Life-Health-Harsh Truth • Bitcoin-Dinar-Dirham • Not Medical Advice • Building @OfficialNyenyak @TradisiLeluhur @NutrientNative
Malaysia ☀️💧🧲
Joined September 2021
- Tweets26.1K
- Following246
- Followers9.7K
- Likes8.7K
Pinned Tweet
How I Beat Cancer & Why Even Doctors Are Now Asking Me for Advice.
In 2020, I was diagnosed with cancer.
Looking back, it made sense. Since college, I have been living a circadian-disrupted lifestyle:
❌ Sleeping late, waking up exhausted.
❌ Spending most of my time indoors under artificial light.
❌ Eating at unnatural hours, disconnected from the sun.
❌ Constant exposure to blue light and electromagnetic fields at night.
In simple terms, I was disconnected from nature. My body—designed to function on light, magnetism, and water—was running on empty. My mitochondria were failing.
Instead of following a centralized, one-size-fits-all medical approach, I turned to quantum biology and circadian health—fields that explain how light, electrons, and energy shape our biology at the most fundamental level.
The Turning Point: Discovering Decentralized Health
At the time, I was already exploring circadian biology on Twitter. Dr. Marina Gamba (@marinagamba1909) introduced me to Dr. Jack Kruse’s (@DrJackKruse Epi-Paleo Rx), which changed the way I understood health. Instead of looking at diseases as isolated problems, I started to see them as breakdowns in energy flow at the mitochondrial level.
I didn’t stop at reading—I applied everything. With guidance from Dr M, I designed a cancer protocol tailored to Malaysia’s geography and latitude, ensuring it aligned with our natural environment. Along the way, I discovered Grimhood (@Grimhood) and learned more about quantum health through deep self-research.
For 1.5 years, I followed a strict decentralized healing protocol—one based not on pharmaceutical interventions but on nature’s laws.
Think of your body as a battery. To function optimally, it needs:
🔋 The right light – Sunlight recharges the battery; artificial light drains it.
🔋 The right charge – Grounding allows electrons to flow freely.
🔋 The right water – Structured water inside cells enhances energy flow.
🔋 The right fuel – DHA-rich seafood acts as an energy conductor.
🔋 The right sleep – Deep, high-quality sleep repairs and regenerates.
The Protocol in Action
✅ Sunning – Exposing my body to morning, midday, and sunset sunlight to optimize melatonin, dopamine, and mitochondrial function.
✅ Grounding – Walking barefoot on soil, grass, and seawater to absorb the Earth’s negative electrons, reducing inflammation.
✅ Epi-Paleo Diet – Eating DHA-rich seafood, organ meats, and eliminating processed carbs to restore my mitochondrial function.
✅ Cold Thermogenesis – Using ice baths and cold showers to boost mitochondrial efficiency and cellular repair.
✅ Quality Sleep – Aligning my sleep with natural light-dark cycles, going to bed after Isyak prayer and waking up before Fajr.
✅ Minimizing nnEMFs – Turning off Wi-Fi at night, using wired devices, and sleeping away from electronics to avoid mitochondrial disruption.
✅ Blocking Artificial Light at Night – Wearing blue light-blocking glasses and using only red light after sunset.
✅ Magnesium Maxxing – Getting magnesium from diet, topical sources, and ocean exposure.
✅ Black Seed Oil Maxxing – Leveraging its powerful anti-inflammatory & immune-supporting properties.
✅ Strictly Cutting Out Fluoride – Avoiding fluoridated water and toothpaste to protect my pineal gland and optimize melatonin production.
Why Did This Work?
Because cancer isn’t just a genetic disease—it’s a mitochondrial energy crisis.
Imagine your cells as tiny engines (mitochondria). When they don’t get the right fuel (light, electrons, DHA), they start malfunctioning.
Cancer is what happens when these engines switch from clean-burning energy (oxygen) to inefficient fermentation (sugar).
Modern medicine focuses on removing tumors which are needed for acute cases, but it doesn’t fix the broken energy system that allowed cancer to form in the first place.
I didn’t just eliminate cancer—I restored my mitochondrial function.
Behind every KAKA is a whole squad of KAKAs cheering it on, making sure they collectively become even bigger KAKA.
You need to put your women inside your home & away from the internet as much as possible so they won't become the victim and/or the perpetrator of nonsense.
