IS CALLING IT THE "GREEN WAVE" A FORM OF CLOSET ISLAMOPHOBIA?

 

IS CALLING IT THE "GREEN WAVE" A FORM OF CLOSET ISLAMOPHOBIA?

We must revisit what happened immediately after GE15 in 2022 because we cannot afford to let history repeat itself. Millions of Malaysian voters - who went to the ballot box with hope and clear principles - found themselves outmaneuvered by political leaders whose primary hunger was for power.

When politicians readily compromise on their own core promises and manipulate public sentiment just to secure office, citizens must look back and dissect how it was done. Understanding the birth of the "Green Wave" myth is essential if we want to protect our democratic choices from being weaponized against us in the future.

Immediately after that election, I wrote that what Malaysia had witnessed was not a "Green Wave." I still hold that view today.

To understand why, we must look at what happened before Malaysians went to the polling stations during GE15.

For months leading up to the election, something remarkable was taking place. For the first time in decades, Malaysians from every race, religion, and background were talking about one issue above all else: corruption.

This conversation did not originate from politicians. It came from civil society, ordinary citizens, and religious organizations. One of the most significant efforts was led by #RasuahBusters through its Satu Jari campaign. Together with hundreds of NGOs, community organizations, and concerned citizens, they successfully pushed integrity and anti-corruption to the top of the national agenda.

The message cut across all faiths:

• In mosques: Friday sermons frequently reminded Muslims that corruption is a betrayal of amanah (trust).
• In churches: Sermons spoke about integrity and the moral responsibility to reject corrupt practices.
• In temples and gurdwaras: Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, and Taoist communities drew upon their own scriptures to emphasize honesty, justice, and ethical leadership.

Something extraordinary had happened. Malaysia was not united by ethnicity; we were united by values.

Every community expressed that conviction through their own lens. Muslims opposed corruption because they wanted to be good Muslims. Christians opposed it because they wanted to be good Christians. Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, and Taoists did exactly the same to live up to their own spiritual teachings.

Different faiths. Different languages. One moral conclusion.

That is why I argued then - and still argue now - that GE15 was not a Green Wave. It was a Red, White, Blue and Yellow Malaysian Wave. It was millions of citizens arriving at the exact same ethical destination through different spiritual paths.

The Architecture of a Distraction

Then, almost immediately after the election, the national conversation was hijacked. The profound focus on corruption and integrity vanished overnight. A new label began to dominate the media and political commentary: the "Green Wave."

The person or group of persons who coined and popularized this term did a massive disservice - not just to Islam, but to the entire nation.

Malaysians are smart enough to look past the surface and ask: why was this label manufactured in the first place? What was the true intent behind it?

When we analyze the immediate aftermath of GE15, two political motivations become clear:

First, certain political actors realized a terrifying truth: if cross-cultural values, integrity, and anti-corruption became the primary drivers for voters, the old political playbook was dead. For decades, many had depended entirely on race and religious division to maintain power. A united Malaysian population voting on shared ethical principles meant these parties would lose their grip on the electorate. They needed to force the conversation back into the familiar territory of fear and identity politics.

Second, the label provided a convenient, manufactured crisis. In the post-election scramble for power, certain factions needed a powerful justification to go back on their solemn campaign promises. Just days prior, they were loudly campaigning against corruption and promising never to work with certain figures. Yet, suddenly, they were "buddy-buddy" and forming a government together.

To hide this hypocrisy, they needed an imaginary monster. By inventing and stoking the fear of a looming "Green Wave," they created the perfect pretext to justify their sudden political realignment. It allowed them to pretend they were saving the country, when in reality, they were simply securing power.

Let me be absolutely clear: I am not a member of any political party, and I am certainly not a member of PAS. But we must realize that when political opponents attack PAS by weaponizing Islam and using loaded terms like "Green Wave," it triggers a dangerous chain reaction. It distorts how non-Muslims view Islam, and it inevitably provokes a defensive reaction from Muslims who feel their faith is being demonized.

This is incredibly damaging for a nation like ours. If we want to build a Malaysia that genuinely accepts diversity, finds compromise, and seeks ways to harmonize our different religious beliefs and ethnic backgrounds, this calculated polarization must stop. When leaders pretend to forget their own principles and manufacture fear to cover their tracks, it reveals a profound lack of integrity. These are the maneuvers that should make citizens deeply cautious about the leadership we trust.

