THE LEADER OF A PEOPLE IS THEIR SERVANT

 

I would first like to commend and thank His Royal Highness Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah for reminding Malaysians of the famous quote that “no man can get rich in politics unless he’s a crook.” Regardless of whether one agrees fully with the statement or not, it opens an important moral discussion about political leadership, power, wealth, and responsibility.

For Muslims, perhaps this is also a good moment for us to reflect on the lives of the greatest political leaders in Muslim history: the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and the first four caliphs, Saidina Abu Bakr, Saidina Umar, Saidina Uthman, and Saidina Ali.

What is interesting is that many of them did not begin as poor men seeking power to improve their lives. The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ had economic dignity through trade and through his marriage to Khadijah, a successful and respected businesswoman. Saidina Abu Bakr was a respected merchant. Saidina Umar came from a strong Quraysh family and was involved in trade. Saidina Uthman was among the wealthiest businessmen in Makkah. Even Saidina Ali, though not known for great wealth, came from noble lineage and lived a life associated with dignity, knowledge, and simplicity.

Yet once leadership came to them, power did not become a path toward personal enrichment.

In fact, one notices a remarkable pattern among the greatest early Muslim leaders. Many of them started life with far more wealth, comfort, and material standing than what they possessed at the end of their lives. Leadership did not make them richer. Leadership made them spend. Much of their wealth, energy, and resources were used for society, the poor, the nation, and the religion.

The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ passed away leaving behind very few material possessions. What he truly left behind was not wealth, palaces, or luxury, but a civilizational legacy that transformed humanity. Saidina Abu Bakr spent much of his wealth supporting Islam, freeing slaves, and serving society. Saidina Umar ruled one of the largest empires in the world at the time, yet lived with extraordinary modesty and deep fear of misusing public wealth. Saidina Uthman used enormous amounts of personal wealth for the ummah, public good, and the needs of society. Saidina Ali became known not for riches, but for justice, humility, sacrifice, and knowledge.

There seems to be an important lesson here. The greatest Muslim political leaders often began relatively well-off, yet by the end of their leadership and lives, many lived modestly and possessed far less materially than when they started. Their wealth flowed outward toward society rather than inward toward themselves.

The point here is not that Islam rejects wealth. Islam does not reject success, business, or prosperity. In fact, many early Muslim leaders were successful individuals before leadership.

The deeper lesson is this: leadership in Islam was never meant to be a money-making business for oneself, family, and cronies.

Power was seen as an amanah. Leadership was a responsibility before Allah and society. Wealth was to serve the people, not the other way around.

Perhaps this is something Muslim societies, including Malaysia, should reflect upon carefully.

Today, many political leaders speak about defending Islam, protecting Muslims, fighting for the ummah, or championing religion. Such words are important. But words alone are never enough.

Those who wish to lead in the name of Islam must also be willing to emulate the moral burden carried by the Prophet ﷺ and the first four caliphs. They must be willing to embrace accountability, sacrifice, simplicity, humility, and service. Before gallantly proclaiming that one is fighting for Islam or protecting Muslims, one must first be willing to choose a modest and responsible life.

As voters and citizens, perhaps we too must learn to judge leadership not merely by slogans and speeches, but by character, sacrifice, conduct, priorities, and lifestyle. We must ask whether our leaders truly embody the spirit of amanah shown by the earliest leaders of Islam.

As the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ reminded us:

“The leader of a people is their servant.”

Peace.

Anas Zubedy

 

SINAR HARIAN HARI INI - PERLUKAH IRAN BERHENTI BERUNDING

 

Dengan tamatnya tempoh gencatan senjata pada Isnin, 20 April 2026, Iran kini berada di persimpangan jalan untuk menilai semula strateginya. Tanggapan bahawa diplomasi mampu meredakan ketegangan antara Tehran dan Washington semakin sukar dipertahankan. Malah, meneruskan meja rundingan mungkin sekadar satu pembaziran masa buat Iran.

Walaupun diplomasi sering dilihat sebagai langkah rasional untuk mengelakkan konflik, tidak semua rundingan dijalankan atas dasar kejujuran. Sering kali, ia hanyalah taktik untuk membeli masa, menjaga imej politik, atau mengelak daripada kelihatan lemah di mata dunia.

Berikut adalah faktor utama mengapa Iran perlu mempersoalkan keberkesanan diplomasi ini:

1. Dilema Kuasa Besar: Pantang Kelihatan Lemah

Masalah utama berakar umbi dalam realiti politik Amerika Syarikat (AS). Sebagai kuasa besar yang kini dicabar oleh kebangkitan China, AS tidak boleh membiarkan imejnya tercalar dengan kelihatan tunduk kepada Iran. Sebarang perjanjian yang dilihat memberi ruang kepada Iran akan dianggap sebagai tanda kejatuhan pengaruh global AS. Maka, rundingan bukanlah bermatlamat mencari kompromi sejati, sebaliknya hanya untuk mengekalkan persepsi dominasi di mata pengundi domestik dan sekutu antarabangsa.

2. Halangan Struktur: Agenda Israel

Faktor kedua yang lebih kritikal ialah pengaruh Israel. Secara struktural dan sejarah, Israel tidak berminat dengan keamanan mutlak jika ia menyekat matlamat strategik jangka panjang mereka:

• Realiti Demografi: Untuk kekal sebagai negara majoriti Yahudi, Israel tidak akan menerima kepulangan jutaan pelarian Palestin kerana ini akan menggugat imbangan kuasa politik mereka.
• Realiti Wilayah (Matlamat "Greater Israel"): Keamanan memerlukan sempadan yang tetap dan diiktiraf. Namun, bagi sebuah negara yang ingin terus meluaskan wilayah, sempadan tetap adalah satu kekangan. Israel melihat fleksibiliti sempadan sebagai satu keperluan strategi.