RSBJr lore:
Gigit kapsul tongkat aliku sewaktu ketiadaanku kemudian muntah sebab rasanya yang tak sedap.
Aku dah pernah pesan kat dia mende tu considered as ubat & dia tak boleh makan.
Dia respond:
"Ubat Abi, Umar tak boleh makan."
Namun curiosity seorang kanak-kanak memang tak boleh dihapuskan.
Aku tanya semula dia nak makan lagi tak mende tu, kalau nak makan aku ambilkan.
Dia kata "Taknak."
There hasn't been a proper controlled group placebo trial for vaccines in decades. The last real placebo-controlled trial was the 1954 polio vaccine study.
Since then, "placebo" groups have gotten another vaccine, like a meningitis shot, to skew results. This hides real side effects and makes vaccines seem safer than they are.
All you have to do is search for “FDA-licensed vaccines” on internet. You'll find every vaccine included in the childhood vaccination schedule. From there, you can click on whichever vaccine you're interested in.
Let's take Recombivax HB as an example. This is one of the Hepatitis B vaccines administered to newborns on their first day of life.
Once you're on the vaccine's page, look for the Vaccine Package Insert. This is essentially the product information and warning label supplied with the vaccine to healthcare providers. It contains details about the vaccine's ingredients, potential side effects, and other relevant safety information.
But here's the part I want you to pay particular attention to: Section 6.1.
This is where the manufacturer describes the clinical studies used to evaluate the vaccine's safety.
You'll find this section in vaccine package inserts, so you can examine the information for different vaccines yourself.
In the case of Recombivax HB, the clinical trial involved only 147 children, and that participants were monitored for just five days after each dose.
Five days.
Think about that for a moment. Would you willingly take a drug if the safety monitoring in its clinical trial lasted only five days?
If a child dies on day six, that event would fall outside the five-day monitoring window of that particular trial.
The researchers could then report that no deaths were observed during the study period. Well, of course they weren't, if the observation period was only five days.
And even if a clinical trial followed participants for 30 years, a longer observation period alone wouldn't automatically make a product safe. If the product is harmful, it's still harmful.
But five days?
Come on, man.
One of the most effective ways to dismantle a civilization is to understand its internal structure, identify its first lines of defence, and systematically weaken them.
Start with the men.
Impose an economic system built around usury (riba), perpetual debt, and monetary inflation. Create an environment where the cost of living keeps rising while the purchasing power of money steadily erodes. A man who should be able to provide for and lead his family with dignity eventually finds himself trapped in an endless cycle of financial obligations.
He works longer hours, takes on multiple jobs, sacrifices his health, neglects his physical well-being, and spends most of his waking hours trying to keep his family financially afloat. Some have to work two, three, even four jobs just to maintain what should have been a modest standard of living.
Eventually, he has neither the time nor the energy to fulfil his responsibilities beyond keeping the bills paid. His presence at home becomes increasingly limited, his authority increasingly contested, and his capacity to lead, protect, educate, and nurture his family gradually eroded.
Once the men have been sufficiently weakened, move on to the women.
Sell them an idea of empowerment and liberation that is carefully packaged to appeal to their insecurities, frustrations, desires, and natural inclinations. Redefine submission as oppression, cooperation as subjugation, modesty as repression, and the traditional family structure as an obstacle to personal fulfilment.
Make them believe that their liberation lies in distancing themselves from the very people entrusted with their protection and welfare. Turn them against their wali, their husbands, and eventually the institution of the family itself.
The objective is not necessarily to make women independent. It is to make them dependent on a different set of institutions, ideologies, and economic structures while convincing them that they have become free.
The most effective form of manipulation is not to impose something entirely foreign upon a person, but to exploit what is already within them. A skilled manipulator understands human deficiencies well enough to make a person's own desires, insecurities, resentments, and inclinations work against their interests.
He doesn't need to force people to act against themselves. He only needs to understand their vulnerabilities better than they do.
Rebrand vice as virtue, indulgence as freedom, resentment as justice, and the erosion of moral boundaries as progress. Give people the language to justify their own destructive tendencies, and eventually, they will defend the very forces working against their interests.
And the most remarkable part?
Nobody needs to storm their homes, overthrow their families, or force them to abandon their traditions. The people themselves will gradually dismantle these structures, believing that they are advancing, evolving, and liberating themselves.
