers. In his mind, his personal salvation superseded the survival of his patient. It never occurred to him that saving a human life might be the very path to his own salvation. Worse, he was genuinely bewildered as to why I—a fellow Muslim—would dare discipline him for fulfilling his religious obligation.

 

Distinguishing the Universal from the Particular

Taking a more broad view, failing to observe the Saturday Sabbath is a transgression only within Judaism; likewise, skipping Friday prayers carries gravity only for Muslims. Drunk driving, however, is a potential harm that transcends creed. It poses an immediate threat to everyone on the road—Muslim and non-Muslim, driver and innocent bystander alike. Society thus has a clear duty to act against that.

Yet drinking itself is not synonymous with being drunk or belligerent. While consuming alcohol is sinful for Muslims, it is not so for others. Across many cultures it is an integral part of life, woven into weddings, religious sacraments, and civic celebrations.

A government may choose to restrict public drinking, or it may go further and impose total prohibition. America’s grand experiment with prohibition did curb public drinking, but it produced vastly worse outcomes: lethal poisonings from bootlegged moonshine, rampant property destruction, and the rise of organized crime. Modern arguments for legalizing and regulating cannabis and other illicit substances draw directly from those lessons of prohibition.

Could evil operate like a biological pathogen? In trace amounts, a weakened strain of virus acts as an inoculant, building immunity against a far greater catastrophe. In excess, it destroys a civilization—much as opium gutted China during the Qing Dynasty.

There is little wisdom in suppressing a minor vice if the enforcement yields a far greater societal tragedy. This insight underpins modern public health strategies of harm reduction. You cannot instantly eliminate the self-destructive compulsions of drug addiction, but you can reduce the secondary mortality and disease transmission by providing sterile needles and safe disposal infrastructures.

 

The Moral Failure of Institutional Cruelty

Consider human sexuality. Illicit sexual encounters carry public health consequences; HIV and other severe sexually transmitted infections are stark reminders of that reality. Yet punishing unwed mothers does not eliminate illicit sex. Instead, it drives vulnerable women toward backstreet abortions or desperate baby abandonment—a far greater moral and human tragedy, where the ultimate victim is an innocent child. This crisis has reached epidemic proportions in contemporary Malaysia.

Equally cruel is the state’s practice of branding babies born to unwed Muslim mothers with the lifelong patronymic "bin (or binti) Abdullah" on official birth certificates. Through bureaucratic decree, society stigmatizes an innocent child for life.

The consider the Islamic punishment for illicit sex – death by flogging or throwing rocks. Barbaric without any doubt by any cultural standard. However, consider the criteria for guilt. You would need four adult witnesses to the actual act. Meanaing, you would have to be fornicating in a public place and in brought daylight.  

We must maintain a clear distinction between the sin and the sinner. More crucially, state institutions must not inflict punitive collateral damages on innocent third parties.

 

Privacy, Authority, and the Bedouin Spirit

There is a traditional account of the Caliph Omar performing his nocturnal rounds—an early form of "walkabout management"—when he overheard an unmarried couple in a private residence. He breached their door and declared them guilty of zina (adultery), an offense carrying severe penalties.

The man looked at the ruler and replied calmly that while he and his partner had indeed sinned against Allah, the Caliph on ther hand had committed a far graver offense: violating their divine right to personal privacy.

Omar—demonstrating the humility of true leadership—apologized and withdrew. He understood that Allah is All-Forgiving and All-Generous, capable of pardoning private moral failures. Humans, however, are rarely so merciful. By invading their home, Omar had sinned against his subjects directly. In Islamic jurisprudence, a profound distinction exists between transgressions against God (Huquq Allah) and violations of human rights (Huquq al-'Ibad). Allah may forgive a missed prayer; He does not absolve you of the wrongs you commit against your neighbor unless the victim forgives you first.

That story also illustrates something even more vital: the intellectual courage of those early Bedouins. They were untamed by titles, unimpressed by authority, and unhesitating in challenging their leaders. Even Omar was held accountable to his face. Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.) himself was routinely questioned and challenged by skeptical Meccans during his early ministry.

A society cannot achieve greatness—nor can it adapt to a changing world—if its citizens are too terrified to question authority. In modern Malaysia, criticizing political figures can draw the attention of the police Special Branch. As for the Sultans, positioned as representatives of Allah on earth, they remain shielded from public critique. Few dare ask the more fundamental question: Why does the Almighty require a royal representative on earth?