The Impact of the Label

Once the election results were successfully framed as a Green Wave, the story was no longer about millions of Malaysians rejecting corruption. Instead, attention was forced onto one community, one religion, and one color. The narrative moved from shared values back to identity politics. From unity back to division.

Public discussion stopped asking why Malaysians had united against corruption and instead began debating whether this "Green Wave" was something to be feared.

This double standard remains deeply troubling:

• If Christians vote against corruption based on Christian values, nobody calls it a "Christian Wave."
• If Buddhists vote against corruption based on Buddhist values, nobody calls it a "Buddhist Wave."
• If Hindus or Sikhs vote based on their teachings, nobody labels it a "Hindu or Sikh Wave."

So why, when Muslims vote according to Islamic values against corruption, does it suddenly get labeled a "Green Wave"? Were they not simply trying to be good Muslims, just as others were trying to be faithful to the moral teachings of their own traditions?

When a political label repeatedly associates a democratic choice with a color strongly identified with Islam - and frames that choice as an existential threat - does it merely describe reality? Or does it actively encourage people to associate Islam with fear?

That is why I ask whether calling GE15 the "Green Wave" became a form of closet Islamophobia.

I am not suggesting that every person who uses the term intends it maliciously. But the effect of the term is undeniable: it shifts the public consciousness away from a cross-cultural rejection of corruption and replaces it with suspicion toward one religious community.

Malaysia deserves better than this lazy, divisive framing. Our greatest achievement in GE15 was not which coalition won or lost. It was that, for a brief moment, Malaysians from every race and faith found common moral ground.

That is the wave we should choose to remember.

Peace,

Anas Zubedy

Penang

 

UMNO MALAYS AND CINA DAP?

 

UMNO MALAYS AND CINA DAP?

As the Johor state election approaches, one thing has become increasingly obvious: UMNO and DAP have once again managed to dominate the political narrative. It is almost as though Johor is witnessing the same old political battle that Malaysians have been fed for decades.

But Johor 2026 is not the Johor of the past.

This election is not simply Barisan Nasional versus Pakatan Harapan, nor merely UMNO versus DAP.

Johoreans will also choose among candidates from Perikatan Nasional and Pakatan Harapan with myriad of political parties - PAS, Bersatu, PKR, Amanah, MUDA, Wawasan, BERSAMA and other political parties, as well as independents. There are more players, more choices and more political ideas than ever before. Yet somehow, we are once again being drawn back into the familiar UMNO-DAP storyline.

Why?

Because once politics becomes an UMNO-DAP contest, racial narratives inevitably return. Before long, we hear phrases such as "UMNO Malays" and "Cina DAP" being casually thrown around.

That should concern every Malaysian.

Both terms, when used maliciously, are racist remarks. Adding a political label before the words Malay or Chinese does not suddenly make racism acceptable. It merely disguises it.

I know many UMNO Malays who are decent, fair-minded and genuinely believe in a multi-racial Malaysia. Likewise, I know many Cina DAP who reject racism and sincerely want what they believe is best for the country. Political membership does not determine whether someone is racist.

Unfortunately, many closet racists have discovered a convenient way to hide their prejudice.

Instead of attacking Malays, they attack "UMNO Malays."

Instead of attacking Chinese, they attack "Cina DAP."

It sounds political.

It sounds sophisticated.

But often, it is nothing more than racism dressed in political clothing.

It is an effective political strategy because politicians and their supporters can pander to racial sentiments while maintaining the appearance of being non-racist. They simply claim they are criticising supporters of a political party. Yet the message received by many people extends far beyond politics.

The labels "UMNO Malays" and "Cina DAP" have become convenient political weapons. They allow racial prejudice to be propagated while hiding behind a supposedly multi-racial façade.

That may well be the most dangerous form of racial politics because it is subtle, indirect and easily denied.

Malaysians should reject this tactic regardless of who uses it.

Whether it comes from UMNO, DAP, PKR, PAS, Bersatu, Amanah, WAWASAN, BERSAMA, MUDA or any other political party should make no difference.

Racism remains racism.

As Johor prepares to vote, let us not fall into the trap of believing this election is simply another chapter in the endless UMNO-DAP rivalry. There are many parties. There are many candidates. More importantly, there is only one Malaysia.