The ultimate victory of a skilled manipulator is not merely to weaken a civilization. It is to make the people within that civilization mistake their own destruction for progress, their exploitation for empowerment, and their loss of direction for freedom.
By the time they recognise what has happened, they may have become the most passionate defenders of the very forces that brought about their downfall.
Percaya pakar & serahkan sahaja bab hukum kepada ulama.
Kita rakyat biasa ni tak cukup ilmu nak bahas perkara ni.
Ulama salah ijtihad satu pahala.
Kalau kita memandai-mandai tolak benda yang ulama dah sepakat harus apatah lagi tidak taat ulil amri, takut kita jadi Khawarij.
In the 1990s, a national broadcaster aired an investigation into a monkey virus hidden in the polio vaccine given to millions of children.
A researcher estimated there were "at least 26 different monkey viruses" in those vaccines. When a cancer doctor found one of them inside children's brain tumors, his words were: "I almost fell out of my chair." 🧵
Perlukan kajian yang didanai oleh fiat riba laknatullah untuk faham yang wanita kurang akal kurang agama & tidak berjaya sesuatu kaum yang menyerahkan kepimpinan kepada wanita.
Crazy pig.
Ulama & mufti dah berfatwa harus, digalakkan & juga wajib ambil vaksin bagi sesetengah keadaan, kalau mereka tersilap ijtihad mereka dapat satu pahala.
Pergi mampus lah yang dah ambil tu kalau jadi apa-apa pun tak faham ke usul fiqh dengar cakap pakar & taat ulil amri?
The Amish are perhaps the closest living example of Ahl al-Kitab in the modern world.
In certain aspects, their way of life may be closer to Islamic principles than that of many Muslims today.
If we can’t protect the First Amendment right to religious liberty for the Amish, then that right holds little value for anyone.
@JanJekielek @EpochTimes
☀️ RS₿ 🧬 retweeted
I agree that religion came to change that. Islam does not teach us to live as though we owe one another nothing; it establishes rights and obligations, whilst elevating charity, sacrifice, and benevolence beyond the bare minimum of what is owed.
The Messenger of Allah ﷺ explicitly encouraged women to give charity and seek abundant forgiveness, warning them of the consequences of cursing frequently and being ungrateful to their husbands.
Consider, too, the woman who asked the Prophet ﷺ whether she could give charity to her impoverished husband, 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, and the orphans under her care. The Prophet ﷺ affirmed her intention and informed her that she would receive two rewards: one for charity and another for maintaining family ties.
A wise woman, therefore, ought not to regard giving to her husband as though she were simply losing something. She should remember the words of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ:
“What have you, O son of Adam, of your wealth except what you have consumed and used up, what you have worn and worn out, or what you have given in charity and sent ahead?”
There is a report in Musnad Ahmad concerning Zaynab bint Jahsh and Safiyyah bint Huyayy, both wives of the Prophet ﷺ. When the Prophet asked Zaynab to lend Safiyyah a camel after hers had become unusable, Zaynab reportedly responded with a disparaging remark about Safiyyah's Jewish origins. The Prophet ﷺ was displeased and withdrew from her for a period.
A husband may indeed feel deeply disappointed when the woman he has taken as his companion refuses to stand beside him in a time of genuine need. He may come to understand something about her character that he had not previously understood. Such disappointment is a human response; it does not, by itself, establish that she has violated a financial obligation.
This brings us to the expression, “Nobody owes anyone anything.”
As a description of how we ought to approach our own acts of generosity, it contains a profound wisdom: give without making your kindness a transaction; serve without demanding repayment; help without keeping a ledger of what the world owes you.
But as a description of human society under Islam, yes it is incomplete. Allah has established rights and duties between people. Parents owe duties to their children; husbands owe duties to their wives; and people are accountable for the rights of others. We cannot erase these obligations under the pretence of radical self-sufficiency.
What we must abandon is not the recognition of legitimate rights, but the expectation that every act of kindness must be reciprocated, or that every person we love will rise to the occasion when we need them most.
A man should therefore enter marriage prepared to fulfil his obligations without making his wife's voluntary contributions the foundation of his security. If she gives, alhamdulillah. If she does not, alhamdulillah 'ala kulli hal.
