About seven years ago, someone wrote a book entitled 50 Reasons Why Anwar Ibrahim Should Not Be Prime Minister. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out what kind of book this was or what sort of person the author of such a book would be. But just let me share with you some thoughts about this matter.
This book was part and parcel of a despicable political conspiracy to assassinate my character. And this was no low-level, ordinary conspiracy but one orchestrated at the highest levels backed by virtually unlimited financial resources. The ultimate objective was of course to destroy my political career and to do whatever it takes to see that I would never become prime minister of Malaysia.
Of course, I took legal action against these culprits for defamation of character then itself and the High Court granted me an injunction in 1998. But the matter dragged on with no resolution in sight.
Fortunately, after my acquittal and release from incarceration, the Kuala Lumpur High Court gave a judgment in my favour in respect of this defamation suit. The judge set Aug 16 for assessment of damages (and the hearing is in progress this week).
Suffice to say that the outrageous lies and allegations in the book caused great pain to me and my family, particularly my children, and also my friends. And as a result of the heinous acts of the conspirators, I was harshly removed from all my positions in the government as well as the party and then subjected to those preposterous, but nonetheless, very cruel criminal charges.
Anyway, I don't wish to harp on this too much. This matter is way overdue. So I want and I pray it will be resolved soon. The sooner, the better, so that I can put this entire episode behind me. As they say, you just have to move on.
‘Terrorism and Benladism’
So on that note, let me now say a few things about Islam and Europe.
The great Belgian historian Henri Pirenne has said that the cause of Europe's break with the tradition of antiquity was the rapid and unexpected advance of Islam. It is not that the blame game on Islam was invented by him but, to my mind, this radical thesis set in train a new era in evaluating the impact of religion on civilisation, an impact which is still pervasive today.
According to Pirenne, Islam shattered the classic tradition of the Roman Empire and destroyed the ancient unity of the Mediterranean states. The Muslim conquest was totally unlike the previous invasions. The Germans, for example, had conquered the region earlier but they were absorbed by the populations. The Arabs were completely immune to their influence and this had nothing to do with language or a sense of ethnic or cultural superiority. According to Pirenne, the only reason was religion.
To quote him,"While the Germans had nothing with which to oppose the Christianity of the Roman Empire, the Arabs were exalted by the new religion of Islam. It was this and this alone that prevented their assimilation."
It is not my intention to re-ignite the old flames of controversy by either suggesting that Pirenne was right or wrong, but I believe I am not alone in saying that this historical burden of the Arab conquests of the Mediterranean continues to colour, if not altogether dominate, the kind of discourse that we are having today.
In current discourses, for example, the notion of a clash of civilisations resonates well among certain quarters. The spectre of Islamic fundamentalism haunts our forums and this term is now interchangeable with ‘terrorism’ or ‘Benladism’. If it was religion then, it is religion now, even more so. But the irony is that these are not religious discourses but discourses on democracy.
It has been said that this is all symptomatic of Islamophobia. To be sure, the terms ‘democracy’ and ‘terrorism’ are worlds apart. They are as opposed to each other as paradise is to inferno. As I have said before in other forums, while democracy is associated with the rule of law, terrorism is invariably linked to the rule of violence. Democracy liberates man and gives him freedom and equality and the institutions of civil society. Terrorism holds man hostage and gives him fear and uncertainty.
Let me just go back to the thesis which says that it was the religion of Islam and this alone that prevented Muslims from assimilation and try to relate how political discourses have fallen prey to the ravages of Islamophobia.
Islamophobia is the irrational fear of Islam or Muslims subsumed under a belief that they are religious fanatics who hate non-Muslims. This blind fear also leads to the association of Islam with violence, extremism and terrorism and the rejection of democracy and human rights. This has led to irrational and racist chanting such as was expressed recently by a senior European politician that ‘Muslim civilisation is inferior to (that of) Europe’. Writers have also capitalised on this fear by resorting to using sensational and often racist titles in order to sell their books.
Islamic state ideals
And to my mind, of even greater importance is that Muslim leaders should break free of the obsession of sloganeering about the setting up of the ideal Islamic society, that is, the Islamic state, and get on with the task of establishing the institutions of civil society so that freedom and democracy can have free rein; so that social justice will be an essential part of governance; and so that poverty will be eliminated and education will be made a birth right.
Let me take a moment to move from Europe to Southeast Asia (and) all this talk about fundamentalism and how democracy cannot work in Muslim countries. Let's just look at Indonesia and I dare say it can serve as a model of democracy for the world.