Let us reject racial labels. Let us reject targeted racial politics. It is not good for UMNO or DAP either if they truly aspire to lead Malaysia and be seen as national parties, rather than parties identified primarily with one community.Let us judge every candidate by integrity, competence and ideas - not race.

Malaysia deserves nothing less.

Anas Zubedy
Penang

 

IDIOT'S GUIDE TO MALAYSIAN POLITICS :)

 

IDIOT'S GUIDE TO MALAYSIAN POLITICS :)

Note : Wrote this in March 2013. Do you think it is still relevant today?

1. Cronyism is only wrong when it is practised by the other side.
2. Corruption is only wrong when it is practised by the other side. But if he or she joins us, everything becomes halal again.
3. If it was the ABC Government that proposed an underground tunnel in Penang, XYZ would oppose it  - and vice versa.
4. Factories are dangerous when the other side builds them - and vice versa.
5. When the other side talks about race, they are racist. When we talk about race, it's because we care.
6. Big projects are wasteful ONLY IF they are mooted by the other side. When we moot them, it's smart economics.
7. A Satan is a Satan as long as he is on the other side. Join us, and immediately Satan becomes an angel.
8. If you are not with us, you are against us  - even if you are right.
9. My party and I speak on behalf of God. If you don't follow us, you will go to hell.
10. All my leaders are smart; all your leaders are idiots.
11. When my children move up the political ladder, they are smart. When your children do the same, it's nepotism.
12. My research shows we have more support and will win the next general election. Your research that says otherwise must have been done wrongly.
13. My forensic expert is better than your forensic expert.
14. When our two leaders debate, my leader will always be better, no matter how stupid he or she sounds.
15. My ulamak is better than your ulamak, even if my ulamak never quotes the Quran.
16. Our idiots are smarter than your experts.
17. When I disagree, it is democracy. When you disagree, you are rude, stupid, bought over, influenced, etc., etc.
18. Green is blue when you say it. Blue is green when I say it.
19. When I give handouts, it is because I care. When the other side does it, they are buying votes.
20. Only jokes about the other side are funny.

Note: Siapa makan cili, dia terasa pedasnya.

Anas Zubedy
(March 2013)

KERUSI AHLI PARLIMEN BUKAN HAK MILIK PERIBADI - Sinar Harian 20/06/26

 

KERUSI AHLI PARLIMEN BUKAN HAK MILIK PERIBADI

Perkembangan mutakhir yang melibatkan Rafizi Ramli dan Nik Nazmi telah membangkitkan satu persoalan demokrasi yang sangat fundamental untuk kita renungkan bersama: Siapakah pemilik sebenar kerusi seseorang Ahli Parlimen (MP)? Adakah ia milik mutlak ahli politik itu sendiri, kepunyaan parti yang diwakilinya, atau hakiki milik rakyat yang telah mengundi mereka?

Bagi saya, jawapannya cukup jelas. Seseorang MP atau ADUN mungkin bertanding di bawah panji sesebuah parti, namun sebaik sahaja mereka dipilih, kesetiaan dan tanggungjawab utama mereka adalah kepada para pengundi yang telah memberikan kepercayaan. Prinsip inilah yang membentuk tiang seri sesebuah sistem demokrasi.

Antara Keabsahan Teknikal dan Keabsahan Moral

Dari sudut perundangan dan perlembagaan, Malaysia mengamalkan sistem Parlimen Westminster. Secara teknikal, setelah dipilih, seseorang MP tidak terikat di sisi undang-undang untuk menuruti setiap kehendak pengundi; sebaliknya mereka tertakluk kepada Perlembagaan Persekutuan, peraturan mesyuarat parlimen, dan disiplin parti.

Namun, kita harus beringat bahawa demokrasi tidak terbina di atas keabsahan teknikal semata-mata, melainkan di atas keabsahan moral (moral legitimacy). Dari segi moral, mandat yang dipegang oleh seseorang wakil rakyat datangnya langsung daripada rakyat.

Atas dasar itulah undang-undang antilompat parti diperkenalkan di Malaysia, selepas kita mengharungi fasa ketidakstabilan politik yang panjang akibat tindakan berpaling tadah dan percaturan sang penguasa. Semangat sebenar di sebalik undang-undang tersebut adalah untuk memastikan mandat pengundi tidak sewenang-wenangnya diperlekehkan pasca-pilihan raya. Ini secara tidak langsung mengiktiraf bahawa kerusi yang dimenangi bukanlah harta peribadi seseorang ahli politik.