 

 

Next:  Good Versus Evil

 

 

Mencegah Kemungkaran Dengan Tangan, Lidah, Dan Hati (Niat)

 Mencegah Kemungkaran dengan Tangan, Lidah, dan Hati (Niat)

M. Bakri Musa

Petikan daripada buku saya Qur’an, Hadith, And Hikayat: Exercises In Critical Thinking (2021)

30 September 2026

Perintah utama Illahi yang tertulis dalam Al-Qur’an ialah Amr ma’ruf nahi munkar—biasakan yang baik, jauhi yang jahat. Satu hadis teras menggambarkan pelaksanaannya secara praktikal dan tegas ialah: apabila kamu melihat kemungkaran, cegahlah dengan tangan mu. Jika tidak mampu atau itu mungkin membawa mudarat, cegahlah dengan lidah melalui teguran. Dan iika itu pun masih berisiko, bencilah di dalam hati mu, walaupun itu mencerminkan kelemahan iman.

Hadis lain meluaskan lagi pemahaman kita tentang makna “kebaikan.” Contohnya, seorang pelacur pezina yang diampunkan serta dimasukkan ke Syurga hanya kerana memberi air kepada seekor anjing yang hampir mati kehausan dengan menggunakan kasutnya. Dari sudut moral, taraf hidup si pelacur amat hina dan di pinggiran masyarakat. Peluangnya untuk menebus dosa kelihatan amat tipis. Namun, satu tindakan ihsan terhadap seekor haiwan—yang kerap dipandang kotor dalam perbincangan fekah tradisional—memadamkan semua dosanya. Itu bukan sahaja mengingatkan tentang kemurahan dan keampunan Allah, malah ajakan untuk melihat nilai iman melampaui kepura-puraan.

Ada pula hadis mengenai seorang yang dimasukkan ke Syurga kerana mengambil sebatang duri dari laluan awam. Jika amalan sivik sekecil itu ganjaran pahalanya sedemikian besar, bayangkan nilai sumbangan nyata dalam konteks moden. Renungkan jasa seorang jurutera yang mereka bentuk jambatan kukuh bagi membolehkan petani luar bandar membawa hasil tanamannya ke bandar serta membawa ahli keluarga yang sakit ke hospital.

Renungkan pandangan Padri Martin Luther. Seorang tukang kasut Kristian membuktikan imannya bukan dengan mengukir gambar salib pada kasut rekaannya, sebaliknya dengan membuat kasut yang tahan lasak dan murah harga supaya mampu dibeli oleh golongan miskin. Begitu juga bagi seorang jurutera Muslim; dia membuktikan imannya kepada Allah bukan dengan mengukir ayat-ayat al-Qur'an pada tiang jambatan, tetapi dengan memastikan kira-kira beban, analisis mekanik tanah, dan gred konkrit dibuat dengan tepat supaya struktur itu tidak runtuh dilanda banjir atau dilalui lori berat. Mengabaikan ilmu matematik sambil memperbanyakkan doa di khalayak ramai bukanlah tanda ketakwaan—ia adalah kecuaian profesional yang berselindung di sebalik ketaatan.

Saya berbaru ini mendengar ceramah panjang oleh pendakwah Amerika, Yasir Qadhi, mengenai hadis ini. Beliau memulakan dengan kisah iktibar tentang sekelompok masyarakat yang menegur jiran mereka kerana melanggar aturan Sabat, manakala kumpulan ketiga hanya memerhati sambil mempersoalkan mengapa perlu campur tangan. Walaupun berakar daripada kisah Bani Israil, pengajarannya terpakai secara universal: Qadhi berhujah bahawa amr ma’ruf ialah tanggungjawab kolektif untuk menyampaikan nilai dan norma masyarakat. Tanpanya, sesebuah masyarakat akan hanyut ke dalam sikap acuh tak acuh. Namun, seolah-olah tidak lengkap tanpa lencongan ideologi biasa, beliau menambah: “Seperti yang berlaku dalam masyarakat Barat moden.”

Menurut Qadhi, meninggalkan ritual adalah punca utama kemungkaran, manakala menegur orang lain atas kecuaian itu dianggap sebagai “mengajak kepada kebaikan.”