There were attempts to galvanise Islamic radicalism, but when Muslims in Indonesia were asked to choose between ideological exclusivism and moderation they overwhelmingly chose the latter. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying they are perfect but mind you, they had languished for over 30 years under corrupt dictatorship. So when they decided to seize the day, they opted for a free press, an independent judiciary and free speech. They voted for freedom and democracy. And the changes brought about now provide an enduring lesson on making that giant leap from autocracy to democracy without violence or bloodshed.
The other important lesson from Indonesia is that the impetus for democratisation of the Muslim world can and must come from Muslims themselves. And that is what Indonesia has done. Why must such a process be driven by America or Europe or any other region for that matter? But I am not saying to the West to keep their hands off.
I call on Muslims who are opposed to democracy to change their mind set and work towards developing a vibrant democracy. Marshall the forces of freedom and harness them so that Muslims may stand up for their fundamental dignity and establish the institutions of democracy, freedom and civil society.
While the history of Islam's expansion is replete with the stories of conquest, it is equally true that Islam was also spread through commerce and trade, notwithstanding Pirenne's theory. Even as it spread its wings, multi-cultural and multi-religious societies evolved.
Muslim societies in this regard stood out for their tolerance and moderation, not chauvinism or bigotry. Isn't it therefore conceivable that when the seeds of democracy and freedom are planted in the hearts of Islamists, these values will germinate in the psyche of their worldview?
In the current tide to move to democracy, Islamist political parties, and for that matter other parties as well, should be bound by a compact to respect and honour the values and principles of democracy and freedom, and not to renounce them upon gaining power.
Embracing democracy
For the Muslim world, a more productive pursuit lies in finding how democracy and freedom can resonate through Islam's public and private realms. For Islamists in particular, embracing democracy and freedom should carry no stigma. Accepting democracy and freedom is not converting to Western values or ideals, nor does it mean that they will have to stop criticising European or US foreign policy, culture or values.
Likewise, it is also misconceived for Europe to view the movement of Islamists to democracy from the prism of so-called die hard fundamentalist groups in the Arab world. This fallacy has led to the assumption that Islamists are diametrically opposed to the West and will have nothing to do with them, or worse, that they will work towards the destruction of Europe.
While the bloodshed of Algeria's aborted elections of 1992 continues to haunt us, the lessons of history should fortify instead of weaken our conviction to pursue freedom and democracy.
(The attacks on the US on) Sept 11 (2001) should never be allowed to take us backwards. That there is a need to wage war on terror is not in dispute in as much as terrorism terrorises all. But the zeal with which this war is being prosecuted should be reinforced by the conviction to forge ahead to promote the principles of freedom and democracy where they are needed most, not sacrifice them on the altar of expediency.
All Muslim countries must seize the moment now to adopt modern, democratic constitutions, hold free and fair elections, ensure the separation of powers and guarantee fundamental civil liberties including allowing the full participation of women in political life. They must put a stop to extra-judicial procedures, arbitrary arrests, and the use of the state apparatus to silence political opposition.
With these institutions and practices in place, abuse of power will be checked, corruption can be more effectively dealt with, and economic wealth can be more equitably distributed to the people.
In principle I maintain that the philosophy should be ‘ask not what Europe or the West can do for you but ask what you can do for yourselves to secure freedom and democracy’. And of course, I am not talking about nominal democracy but real democracy - liberal or constitutional democracy.
Real commitment
Having said that, I recognise that merely asking questions is not going to take us anywhere. The fact remains that Europe or at least the European Union has made some significant efforts in promoting democracy.
However, I would characterise the European approach as being overly cautious because of the fear of rocking the boat. All this rhetoric about social justice, freedom and human rights - where is the action?
Is there a real commitment given to establishing contacts with Arab NGOs? And if you keep funding only ‘safe’ groups, that is, those with a decidedly secular, pro-Western outlook you are not dealing with it holistically. Are we saying that the traditionalists don't count for anything?
Arab states of the Mediterranean continue to be dominated by autocratic governments that restrict political freedoms and that is to put it mildly. Institutional and political reform, if any, has been limited and transient. Of course, I am not saying that the European Union must be the keeper of the conscience of the Middle East.
But to have any meaningful impact, the over-riding objective should be to promote political, economic, and social reform which is sustainable in the long run. Anything less would be an exercise in futility.
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
Between religion, culture and tradition - Raja Petra Kamarudin
To the Malays, religion means Islam, culture means Umno, and tradition means the New Economic Policy
There are those who feel that Anwar Ibrahim’s recent call for the New Economic Policy (NEP) to be abolished tantamount to political suicide. Parti Keadilan Rakyat, they argue, may be a multi-racial, or as its Deputy President Dr Syed Husin Ali would say, a non-race based party, but its support base is still undeniably Malay.