He may acknowledge his disappointment without becoming resentful, and he may reassess his understanding of the marriage without imagining himself entitled to what was never his to demand.
And a woman who understands the true nature of wealth, the fleeting nature of this world, and the immense reward of sadaqah should recognise the opportunity before her when she can ease her husband's burden.
This is why the righteous woman is such a precious blessing. The Prophet ﷺ described her as among the finest treasures a man could possess. Yet one must not presume that such a blessing will necessarily be granted to him. Not every man will be blessed with such a wife. And every man must be prepared to face that possibility without surrendering his dignity or his principles.
Fulfil your duties. Give generously. Expect no repayment for your kindness. Do not presume upon the kindness of others. And when human beings disappoint you, remember that your ultimate reliance was never meant to rest upon them in the first place.
To outsource the upbringing and education of one's own children to the State, then to take offence when a son raised under such an arrangement adopts a degenerate understanding of manhood, is a peculiar form of self-betrayal.
The most excellent charity a man may bestow is that which he gives to his own kin and among the forms of charity available to a wife is that which she gives to her husband.
Yet charity, by its very nature, is an act of voluntary benevolence, not an obligation to be exacted by entitlement.
Thus, a husband ought not to presume upon his wife's wealth, nor regard her financial contribution as something owed to him, even when she possesses the means to provide it. If she gives, let it be received with gratitude. If she withholds, let him not mistake her lawful independence for an injustice against him.
A man's burden is his own to bear. His dignity lies not in demanding that others lighten his load, but in carrying it without surrendering his principles, his composure, or his devotion to Allah.
Men are disposable. The world owes you nothing. Bear your burden. Swallow your pride. Lift your chin towards your Lord, and carry on.
"Abiiiiii apa tu?"
"Rambutannnnn."
Orang-orang Yahudi bukan sekadar mahu merompak wang kau. Mereka juga mahu merompak masa kau, masa yang sepatutnya kau luangkan untuk mendidik, membimbing dan membentuk anak-anak kau sendiri.
Melalui sistem riba laknatullah, nilai wang hasil titik peluh kau terus terhakis, memaksa kau bekerja 3–4 kali lebih keras berbanding nenek moyang kau, semata-mata untuk menikmati kualiti hidup yang bahkan tidak sampai 20% daripada apa yang pernah mereka nikmati.
Akhirnya, kau terpaksa menggadaikan sebahagian besar usia kau untuk terus mengumpul want fiat, sehingga masa dan tenaga yang sepatutnya dicurahkan untuk keluarga sendiri habis diratah oleh sistem riba ini.
Mereka bukan sekadar mahu menguasai wang kau. Mereka mahu menguasai masa kau sehingga kau terpaksa menyerahkan tugas mendidik anak sendiri kepada orang lain, sedangkan itulah antara amanah terbesar yang Allah pertanggungjawabkan ke atas bahu kau.
Resist.
The fundamental problem with modern relationships between men and women is that they allow people to enjoy the benefits of traditional marital roles without accepting the corresponding obligations.
Consider the supposedly “platonic” friendship between a man and a woman. A man may provide, protect, offer emotional support, and make himself available whenever she needs him. In many cases, he ends up performing some of the roles traditionally associated with a husband, yet receives neither the commitment nor the authority that comes with marriage. She gets the benefits of a husband's investment without having to fulfill the obligations of a wife, including the obligation to obey her husband within the bounds of what is right.
Some women also keep men around as beta orbiters, men who provide attention, emotional reassurance, companionship, financial assistance, and a sense of security while she pursues the man she actually desires and hopes to lock him down as her husband. These men may be told they are merely friends, but their role can extend far beyond ordinary friendship. They become a reserve of male investment, available to provide support without any guarantee of romantic commitment or reciprocity.
The inverse dynamic exists too where men who enjoy sexual access to women without shouldering the responsibilities of husbands. This takes the form of boyfriend-girlfriend relationships, casual hookups, and the increasingly normalized friends-with-benefits (FWB) or fuck-buddy arrangements. The man gets sex and companionship without committing to the duties of provision, protection, and long-term responsibility traditionally associated with marriage.
The two dynamics are not necessarily equally prevalent. The latter arrangement tends to be concentrated among a smaller subset of men who have sufficient sexual desirability and options to sustain it, while women's hypergamous tendencies can concentrate sexual and romantic attention on a smaller pool of highly desirable men. Meanwhile, the former dynamic, men providing attention, emotional support, protection, and sometimes financial assistance to women outside marriage is much more commonplace.