Membezakan Letak Jawatan Parti dan Kosongkan Kerusi

Oleh itu, kita perlu membezakan secara jelas antara tindakan meletak jawatan daripada parti politik dengan tindakan mengosongkan kerusi Parlimen atau DUN. Kedua-dua perkara ini tidak sama.

• Jika seseorang MP tidak lagi sehaluan dengan pucuk pimpinan, tidak bersetuju dengan hala tuju perjuangan, atau berasa tidak lagi serasi dengan dinamika parti, mereka mempunyai hak sepenuhnya untuk keluar atau meletak jawatan daripada parti tersebut. Itu adalah hak politik individu.
• Namun, tindakan mengosongkan kerusi adalah perkara yang jauh berbeza. Dari sudut moral, kerusi tersebut membawa amanah dan mandat demokrasi rakyat. Sebab itulah ahli politik tidak boleh sewenang-wenangnya mengosongkan kerusi Parlimen atau DUN semata-mata disebabkan oleh krisis dalaman parti, perebutan kuasa, pergolakan puak, atau pelan strategi politik sesama mereka.

Sekiranya wujud perjanjian dalaman parti yang menetapkan bahawa sesiapa yang keluar parti perlu membayar denda kompensasi—sama ada RM10 juta atau apa-apa jumlah sekalipun—maka itu adalah urusan komersial dan kontrak peribadi antara ahli politik tersebut dengan partinya. Rakyat tidak sepatutnya dijadikan 'mangsa keadaan' (collateral damage) akibat aturan politik dalaman sedemikian.

Jika seseorang wakil rakyat mahu keluar parti kerana tidak lagi sehaluan, mereka harus menanggung sendiri implikasinya secara peribadi, termasuk membayar apa-apa penalti yang telah dipersetujui dalam 'kontrak perniagaan politik' mereka. Mandat awam yang telah diberikan oleh pengundi tidak boleh dikorbankan separuh jalan hanya kerana kemelut dalaman parti.

Kesan Kepada Pengundi dan Isyarat Bahaya Kepada Demokrasi

Perkara ini menjadi lebih kritikal sekiranya peletakan jawatan itu berlaku selepas dua tahun pertama pilihan raya umum. Mengikut amalan semasa, apabila tempoh Parlimen sudah menghampiri penghujungnya, kekosongan kerusi tidak semestinya akan membawa kepada Pilihan Raya Kecil (PRK).

Dalam situasi sebegini, kawasan Parlimen berkenaan akan terbiar tanpa mempunyai wakil rakyat untuk tempoh tertentu, hanya disebabkan oleh percaturan politik yang langsung tiada kena-mengena dengan kebajikan pengundi. Ini satu penganiayaan. Rakyat turun mengundi untuk diwakili bagi tempoh satu penggal penuh, bukannya untuk kehilangan suara akibat perselisihan faham atau perkiraan strategik sesebuah parti politik.

Jika tidak, apakah mesej yang sedang kita sampaikan kepada rakyat Malaysia?

1. Adakah undi mereka tidak sepenting rundingan bilik belakang parti?
2. Adakah percaturan politik dalam kalangan elit lebih utama daripada mandat rakyat?

Ini adalah isyarat yang sangat berbahaya kepada sistem demokrasi kita. Apabila wakil rakyat mula menganggap kerusi yang dimenangi sebagai alat permainan catur politik dan bukannya amanah, lambat-laun rakyat akan hilang kepercayaan kepada sistem pilihan raya itu sendiri.

Keperluan Undang-Undang yang Lebih Tegas

Mungkin sudah tiba masanya untuk Malaysia memikirkan secara serius undang-undang yang lebih tegas mengenai perkara ini. Sekiranya seseorang wakil rakyat mengosongkan kerusi secara sukarela atas sebab perselisihan politik dalaman, pergolakan puak, atau aturan peribadi parti, maka individu tersebut sewajarnya dilarang daripada bertanding semula sekurang-kurangnya untuk satu atau dua kitaran pilihan raya akan datang. Tindakan mengosongkan kerusi tanpa sebab yang kukuh mendatangkan implikasi dan kos yang amat besar kepada negara, antaranya:

• Kos Kewangan: Belanja besar untuk menguruskan PRK yang tidak sepatutnya berlaku.
• Kos Pentadbiran: Pembaziran sumber manusia dan logistik agensi kerajaan.
• Ketidakstabilan Politik: Mengganggu fokus tadbir urus negara.
• Kelesuan Emosi Awam (Public Fatigue): Rakyat menjadi mual dan muak dengan kerenah politik.
• Gangguan Khidmat Kawasan: Terjejaskanya kebajikan dan penyampaian bantuan kepada penduduk setempat.