Kita menyaksikan taksub penegakan ritual yang serupa di Malaysia. Di Kelantan, van bersuara lantang meronda di jalanan menjelang solat Jumaat, memberi amaran kepada lelaki Muslim supaya bersegera ke masjid. Pegawai penguat kuasa agama mengekor di belakang dengan rotan di tangan. Mereka secara harfiah mengaplikasikan hadis tersebut—menggunakan lidah (yang dibesarkan melalui pembesar suara) dan tangan (dengan bantuan rotan) untuk memaksa pematuhan.

Solat Jumaat sememangnya amalan kerohanian yang mulia bagi seorang Muslim, namun ia tidak membawa apa-apa nilai moral bagi seorang bukan Muslim atau ateis. Namun, adakah birokrasi agama kita sudah hilang pertimbangan dan keutamaan? Solat berjemaah itu lebih afdal, tetapi solat di rumah bukanlah satu kejahatan. Namun di bawah logik golongan tegar ini, kegagalan mencapai taraf "ideal" terus dijatuhkan hukuman seolah-olah satu jenayah.

Kecelaruan keutamaan ini menjadi semakin ketara semasa pandemik COVID-19 apabila ramai yang berang dengan penutupan sementara masjid. Mereka gagal memahami prinsip paling asas dalam fikah Islam: pemeliharaan nyawa (hifz al-nafs) sentiasa mengatasi pelaksanaan ritual berjemaah.

Apabila sesebuah masyarakat mendahulukan kawalan ritual berbanding pemikiran kritis, kecekapan profesional, dan perlindungan nyawa manusia, masyarakat itu telah hilang arah. Amr ma’ruf yang sebenar tidak terletak pada hayunan rotan pada hari Jumaat; ia menjelma dalam pembinaan jambatan yang selamat, perlindungan kesihatan awam, dan melayan setiap makhluk ciptaan Tuhan dengan rasa hormat dan bermaruah.

Seterusnya:  Berbuat baik; Kurangankan Mudarat 

 

 

 

Preventing Evil With Your Hands, Tongue, and Heart

  

Preventing Evil with Your Hand, Tongue, and Heart

M. Bakri Musa

September 27, 2026 

 

Excerpted from my Qur’an, Hadith, And Hikayat: Exercises In Critical Thinking (2021)

 

The central imperative of the Qur’an is amr ma’ruf nahi munkar—enjoining good and forbidding evil. A well-known prophetic tradition maps out its execution in clear, pragmatic terms: when you witness an injustice, stop it with your hand. If that is beyond your capacity or would put you in harm’s way, speak out against it. If even that proves too risky, detest it in your heart—though, as the tradition notes, that represents the absolute baseline of faith.

Other hadith broaden our understanding of what constitutes “good.” Consider the story of the prostitute granted Paradise simply for fetching water in her shoe for a dog dying of thirst. On any conventional moral scale, her livelihood placed her at the margins of respectable society. Her redemption seemed an uphill climb. Yet a single act of compassion toward an animal—one often viewed with theological unease in traditional circles—erased a lifetime of transgression. It is a striking reminder of divine grace, but also a call to look beyond superficial piety.

Then there is the man admitted to Paradise for removing a thorn from a public path. If such a minor act of civic consideration earns so immense a reward, consider the ultimate value of modern, tangible contributions: the engineer who designs a reliable bridge allowing rural farmers to bring their crops to market, or families to transport a sick child to the hospital.

This brings to mind Martin Luther’s observation that a Christian cobbler demonstrates his faith best not by carving crucifixes into the leather, but by crafting sturdy, affordable shoes that the poor could afford. Likewise, a Muslim engineer does not honor God by inscribing intricate calligraphy on a bridge’s arches. He honors Allah by getting his stress-strain calculations right, understanding soil mechanics, and specifying the proper grade of concrete so the structure does not collapse under a heavy truck or a seasonal flood. To skimp on math while multiplying public prayers is not piety—it is criminal negligence posing as virtue.

I recently watched an exposition on this topic by the American scholar Yasir Qadhi. He drew on an old theological parable about a group that admonished their neighbors for violating Sabbath restrictions, while a third group stood by, asking why anyone should care what others did. Though rooted in an ancient Israelite context, the lesson translates directly: Qadhi argued that amr ma’ruf is a collective responsibility through which a community signals its core values. Without it, a society slides into moral indifference. Unable to resist a standard ideological detour, he added: “As with modern Western society.”