Ultimately, both dynamics follow the same principle where people want the benefits of a relationship while avoiding the obligations that should accompany those benefits.
The difference is in what each party extracts. One gets the privileges of a husband without the reciprocal commitment of a wife, the other gets the privileges of a sexual partner without the responsibilities of a husband.
What makes the modern arrangement particularly dysfunctional is that these roles become fragmented across multiple people. One man provides emotional support, another provides financial assistance, and another receives the woman's romantic and sexual attention. Each person may contribute something, but none necessarily receives the commitment, reciprocity, or clearly defined responsibilities that would give the relationship a coherent structure.
Marriage, by contrast, is not supposed to be a buffet from which men and women selectively take whatever benefits suit them while discarding the obligations they dislike. It is a structured relationship in which rights and responsibilities are defined, and each party is accountable for fulfilling their respective duties.
The deepest form of appreciation is not the inability to see ugliness.
It is the ability to see ugliness clearly without becoming incapable of recognizing beauty and to recognize beauty without becoming unwilling to see what is ugly.
When a man who sees ugliness says beautiful things, it means more than when a man who denies ugliness says beautiful things. The latter is a cheapened, lower, lesser form of appreciation - a coping mechanism through refusal via compartmentalisation. It reveals a gross lack within him, more specifically: a most profound weakness - he is not strong enough to truly see or confront things for what they are, so retreats into a fixation with beauty to soothe himself from his fears, wielding them perversely as counterarguments against less flattering truths, rather than recognising their co-existence.
But a man who can see ugliness and yet still focuses on the beautiful reveals the opposite: a profound strength of soul - he has successfully resisted the cynicism and ensuing resentment that are the all too natural byproducts of an observant intellect, and thus his love of beauty is more a mode of epistemic appreciation, orientation and declaration of intent than a means of avoiding the inhospitable. He does not need to deny the ugly or unflattering to preserve the beautiful, and does not wield the beautiful as a weapon against the ugly where that ugliness is true. He wields beauty to invigorate and inspire both himself and others, rather than as a counterargument for why something ugly but true isn’t true - he is governed by high truth preference, rather than by aesthetic preference.
This is why a man who only says beautiful things, whilst perhaps less offensive, should actually be more offensive, and he should be more offensive precisely because of his omissions - because he is too clean - because he avoids too much truth to be trustworthy, and thereby lacks the integrity of a man willing to confront and assert the ugly for no reason other than its utility or relevance, as opposed to a preference for its emphasis.
Contrarily, a man who may consistently say things you find jarring dotted in between things you find incredibly beautiful presents a more novel problem: how can someone capable of such beauty, beauty that, you as an ardent admirer of the aesthetic find breathtaking, also say such jarring things? Your reflexive defence is to dismiss them as merely cynical or uninsightful, and yet the very source of your displeasure here is the source of your great pleasure elsewhere.
This of course presents a genuinely novel problem for the more feminine minded: “why does this beautiful man keep saying ugly things?” or if we are less charitable: “how does this ugly man keep saying beautiful things?” - it is a seeming contradiction, and yet in reality, it is not when you understand the higher connecting principle: he merely states what he has concluded and believes to be true based on reasoning, intuition and experience regardless of whether that thing is particularly captivating or grating.
If he were less honest, as someone fluent in the beautiful he could tell you solely what seduces and entices in order to win you over and manipulate you, and so it is his willingness to tell you what you don’t want to hear, whilst being intelligent enough to anticipate your displeasure at having heard it without the intention to hurt you when stating it, that stands as testament to his integrity: he will risk being disliked for no reason other than to articulate a truth.
I have used man as the primary subject matter in my exploration here, but these orientations are not exclusive to man, in fact on the point of avoiding unflattering truths, what I am describing is far more common amongst women than men, that is to say: they are the category group more guilty of avoidance and denial whilst harbouring a preference for the aesthetic at the expense of the true, rather than reconciling the two. It is a high propensity to avoidantly self-soothe by compartmentalising, with a low propensity to confront and reconcile seeming opposites which ultimately leads to a low truth preference.