Dan yang paling utama, ia mencemari kesucian mandat yang telah diamanahkan oleh para pengundi.

Kesimpulan

Sudah tentu, ini bukan bermakna MP atau ADUN langsung tidak boleh melepaskan jawatan mereka. Wujud sebab-sebab munasabah yang boleh diterima akal, seperti masalah kesihatan yang serius, ketidakupayaan fizikal untuk berkhidmat, pelanggaran etika dan salah laku yang berat, atau situasi peribadi mendesak yang benar-benar menghalang mereka daripada menjalankan tugas. Itu sesuatu yang kita fahami.

Namun, politik dalaman parti sama sekali tidak boleh dijadikan alasan mudah untuk memulangkan kembali mandat awam yang telah diamanahkan oleh ribuan pengundi.

Mungkin erti 'reformasi' pada hari ini bukan lagi sekadar menukar kerajaan atau mengubah gabungan politik. Reformasi hari ini menuntut kita untuk memperkukuh dan menjaga kesucian mandat rakyat itu sendiri. Kerana pada akhirnya, kita perlu sedar dan beringat: kerusi seorang Ahli Parlimen tidak sesekali boleh dilayan seperti harta milik peribadi.

Salam

Anas Zubedy

 

 

AMERICA HAS THE CARDS. IRAN HAS THE TRUMP.

AMERICA HAS THE CARDS. IRAN HAS THE TRUMP.

President Donald Trump and his team, including Pete Hegseth and Marco Rubio, like to use card metaphors.

"Iran doesn't have the cards." "They don't hold a strong hand." "We have the cards."

Whether discussing war, sanctions, or negotiations, the poker metaphor comes up repeatedly. It reflects the American strategic mindset. Americans love poker, so they think in terms of hands, bluffs, and leverage.

But there is an irony here.

Iran is unlikely to be intimidated by poker talk of hands, bluffs, and leverage. Their civilisation has been playing card games much longer. Long before the idea of an America existed. Well before Christopher Columbus.

Historians believe playing cards originated in China. They invented paper. From there, they travelled west through Central Asia and reached Persia. Sitting at the crossroads of East and West, Persia was likely one of the major routes through which card games eventually reached Europe, and later, North America. Long before poker became an American pastime, cards passed through Persia.

Which brings us back to today.

One of Iran's most popular traditional card games is Hokm.

The word hokm means authority, command, decree or, in the game of cards, TRUMP! In the game, it refers specifically to "the trump suit" - the suit that beats cards that would otherwise be stronger. In Hokm, a weak card in the trump suit can defeat a powerful card from another suit.

The lesson is simple: having the trump matters more than just having more cards. In modern politics, that is called leverage. In military language, it is called asymmetric strategy.

American politicians say success belongs to whoever has the cards. The Iranians play a game that teaches that having the cards is useful, but having the hokm - the Trump - is what wins.

Each time President Trump says Iran doesn't have the cards, many Iranians are probably smiling to themselves. They have been playing Hokm for generations.

Because they know that America may have the cards.

But Iran has the Trump. 😊

Peace, Anas Zubedy

AHSANAL HADITH 1 – Quran 39:18

 

AHSANAL HADITH 1 – Quran 39:18

How To Be Guided By Allah And Become A Person Of Understanding

The Verse

Surah Az-Zumar (39:18)

الَّذِينَ يَسْتَمِعُونَ الْقَوْلَ فَيَتَّبِعُونَ أَحْسَنَهُ ۚ أُولَٰئِكَ الَّذِينَ هَدَاهُمُ اللَّهُ ۖ وَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمْ أُولُو الْأَلْبَابِ

Alladhīna yastamiʿūna al-qawla fayattabiʿūna aḥsanahu ulā'ika alladhīna hadāhumu Allāhu wa-ulā'ika hum ulū al-albāb.