For Qadhi, failing to observe ritual obligations is the ultimate “bad,” and publicly reprimanding people for it is “commanding good.”

We see this same obsession with ritual policing in Malaysia. In Kelantan, vans equipped with blaring loudspeakers patrol the streets before Friday prayers, warning adult males to assemble at the mosque. Religious enforcement officers follow behind, canes in hand. They are literally applying the Hadith—using the tongue (amplified by electronics) and the hand (reinforced by a stick) to enforce compliance.

Attending Friday prayers is undoubtedly a meaningful spiritual act for a Muslim, though it carries no moral weight for a non-Muslim or an atheist. But has our religious bureaucracy lost all sense of proportion? Praying in congregation may be superior, but praying at home is hardly a moral failure. Yet under the logic of our zealots, falling short of the “ideal” is instantly criminalized as “evil.”

This distorted hierarchy of values became glaringly obvious during the COVID-19 pandemic, when many expressed outrage over the temporary closure of mosques. They failed to grasp a foundational principle of Islamic jurisprudence:  the preservation of human life (hifz al-nafs) takes absolute precedence over communal ritual.

When a society elevates the enforcement of outward rituals over critical thinking, professional competence, and the protection of human life, it has fundamentally lost its way. True amr ma’ruf is not found in brandishing a cane on Friday afternoon; it is found in building safe bridges, protecting public health, and treating every living creature with basic dignity.

Next: Harm Reduction versus Doing Good

Perpecahan Sesama Ummah

 Perpecahan Sesama Ummah

M. Bakri Musa

Petikan daripada buku saya Qur’an, Hadith, And Hikayat: Exercises In Critical Thinking (2021)

20 September 2026

 

Ramalan bahawa ummah akan berpecah kepada 73 puak—dengan hanya satu kumpulan terpilih yang dijamin ke Syurga sementara 72 yang lain bakal membara di Neraka—kekal menjadi tajuk utama dalam wacana popular Islam. Kaum Kristian dan Yahudi kononnya bernasib baik sedikit dalam perpecahan mereka, masing-masing sekadar berpecah kepada 72 dan 71 puak. 

 

Apabila saya membangkitkan hadis ini di hadapan sekumpulan pelajar STEM Malaysia dalam satu perjumpaan Kelab UMNO di New Jersey pada tahun 2010, saya mengemukakan satu latihan logik yang mudah:  Apakah kebarangkalian kira kira bahawa kumpulan kita yang khusus ini—di Malaysia, aliran mazhab Shafi'i yang rasmi dan ortodoks—merupakan pemegang tunggal "tiket emas" tersebut?

 

Jawapannya adalah jelas dan asas: 1 nisbah 73, atau sekadar 1.37 peratus sahaja. Bagi sesiapa yang terlatih dalam bidang statistik, kebarangkalian kecil itu samalah dengan kosong.

Sekarang, terbalikkan persamaan tersebut. Puak atau mazhab anda mempunyai 98.6 peratus kemungkinan untuk tersasar sepenuhnya. Dari segi statistik, itu hampir satu kepastian. 

 

Mereka yang berotak apabila berhadapan dengan angka yang begitu ketara akan serta-merta mengambil sikap yang penuh tawaduk, ingin tahu, dan terbuka dari segi pandangan. Anda akan terdorong untuk mengkaji tradisi atau aliran lain, sekurang-kurangnya sebagai langkah berwaspada untuk mengetahui di mana letaknya kebenaran yang tulen. Sikap begini memupuk toleransi, pemikiran inklusif, dan keraguan yang sihat terhadap andaian sendiri.

 

Pilihan sebaliknya ialah pemikiran yang sedang bermaharajalela sekarang: keangkuhan yang lahir daripada keyakinan mutlak walaupun tanpa sebarang sandaran statistik. Orang beriman meyakinkan diri mereka sendiri bahawa sub-puak kecil mereka memonopoli kebenaran secara eksklusif. Ini melahirkan kompleks penyelamat (messianic complex) yang berbahya—satu desakan kompulsif untuk "menyelamatkan" atau memaksa orang lain mengikut telunjuk mereka—yang akhirnya membawa kepada pergeseran mazhab. Keharmonian sosial yang tulen adalah jauh lebih munasabah sekiranya setiap Muslim bertindak atas andaian asas, yakni kumpulan atau mazhab mereka sendiri mungkin sahaja tergolong dalam kalangan mereka yang sesat.