One needs only look at the photographs of its annual convention, conferences, seminars, meetings and so on to be convinced of this. The photographs would show a sea of Malay faces with the women in tudung (scarfs) and an occasional Chinese or Indian face. One would not be blamed if one was to suspect that the photographs were lifted from an Islamic Party of Malaysia (PAS) meeting.
Prior to that, Anwar called upon PAS to drop its Islamic State agenda to ensure that the opposition coalition, Barisan Alternatif, returns to viability. The Democratic Action Party (DAP) has made it clear it will not even sit at the same table as PAS, let alone rejoin the coalition, until PAS agrees to bury its aspiration to turn Malaysia into an Islamic State.
At the moment, PAS has not agreed to bury this aspiration so it would appear that the coalition would instead get buried.
The NEP and Islam, in that order of priority, are two issues very dear to the hearts of the Malays, who are predominantly Muslim -- unlike the Chinese, to whom education and a strong economy are issues that matter most, also in that order of priority.
One just cannot separate the NEP and Islam from the Malays.
So, how can Anwar so carelessly ask Umno to drop the NEP and for PAS to drop the Islamic State? Would this not, therefore, be committing political suicide?
Actually, Anwar has not just recently said this. He said the same thin g way back in 1999 but maybe people did not notice then. Then, it was considered a very wise call. Why, now, is it considered rash?
In 1999, Anwar launched a document called AGENDA FOR CHANGE or AGENDA REFORMASI. Basically, this explained what the Reformasi struggle is all about. And this was Anwar’s opening statement in that document:
The principal objective of Parti Keadilan Nasional’s (keADILan’s) struggle is to build a society and a Malaysian nation centred on religious faith and noble humanitarian values.
On how the various communities, in particular those deserving and those who need assistance, shall benefit from development and economic growth, this is what Anwar said:
We wish to accelerate economic development through the public sector, with the private sector serving as a catalyst, to ensure that the principles of integrity and responsibility are upheld and to end the distribution of licences, shares, contracts and privatised projects to friends and cronies.
The practice where opportunities are monopolised by the few rich, while the majority are ignored, will cease. Though the Bumiputera policy and the Special Position of the Bumiputera will be defended, its implementation will be reviewed to guarantee opportunities and exposure to more deserving people, and not to just the same cronies.
Opportunities for wider participation in the economy by the non-Bumiputeras will be practiced, not just to a small select group, but to a bigger group of entrepreneurs, especially in the small and medium enterprises category. Ability and excellence will be recognised and rewarded to ensure that Malaysian society continues to prog ress and prosper.
Anwar did not say that the Malays would be abandoned and left to the mercy of the capitalists, who are perceived as mostly non-Malays. Instead, this is what Anwar said:
To defend the special position of the Bumiputera community while protecting the rights of all other communities by giving emphasis plus offering opportunities to all other communities on the principle of justice.
What Anwar called for, to quote his own words, was: “to distribute the nation's wealth fairly and also reduce the gap between the rich and the poor.”
On Islam, this is what Anwar said in 1999:
To provide the Muslim community with the environment and the educational and legal systems conducive to the realisation of Islam as a complete way of life (ad-Deen) while the rights of all non-Muslims to uphold their respective religions or faiths will be protected.
Anwar also called for the establishment and elevation of the Syariah Court in accordance with the Federal and State Constitutions, with a Syariah Judicial Commission at Federal level and to reduce the influence of party politics in the State Islamic Councils, mosques and other Islamic institutions.
Yes, Anwar was very clear way back in 1999 what he wanted as far as the NEP and Islam are concerned. He has remained very clear-headed and consistent and has not wavered one bit. There is no confusion in his mind as to the direction (hala tuju) that must be charted. He has also remained steadfast and is not singing one tune to one community and another to the others.
One thing t hat all Malays must remember, you cannot be a good Muslim yet uphold the aspiration of the NEP at the same time, as both run contra to each other. Islam is about justice, as what Anwar said above -- and synonymous with the name of Parti Keadilan Rakyat (Peoples’ Justice Party). In Islam, justice is paramount and anything that violates this tenet goes against the very fundamentals of the religion.
And the NEP goes by the concept of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Islam does not allow one race to get ahead by denying another race what is due to them. What is due to them is due to them and Islam would go to great pains to protect their right to this.
Malays talk about Jihad. But very few understand the spirit of the word. To the Malays, Jihad means Muslims fighting against non-Muslims. This is not so. Jihad means opposing oppression, resisting oppressors and fighting in defence of the oppressed -- whether it is in defence of religion, life, liberty, territory, home and family that may be under threat from oppressors. If non-Muslims in Malaysia face oppression because of the NEP, then it is the duty of all good Muslims to oppose it even if they need to resist fellow Muslims in doing so. In this case, Muslims are oppressing non-Muslims, so Muslims must oppose Muslims to ensure that non-Muslims are not denied their rights.