"Who listen to speech and follow the best of it. Those are the ones Allah has guided, and those are people of understanding."

Why I Chose This Verse

I deliberately chose this verse to open this book because it has profoundly shaped how I approach life, knowledge, people, and even the Quran itself.

Growing up in Malaysia, I was constantly exposed to a beautiful tapestry of viewpoints. Living in a multiracial and multicultural society meant that I grew up listening to Malays, Chinese, Indians, people of different faiths, different generations, and entirely different social backgrounds. Later, as I dove deeper into Islamic studies, I encountered an equally rich diversity of thought within our own tradition—from differences between schools of jurisprudence (fiqh) to varied interpretations across different historical schools of thought.

Like many, I often found myself asking: How do I navigate these competing ideas? How do I decide what to believe, handle disagreements, or choose between conflicting arguments?

This verse gave me a simple but powerful mental model. Allah does not tell us to isolate ourselves or listen only to people who agree with us, our tribe, our culture, or our generation. Instead, He praises those who are willing to listen broadly, think carefully, and then follow what is best.

Whenever I encounter differing opinions, this verse acts as a safety valve against arrogance. It reminds me that my job is not to defend my ego or my previous positions, but to sincerely seek the truth. It has taught me deep humility. Sometimes the best idea comes from someone much younger than me, someone with less experience, or even someone I do not particularly get along with. Yet, if their idea is better, I must have the courage to let go of my own view. In meetings and daily conversations, I often drop my anchor here: "Anas, if their idea is better than yours, let your idea go." Doing so is not weakness; it is an attempt to live by this verse.

What Is Allah Saying Here?

This verse describes the qualities of people whom Allah praises.

Allah does not praise people merely because they have a voice or because they are exposed to information. Many people speak, and many people listen passively. Instead, Allah praises those who listen carefully, evaluate what they hear, identify what is best, and then act upon it.

When we commit to this process, Allah promises two profound gifts: divine guidance (huda) and true depth of intellect (ulū al-albāb). This teaches us that guidance is not merely something we inherit or assume. It is actively given to those who filter out the noise of the world and sincerely pursue what is best in thought and action.

Quran Explains Quran (QBQ)

To fully appreciate the weight of this verse, we can look at how the Quran interprets itself across different chapters. The concept of pursuing the "best" is a recurring divine standard.

Taking the Best Guidance

When Allah revealed the Tawrah (Torah) to Musa (AS) in Surah Al-A'raf (7:145), He commanded him to "Take them with determination and order your people to take the best of it." This establishes that believers have always been encouraged to adhere to the highest and most beneficial application of divine guidance.

The Ultimate Standard of Speech

Later in Surah Az-Zumar itself (39:23), Allah defines exactly what the ultimate "best speech" is: "Allah has sent down the best statement (Ahsan al-Hadith)." Therefore, while we open our minds to listen to human discourse, our compass for evaluating what is "best" ultimately returns to the Quran itself. While believers may benefit from wisdom wherever it is found, the Quran remains the final criterion by which all ideas, opinions, and arguments are measured.

The Cycle of Goodness

This alignment with good speech naturally unlocks divine favour. In Surah Al-Hajj (22:24), Allah notes that the righteous "were guided to good speech and they were guided to the path of the Praiseworthy." When we combine this with the command in Surah Al-Baqarah (2:83) to "speak to people good words," the Quran creates a beautiful cycle for the believer: we listen to what is good, we internalise and follow what is best, and we speak what is good back into the world.

Key Words and Concepts

• Al-Qawl (القول): Literally meaning speech, statement, or opinion. In this context, it encompasses everything we encounter—arguments, cultural narratives, modern media, and philosophies. The text implies that the world will always be full of competing words; the test lies in our selection.
• Fayattabi'una (فيتبعون): Derived from the root ta-ba-'a, meaning to follow. This is not blind, mindless imitation. It signifies a conscious, willing commitment to walk a path because you have personally verified its truth and value.
• Ahsanahu (أحسنه): Meaning the finest, most balanced, or most beautiful. Sharing a root with Ihsan (excellence) and Muhsin (a doer of good), it demands that a believer never settles for mediocrity or baseline correctness when a higher, more beneficial option exists.
• Ulul Albab (أولو الألباب): Commonly translated as "people of understanding," it refers to those who possess a pure, unclouded intellect. These are individuals who look past surfaces, calculate long-term consequences, and allow their intelligence to drive them toward righteousness rather than clever justifications.

