On Adam Adli

ASSALAMU`ALAIKUM WARAHMATULLAH

Hello guys. How's life been? I know the question is obsolete and cliché, but still; it's important. In social networking, asking one's health and recent progress is something that is nearing the state of obligation. Ask people their health, their updates and all; and you'll be just fine in the intended relationship. Anyway, we're not going to talk rubbish about social mobility whatsoever. This entry is written as a respond to one of the rudest things that had ever happened in this country. The title should be a sufficient self-explanatory statement, I think.

Freedom of mind: the real deal

On 17th December 2011,  a Sultan Idris Education University (SIEU a.k.a UPSI) student shook the whole democratic, liberal ground of Malaysia as he showed total disrespect towards our leader. What did he do? He went to the Putra World Trade Center (PWTC) and lowered the flag that has our Prime Minister's face on it. For him, it was an act of pure nobility; setting new standard for free speakers here in Malaysia. Little did he know that his act was a capital crime, an absolute degradation for someone who will be called as teacher.

I bet you guys know how much I hate talking rubbish, without affirmative contention. So here I am, feeling obliged to respond to his own definition and implementation of freedom of speech. InshaAllah, I will point out several things that he might had taken for granted (which caused him to do the unthinkable). No worry, I am a supporter of freedom of speech. I'll be talking as a representative for Malaysia's free speakers, not UMNO's stalwart. So, here we go:

1. His act didn't have any resemblance to what freedom of speech is all about

Freedom of speech applies only to the freedom of speech. In it, there is no freedom of act, let alone freedom of subversiveness. I know how much terrible he must've felt for the limited freedom of expression here, in Malaysia. He had maybe gone through a series of unwanted and neglected demonstrations. He might had felt that his tiny voice wasn't loud, articulate and significant enough for the elites to have noticed him. This is my first thought about him, and only a total hypothesis to what had really happened.

As I have stated above, freedom of speech is it. None more than that. And when the people whom you're speaking to ignore you, then it's their right. Their freedom of listening (yes, this is a new term) is not for enforcement. You should not force people to be listening to you and your gibberish rants. When they do, what option do you have in hands? Riot for no being heard? Demonstration for being neglected? Or sending memorandum? Do not these options show desperation?

In a nutshell, I dare to say that his act was not of free speakers. Free speakers respect laws and judiciaries. They give high salutation to the sensitivities of the community they're working in. Free speakers do not speak freely and blatantly; they speak truthfully and in accordance to the need(s) of people. Adam Adli is not a free speaker; he's a contaminated specimen of political scheme.

2. Religious talk

He's a Muslim, as far as I know. So, let us talk from and in a religious manner. Say, he says that the freedom of speech is a religious concept of Islam. Well hell. He's right but wrong at the very same time. Islam does promote the freedom of speech, even the freedom of belief as Qur'an says it in Surahtul Yunus, verse 99. But then, Islam also puts limits for all things. It is not to stop freedom, but to protect it. And you should understand, there is a higher degree of morality, far superior than freedom, that is; truth. So when you use religion to support you own term of freedom, you're coming close to pawning it. What a great sin that'd be...

Talking in our context, Adam Adli might have not read Sailul Jarar in Kitab Al-Mujamilah, written by Asy-Syaukani. He said in it that anyone who creates destruction and provocation, turmoil or causing it, the lightest punishment should be ta'zir and they deserve death sentence. He had probably missed a hadith narrated by Ibn Bazzar which goes, "Those who walk in  procession to defame his ruler, he is condemned by Allah". So yeah. You get it, as the definition is straigh forward.

One more thing, he should read more the twentieth book of Sahih Muslim, Kitab Al-'Imarah. Read that and reflect where you are right now. And say it to me that you're representing Islam. I remember a hadith which says that a ruler is to be respected, no matter how evil he might be/get. For as long as he performs solat, then you are forbidden to harm him.

So, his act had shaken to country. People from both sides are fighting for who's right and wrong. Turmoil happened just as much as sh*t did. Police were forced to do "harsh things" and people got bruises. When we come to think of it, of how easy and harmless it could have been if he took the more democratic and polite way. We have parliamentary hall to discuss things. We have media and so on. 

Conclusion

Adam Adli sure is a familiarity, as his methodology has the likeness of Che Guavara's. He fought the authoritarian just in order to seek justice and showed us about his right. Metaphorically, he stated that everyone has the very same right and was challenged to prove that he can lower the PM's flag. In terms if intention, he's a heroic and exemplary figure. 

But in Islam, intention does not justify the mean. No matter how noble your intention and vision is, the way to realize it must not from the easier road. Every intention has its proper road even if it means total ridiculous hardship. Adam Adli had the intention, the idealism but was lacking the practical skills. Idealism isn't it. There must be efforts and then there should be prayers and zikr.

The most important question does not come from the intention, though. What bothers me most is the significance of his act. Okay, he had lowered the flag- now what? This is what struck me most about this one good and brilliant guy. And the answer: would probably more philosophical than it needs to be, if you get what I mean.

But then, again, this can be merely an opinion.