Oleh kerana dasar luar AS di Timur Tengah sangat terikat dengan kepentingan Israel, Washington tidak akan mampu mendesak satu pelan keamanan yang tidak dipersetujui oleh Tel Aviv.

3. Corak Sabotaj Diplomasi yang Konsisten

Terdapat corak yang jelas: setiap kali rundingan mula menunjukkan kemajuan (seperti melalui perantaraan Oman atau Pakistan), ia akan diganggu oleh provokasi atau serangan ketenteraan. Bagi Iran, ini membuktikan bahawa diplomasi akan sentiasa digagalkan sebaik sahaja ia mula membuahkan hasil. Ketidakstabilan sengaja dikekalkan sebagai alat untuk menghalang penyelesaian muktamad.

4. Ketidakstabilan Sebagai Strategi

Jika keamanan menstabilkan sempadan, dan sempadan yang stabil menyekat peluasan wilayah, maka ketidakstabilan menjadi senjata yang berguna. Konflik yang berterusan mengekalkan situasi dalam keadaan cair (fluid), sekali gus memberi ruang untuk tindakan ketenteraan pada bila-bila masa.

Ketegangan di pelbagai barisan hadapan—dari Lubnan ke Syria hingga ke Iran—bukanlah satu kebetulan. Ia adalah sebahagian daripada rancangan permainan Zionis yang tidak akan berakhir selagi matlamat "Greater Israel" belum tercapai.

Kesimpulan: Konflik Sebagai Pilihan Terakhir

Rekod sejarah menunjukkan bahawa AS hanya akan benar-benar berusaha menamatkan permusuhan apabila mereka berhadapan dengan jumlah korban yang besar (kepulangan askar dalam beg mayat).

Untuk memaksa perubahan drastik dalam dasar Washington, Iran mungkin terpaksa beralih daripada sekadar tekanan ekonomi—seperti gangguan di Selat Hormuz—kepada sasaran aset bernilai tinggi, termasuk kapal pengangkut pesawat Tentera Laut AS.

Walaupun Iran telah mempamerkan kawalan diri yang tinggi selama ini dengan hanya mensasarkan pangkalan tentera tanpa korban jiwa yang besar, dinamika ini akan berubah jika tentera darat Amerika terlibat secara langsung. Untuk memecahkan kebuntuan politik di Washington, Iran mungkin perlu melangkaui had kesabaran mereka sebelum ini.

Harapannya, jika konflik ini memuncak, ia akan berlaku dengan pantas bagi meminimumkan kehilangan nyawa dan menghentikan keupayaan Israel untuk terus mencetuskan huru-hara, sekali gus membolehkan ekonomi global kembali pulih.

Salam.

Anas Zubedy

https://www.sinarharian.com.my/article/778233/khas/pendapat/perlukah-iran-henti-berunding

 

WHICH IS MORE DANGEROUS: A WATER FESTIVAL OR HYPOCRISY?

 

We are once again caught in a familiar debate. On one side, leaders and groups speak of cultural sensitivity, protecting Islam, and staying true to Malay values. On the other, we hear arguments regarding tourism, economics, and the necessity of keeping Malaysia open and competitive.

All of this over a water festival.

Personally, I see this as just another distraction. Politicians from both sides seek to occupy our minds so we might forget what they are truly guilty of: hypocrisy and lying.

Let us be clear. Cultural sensitivity matters. Respecting Islam matters. Respecting the values and traditions of this country matters. These are not small things, and they should never be dismissed lightly. But we must also ask a more critical question: WHAT IS TRULY MORE DANGEROUS TO OUR NATION?

Is it a public event that may or may not align perfectly with our cultural expectations? Or is it the quiet normalization of hypocrisy and lying within our systems, our institutions, and our leadership?

We speak loudly about what is appropriate in public spaces, yet we are often far less vocal about dishonesty, corruption, and the misuse of power. We debate what is visible, but tolerate what is far more damaging beneath the surface. It is right to be culturally sensitive and right to pursue economic growth. However, we must be careful not to focus our sensitivity only on what is "political fuel"—the issues that rouse the voter base - while neglecting the moral integrity that truly shapes the strength and future of this country.

Let us be sensitive to hypocrisy. Let us be sensitive to lying. Let us be sensitive to the everyday struggles of Malaysians who deserve honesty, fairness, and dignity. And to those who heroically defend the merits of the water festival: be even louder in standing against hypocrisy first.

These moral failings are far more dangerous than any festival or any economic benefit lost by its cancellation.

Regarding Islamic values, the Qur’an is firm. It speaks of the munafiqun with a severity that should make us pause. While disbelief is clear and visible, hypocrisy is more dangerous because it hides behind the appearance of righteousness while undermining the truth from within.

The Qur’an warns:

“Indeed, the hypocrites will be in the lowest depths of the Fire — and never will you find for them a helper.” (Surah An-Nisa, 4:145)

And again:

“O you who have believed, why do you say what you do not do? Great is hatred in the sight of Allah that you say what you do not do.” (Surah As-Saff, 61:2–3)

This is not a peripheral issue; it is a foundational one. If we truly want to be culturally sensitive, and if we truly want this country to live up to Qur’anic values, then integrity must come first.

No to hypocrisy. No to lying.

Peace,

Anas Zubedy 

Kuala Lumpur