What Did The Scholars Say?

When we look at the rich history of Islamic scholarship, classical commentators consistently view this verse as a divine mandate for critical thinking, intellectual honesty, and moral action.

Ibn Kathir and Al-Suyuti both emphasize that the core of this verse centers on quality of judgment rather than the mere volume of information consumed. They note that the praised individuals are those who hear various statements, parse through them, and selectively pull out the most excellent truths to live by—chief among them being the Quran itself.

In terms of the mental discipline required to achieve this, Al-Ghazali and Al-Qurtubi highlight that a believer should not be a blind follower. They argue that this verse calls for discernment and careful judgment. To "follow the best," one must actively weigh evidence, critically analyse arguments, and deliberately choose the path that brings the greatest benefit and aligns closest with divine truth.

Expanding on this intellectual framework, Fakhruddin Al-Razi champions the verse as an explicit praise for human reason and reflection. He argues that Allah gave us an intellect specifically to examine life’s evidence and arrive at sound conclusions. Echoing this sentiment, Al-Sa'di points out that the capacity to distinguish truth from falsehood - and choosing to act on that truth rather than following whims - is the ultimate benchmark of a healthy, functioning mind. Knowing what is right but choosing what is easy is simply a deficiency in judgment.

Related Hadeeth

The Prophet ﷺ said:

"The best among you are those who learn the Quran and teach it." (Sahih al-Bukhari)

This hadeeth serves as the perfect companion piece to our verse. If Surah Az-Zumar establishes that we must follow the best of what we hear, and later identifies the Quran as the ultimate Ahsan al-Hadith (Best Speech), then this prophetic tradition completes the circle. True excellence is found when we dedicate ourselves to studying this ultimate standard, living its truths, and passing that clarity on to others.

Reflection for Today

We no longer live in a world starved for information; we live in a world drowning in it. Every click brings a flood of opinions, targeted algorithms, and loud commentaries designed to validate our biases rather than challenge our minds. Our challenge today is no longer access to information but the ability to distinguish between what is beneficial and what is not.

This verse reminds us that a believer should neither reject everything outside their comfort zone nor blindly swallow everything they hear. True guidance belongs to those who approach life with an open mind and an honest heart, prioritising the discovery of truth over the comfort of being right.

It forces us to look in the mirror and ask: When I am presented with a genuinely better argument or a clear Quranic truth, does my ego resist it, or do I have the grace to change?

Points of Action

The Quran was revealed to shape our character and revolutionise our daily choices. Here is how we can translate this verse into a living practice.

Reflection Questions

Take a moment to contemplate these questions honestly:

• Do I genuinely listen to views that differ from my own, or do I just wait for my turn to speak?
• Am I more interested in discovering what is true, or proving that I was right all along?
• When someone presents a superior idea, do I experience a prick of pride, or do I welcome it?
• What specific area of my life right now requires me to stop rushing and use better judgment?

Write down your answers in a notebook or on your phone. Honest reflection is often the first step towards guidance.

This Week's Actions

For the next seven days, actively step into the shoes of the Ulul Albab using these five habits:

1. Listen to Understand: In your meetings and family conversations, make a deliberate effort to listen completely without formulating your counterargument while the other person is speaking.
2. Diversify Your Perspectives: When tackling an important decision, avoid echo chambers. Intentionally read or consult different angles before drawing a conclusion.
3. Apply the Quranic Filter: Run every piece of advice or strategy through a simple checklist: Is it truthful? Is it just? Is it deeply beneficial?
4. Choose Better Over Easier: When choosing between paths, do not default to what is comfortable or traditional. Choose the one that yields the highest moral and practical good.
5. Bridge Knowledge and Action: Do not let a good realization evaporate. The moment you recognize a better way to act, implement it immediately.

The One-Week Journal Challenge

Every evening before you sleep, open your phone or a notebook and log three answers:

1. What major ideas or opinions did I encounter today?
2. What was the absolute best piece of wisdom I heard?
3. Did I actually adjust my behaviour to follow it?

Memorable Takeaway

Guidance begins with listening, grows through discernment, and is completed through action.

