In an apparent reference to 1MDB and the state firm’s sponsorship of haj pilgrims, the former prime minister gave the analogy of Islam’s prohibition of pork.
“Will the pork be still haram to Muslims if the pig was slaughtered by reciting the name of God?
“By extension, is stolen money haram or not?” he asked, in a reference to accusations that billions of ringgit had been siphoned off from the state fund.
“If it’s haram, can the money be made halal by using it to perform the pilgrimage or umrah?
“If we are unaware that the money is stolen, is it wrong if we use it to go on the pilgrimage? If we know the money is stolen, will it become halal if we use it to perform the pilgrimage?” he asked.
He said these were among contrasting positions taken by the ulama to justify the haram as halal.
“Yes, there are many Islamic teachings and practices that confuse me. I will ask about them a few at a time,” the former leader, known for his witty sarcasm towards his critics, wrote.
He added that he accepted the fact that he is not an Islamic scholar.
“They say I have not studied the religion and I don’t understand Arabic. And I don’t have the appearance of an ulama, that is, I don’t wear a turban and jubah (Arab robe) and go about in sandals.
“I was advised to just listen to the teachings and lectures delivered by people who are qualified, who are religious people with the training and learning in the religion, even though only at the village pondok.”
On Saturday, controversial government preacher Zamihan Mat Zin questioned Mahathir’s intention to return to politics, saying at his old age, he should enrol himself in a madrasah and spend time in prayer.
“I accept their advice in good faith, but I have not been prohibited from asking questions should I need clarification from those who are pious,” Mahathir said.
You’re old and about to die, Zamihan’s thinly veiled attack on Dr M