 

Namun, lihatlah keadaan semasa. Media sosial sarat dengan ulama selebriti maya yang melaungkan mantra biasa tentang "perpaduan ummah." Walaupun berdepan dengan kadar kebarangkalian yang begitu buruk, masing-masing tetap berkeras bahawa tafsiran sempit mereka adalah satu-satunya jalan menuju keselamatan, sambil menghumban 72 puak yang lain ke lembah kebinasaan.

 

Apabila para sarjana ini menuntut "perpaduan," apa yang sebenarnya mereka tuntut ialah keseragaman mutlak (uniformity)—atau lebih parah lagi, persetujuan sebulat suara tanpa berfikir (unthinking unanimity). Mereka dengan mudah mengabaikan premis utama Al-Qur'an: bahawa pada Hari Pengadilan kelak, kita akan ditimbang di atas mizan secara individu berdasarkan amalan kita, bukannya berdasarkan ketaatan suku kaum atau ketaatan kepada mazhab. Syurga tidak menyediakan laluan ekspres VIP untuk aliran pemikiran atau identiti etnik tertentu.

 

Keindahan mendalam di sebalik kepelbagaian manusia langsung tidak ditangkap oleh golongan ini. Bagi mereka, apa jua bentuk variasi atau perbezaan dianggap sebagai bidaah yang tidak boleh diterima. Ironisnya, taksub yang kaku lagi berbahaya terhadap paksaan untuk menjadi serupa inilah yang sebenarnya mengoyak-goyakkan ummah.

 

Seterusnya: Mencegah Kemungkaran dengan Tangan, Lidah, dan Hati Anda

Schisms Among The Ummah

 Schisms Among the Ummah

 

M. Bakri Musa

Excerpted from my Qur’an, Hadith, And Hikayat: Exercises In Critical Thinking (2021)

September 20, 2026

 

The prediction that the ummah would splinter into 73 sects—with a lone, privileged group bound for Paradise while the remaining 72 burn—remains a staple of popular Islamic discourse. The Christians and Jews allegedly fared slightly better in their fractionalization, settling at 72 and 71 sects respectively. When I brought up this tradition to a group of Malaysian STEM students at an UMNO Club gathering in New Jersey back in 2010, I posed a simple exercise in logic: What are the mathematical odds that our specific group—in Malaysia, the official Shafi'i orthodoxy—happens to be the single golden ticket?

The answer is basic arithmetic: 1 in 73, or barely 1.37 percent. To anyone trained in engineering, those odds are functionally zero.

Now invert the equation. Your sect has a 98.6 percent chance of being utterly wrong. In statistical terms, that is practically a certainty. A rational mind confronted with such overwhelming odds would instantly adopt an attitude of deep humility, curiosity, and intellectual openness. You would be compelled to study other traditions, if only to hedge your bets and learn where truth actually resides. It fosters tolerance, inclusive thinking, and a healthy skepticism toward one's own assumptions.

The alternative is the prevailing mindset: the arrogance of absolute certainty despite zero statistical backing. Believers convince themselves that their minor sub-sect holds the exclusive monopoly on truth. This breeds a toxic messianic complex—a compulsive need to "save" or coerce others into line—which inevitably leads to sectarian friction. True social harmony is far more likely if every Muslim operates under the baseline assumption that their own group might very well be among the misguided.

Yet, observe our modern landscape. Social media is choked with virtual, celebrity ulama chanting the familiar mantra of "Muslim unity." Despite the abysmal odds, each insists that his narrow interpretation is the solitary path to salvation, condemning the other 72 to perdition.

When these scholars demand "unity," what they truly demand is absolute uniformity—or worse, unthinking unanimity. They blithely ignore the central premise of the Qur'an: that on the Day of Judgment, we are weighed on the mizanindividually by our deeds, not by our tribal or sectarian affiliations. Heaven has no VIP express lanes for specific schools of thought or ethnic identities.

The profound beauty of human diversity entirely escapes these literalists. To them, any shade of variation is an unacceptable bida'ah (innovation). Ironically, it is this rigid, dangerous obsession with enforced sameness that tears the ummah apart.

Next: Preventing Evil with Your Hand, Tongue, and Heart