Those ruled by aesthetic preference over truth have a lower proof burden and higher affinity towards anything that strikes them as cute, soft, gentle, fragile, pretty, beautiful or otherwise highly aesthetic and sentimentally pleasing, and a higher proof burden and lower affinity towards anything that is truly insightful, but unflattering and difficult to hear because its implications indict or otherwise force confrontation with the self in a person used to hiding from themselves. I suppose in a sense to be high truth preference, one must possess a certain type of appetite, or dare I say niche masochism for the unflattering - to appreciate the reward of true and proper knowing which provides a more accurate and thereby more empowering map of reality, rather than succumb to an avoidant disdain for the discomfort and felt sense of humiliation that comes from enduring the unflattering and indicting.
Atas sebab inilah, jangan jadikan agama sebagai barang dagangan atau menjadikannya sumber utama mencari makan. Agama dipelajari untuk diamalkan, bukan untuk dijual beli.
80% ekonomi moden digerakkan oleh tabiat berbelanja wanita. Maka, jika mahu meningkatkan kebarangkalian sesuatu perniagaan atau servis mendapat sambutan, wanita perlu dijadikan sasaran utama pelanggan.
Untuk memastikan potential customers ini bertukar menjadi paying customers, salah satu strateginya ialah menjaga hati mereka.
Dan salah satu cara untuk menjaga hati mereka adalah dengan menyembunyikan kalam-kalam kebenaran yang berpotensi menyiat-nyiat hati mereka apabila didengar atau dibaca. Kalam-kalam yang kemudiannya akan dilabel sebagai misogynistic, harsh, slurs dan sebagainya.
Masalahnya, modeniti telah membebaskan wanita pada skala yang maha dahsyat.
Dahulu, kalam-kalam kebenaran yang berpotensi menyiat-nyiat hati pendengarnya terlebih dahulu diterima oleh kaum lelaki.
Kemudian, para lelaki pulang ke rumah dan menyampaikan kalam-kalam tersebut kepada wanita di bawah tanggungan mereka dengan bil hikmah (gabungan ketegasan dan kelembutan, sebagaimana yang sepatutnya.)
Tetapi sekarang, wanita tidak dapat bil hikmah itu daripada lelaki di rumah. Mereka lantas mengharapkannya di ruang awam, termasuk ruang perbincangan awam yang didominasi oleh kaum lelaki.
Akhirnya, apa yang sepatutnya menjadi tanggungjawab seseorang dalam menyampaikan kebenaran dengan kebijaksanaan bertukar menjadi tuntutan agar kebenaran itu sendiri ditapis, dilembutkan atau disembunyikan semata-mata supaya hati wanita tidak terguris.
Dan apabila agama mula disampaikan berdasarkan apa yang boleh diterima oleh pasaran (wanita), bukan berdasarkan apa yang benar, maka "pendakwah" berisiko bertukar menjadi jurujual, manakala kebenaran menjadi komoditi yang nilainya ditentukan oleh kehendak pelanggan (wanita).
Setiap kali kritikan terhadap Perbankan "Islam" dibangkitkan, pasti akan ada individu-individu yang datang bertanya, "Jadi, apa solusinya?"
99% of the time, aku memilih untuk tidak menjawab. Bukan sebab tiada solusi yang doable, tetapi berdasarkan pengalaman aku berurusan dengan individu-individu sebegini, mereka sebenarnya bukan mahukan solusi. Mereka mahukan justification untuk terus melakukan apa yang mereka mahu tanpa perlu berasa bersalah.
They don't want solutions that require them to control and master their own desires to leave riba, regardless of the inconveniences that come with it.
Setiap solusi yang benar-benar boleh mengelakkan riba pasti akan dibalas dengan ayat yang sama:
"Bukan semua orang mampu buat macam tu."
Bukankah itulah juga ujian bagi setiap dosa yang lain? Bukan semua orang mampu mengelakkan setiap dosa. Tetapi sejak bila ketidakmampuan manusia untuk meninggalkan sesuatu dosa menjadi alasan untuk mengubah hukum dosa tersebut?