Peace,

Anas Zubedy

Note : I appreciate feedback and recommendations. Thanks.

For earlier entry go here - https://letusaddvalue.blogspot.com/2026/06/the-forty-ahsan-al-hadith-project.html

 

TONY PUA: DEFENDING ADAB WITH ADAB, NOT THE COURTS

 

TONY PUA: DEFENDING ADAB WITH ADAB, NOT THE COURTS

I disagree with Tony Pua. I believe he profoundly misunderstood the nature of adab in his recent commentary. Yet, as a Malaysian who deeply values our cultural fabric, I find myself equally uncomfortable with the growing reflex to resolve matters of adab through police reports, criminal investigations, and the heavy hand of the law. When our immediate response to a perceived breach of courtesy is to demand prosecution, we must pause and ask ourselves: is this truly how adab is traditionally taught, defended, and preserved?

Let me unpack why I take this stand.

“The highest form of adab is maintaining our own adab even when confronted by a lack of adab.”

The moment we push every disagreement, insult, or cultural misunderstanding into the legal arena, we inadvertently weaken the very social mechanisms that cultivate character in the first place. Adab cannot be coerced by a magistrate; it must be taught, modeled, and lived. It is a value transmitted quietly from one generation to the next through social fabric, not legal force. By relying on state power to enforce respect, we slowly hollow out our collective capacity for self-regulation. A society that genuinely prizes adab should not merely look to punish those who lack it; it should patiently work to cultivate it. This is because the highest form of adab is maintaining our own adab even when confronted by a lack of adab.

There is a striking irony in the current uproar. If Tony Pua’s mistake was reducing our traditional rulers to their legal and constitutional powers alone, then his critics are making the exact same error by reducing adab to a matter of law. Both sides are looking through the same narrow lens. Pua views the rulers solely through legal frameworks, while his critics view cultural decorum solely through the threat of legal penalty. Yet, both the institution of our rulers and the concept of adab possess deep, spiritual, and historical dimensions that extend far beyond the boundaries of any courtroom.

Traditionally, the Malay world maintained a clear and sophisticated boundary between the domain of the court and the domain of culture. Some matters unequivocally belong to the law: theft, fraud, assault, and corruption. These require prosecution. But matters of disrespect, discourtesy, cultural insensitivity, or a poor understanding of social hierarchy belong strictly to the realm of adab. Historically, a breach of adab was met with advice (nasihat), explanation, community guidance, and a pathway toward reconciliation—not a prison sentence.

Furthermore, Pua’s misstep reveals a broader, modern blind spot regarding the nature of power. Many commentators today suffer from a highly legalistic, sterile view of leadership that recognizes only formal, constitutional authority. This is a very rigid approach to governance. In contrast, our system relies heavily on relational, moral, and cultural gravity. Real leadership consists of a much richer tapestry: influence, persuasion, moral authority, symbolism, and historical legitimacy. A ruler may have strictly defined constitutional boundaries in a particular matter, yet still command immense cultural and moral influence. To assume that a lack of direct legal authority equates to a lack of a meaningful role is to fundamentally misunderstand how communities, organizations, and the Malay world actually function.

This brings us to the real test of adab, which forms the heart of this entire issue. It is incredibly easy to show respect to those who are being respectful to us. The true measure of our character shines when the opposite occurs. When a child behaves rudely, we do not sue them; we teach them. When a friend shows insensitivity, we advise them. When someone fails to comprehend our traditions, we explain them. Tony Pua and those who share his mindset do not need a judge to help them "see." They need teachers and role models of adab, and a better, deeper understanding of how leadership, influence, and persuasion truly work in our society and the world at large.

Ultimately, the issue before us today is not actually Tony Pua. The issue is how we, as Malaysians, choose to respond. If we truly believe that adab matters, we must defend it with adab, teach it through adab, and model it through adab. The best way to preserve a value is never to aggressively demand it from others, but to practice it flawlessly ourselves. If adab is important enough to protect, then it must guide the very manner in which we protect it.

The Malays of old reminded us, "Bagaimana acuan, begitulah kuihnya" (As the mould, so the cake). If we wish to defend adab, then the manner in which we defend it must itself be guided by adab. If we wish to teach adab, then we must first embody it. We must become the example from which others learn.

Peace.

Anas Zubedy