Memang benar manusia tidak terlepas daripada melakukan dosa. Tetapi ada perbezaan yang sangat besar antara seseorang yang melakukan dosa, mengakui bahawa perbuatannya itu berdosa, lalu berusaha mencari jalan keluar daripadanya, dengan seseorang yang melakukan dosa, enggan berasa bersalah, mencari hiyal untuk menghalalkannya, meyakinkan dirinya bahawa perkara tersebut bukan lagi dosa, dan terus bergelumang dengannya tanpa rasa bersalah, apatah lagi usaha untuk keluar daripadanya.
The problem isn't merely that people commit sins. The problem is when they become so attached to their sins that they start looking for ways to make those sins appear halal.
Dan perkara ini bukanlah sesuatu yang asing dalam sejarah Islam.
Ibn al-Qayyim menukilkan satu riwayat daripada al-Awza‘i yang menyebut bahawa Rasulullah ﷺ bersabda:
يَأْتِي عَلَى النَّاسِ زَمَانٌ يَسْتَحِلُّونَ الرِّبَا بِالْبَيْعِ
Maksudnya: "Akan datang suatu zaman apabila manusia menghalalkan riba melalui jual beli."
Riwayat ini disebut oleh Ibn al-Qayyim dalam Tahdhīb Sunan Abī Dāwūd (9/345) dan Ighāthat al-Lahfān (1/520). Penting untuk diperjelaskan bahawa beliau sendiri menyatakan riwayat ini bersifat mursal, tetapi boleh dijadikan penguat kepada dalil-dalil lain yang berkaitan dengan pengharaman helah riba.
Perhatikan maksudnya. Bukan riba itu berubah menjadi halal. Sebaliknya, manusia menggunakan nama dan bentuk jual beli untuk menghalalkan sesuatu yang pada hakikatnya merupakan riba.
The name of the transaction changes. The underlying reality does not.
Inilah juga asas kritikan Ibn al-Qayyim terhadap hiyal ribawiyyah, helah dalam urus niaga yang digunakan untuk mencapai riba melalui bentuk akad yang kelihatan sah.
Dalam I‘lām al-Muwaqqi‘īn, beliau menulis:
كَالْحِيَلِ الرِّبَوِيَّةِ الَّتِي هِيَ أَعْظَمُ مَفْسَدَةً مِنَ الرِّبَا الصَّرِيحِ
Maksudnya: "Seperti helah-helah riba yang lebih besar kemudaratannya daripada riba yang dilakukan secara terang-terangan."
Beliau turut menjelaskan bahawa hakikat riba dalam helah-helah tersebut lebih sempurna berbanding riba dalam akad yang dilakukan tanpa helah.
Seseorang bukan sahaja melakukan transaksi yang mengandungi riba, malah menggunakan struktur dan istilah tertentu untuk menyembunyikan hakikatnya di sebalik penampilan yang kelihatan halal.
Masalahnya bukan sekadar apa yang dilakukan, tetapi juga usaha menjadikan perkara yang dilarang itu kelihatan seolah-olah dibenarkan oleh syarak.
Setiap akad perlu dinilai berdasarkan struktur sebenar, syarat, pemilikan, risiko dan hakikat transaksi tersebut. Label "Islamik" bukan bukti yang mencukupi untuk membuktikan sesuatu transaksi bebas daripada riba.
Dan satu lagi perkara yang aku sangat hairan, tetapi dalam masa yang sama tidak hairan.
Bayangkan hampir 20 tahun dihabiskan untuk menuntut "ilmu" di institusi pendidikan. Bermula seawal usia 4–6 tahun, berterusan sehingga usia 24–26 tahun, malah lebih lama bagi mereka yang menyambung pengajian ke peringkat sarjana dan PhD.
Hampir dua dekad belajar, menghafal, mengkaji, menulis dan memperoleh pelbagai kelayakan akademik, tetapi apabila tiba bab mencari solusi untuk keluar daripada riba, tiba-tiba semuanya seolah-olah menjadi tidak berdaya fikir.
A complete failure of practical reasoning.
Khutbah Jumaat pasal riba. Khatib ada sebut hanya orang tidak siuman saja yang percaya mereka boleh menang berperang lawan Allah & Rasul.
Tapi khatib lupa nak pesan ada satu lagi golongan tidak siuman.
Golongan yang pergi bank nak membedal riba tapi berlakon jual beli kelapa sawit dulu untuk kelirukan Tuhan dengan harapan Tuhan tak tahu yang mereka sebenarnya nak bedal riba bukan nak berjual beli kelapa sawit.