Therefore, going by the spirit of Islam, Anwar is just being a good Muslim and is following to the letter what is demanded of all Muslims.
Nationalism is not allowed in Islam. Therefore the concept of Ketuanan Melayu violates Islamic teachings. And anything that the Ketuanan Melayu propagates, such as the NEP, becomes forbidden in Islam.
Anyway, putting religion aside, the original concept of the NEP was to reduce the gap between the different races and to reduce the gap between the haves and the have-nots. This may not necessarily mean Malays, as there are as many disadvantaged Chinese and Indians as there are Malays. This means, if the poor Chinese and Indians were included in the NEP, as it was originally intended, they too would become beneficiaries of the policy.
But the way it has been implemented, it is as if the NEP is only for the Malays. This is a fallacy and a great departure from what the architects of the NEP had intended. And the implementation rules seem to change ever so often that it becomes difficult to keep up with what is the latest policy.
For example, one day they say a certain industry (like car imports that require APs) must be 30% Bumiputera. Then, along the way, it changes to 51% Bumiputera. Just as you are settling in to the new rule, it changes yet again to 70% Bumiputera. Finally, the new ruling comes out that says only 100% Bumiputera is allowed.
When a certain industry starts going into the doldrums because they just cannot manage it based on 100% Bumiputera, they ‘relax’ the rules and say that non-Bumiputera equity is now allowed as long as they are export oriented. For certain industries, the Bumiputera content will be adjusted according to the ratio of exports.
Confusing isn’t it? But then, what about the poor Indians and Chinese? Where do they fit into all this? They don’t! They are left out of the equation, against the spirit of the NEP as intended when first conjured.
The NEP is an aspiration, not law. For all intents and purposes, the NEP violates the Federal Constitution. And any law or ‘aspiration’ introduced after Merdeka (Independence) of 31st August 1957 that violates the Federal Constitution automatically becomes invalid.
Article 4
(1) This Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation and any law passed after Merdeka Day which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.
Article 8
(1) Al l persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.
(2) Except as expressly authorized by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.
Article 4 of the Federal Constitution clearly spells out what can and cannot be done while Article 8 forbids such a thing called the NEP.
So we do not even have to look to Islam for the answer if we want to remain ‘secular’ about the whole thing. Article 8 (2) makes the NEP unconstitutional. Islam says so. Malaysia’s Constitution also says so. So what are we arguing about?
There are those who feel that Anwar Ibrahim’s recent call for the New Economic Policy (NEP) to be abolished tantamount to political suicide. Parti Keadilan Rakyat, they argue, may be a multi-racial, or as its Deputy President Dr Syed Husin Ali would say, a non-race based party, but its support base is still undeniably Malay.
One needs only look at the photographs of its annual convention, conferences, seminars, meetings and so on to be convinced of this. The photographs would show a sea of Malay faces with the women in tudung (scarfs) and an occasional Chinese or Indian face. One would not be blamed if one was to suspect that the photographs were lifted from an Islamic Party of Malaysia (PAS) meeting.
Prior to that, Anwar called upon PAS to drop its Islamic State agenda to ensure that the opposition coalition, Barisan Alternatif, returns to viability. The Democratic Action Party (DAP) has made it clear it will not even sit at the same table as PAS, let alone rejoin the coalition, until PAS agrees to bury its aspiration to turn Malaysia into an Islamic State.
At the moment, PAS has not agreed to bury this aspiration so it would appear that the coalition would instead get buried.
The NEP and Islam, in that order of priority, are two issues very dear to the hearts of the Malays, who are predominantly Muslim -- unlike the Chinese, to whom education and a strong economy are issues that matter most, also in that order of priority.
One just cannot separate the NEP and Islam from the Malays.
So, how can Anwar so carelessly ask Umno to drop the NEP and for PAS to drop the Islamic State? Would this not, therefore, be committing political suicide?
Actually, Anwar has not just recently said this. He said the same thin g way back in 1999 but maybe people did not notice then. Then, it was considered a very wise call. Why, now, is it considered rash?
In 1999, Anwar launched a document called AGENDA FOR CHANGE or AGENDA REFORMASI. Basically, this explained what the Reformasi struggle is all about. And this was Anwar’s opening statement in that document:
The principal objective of Parti Keadilan Nasional’s (keADILan’s) struggle is to build a society and a Malaysian nation centred on religious faith and noble humanitarian values.
On how the various communities, in particular those deserving and those who need assistance, shall benefit from development and economic growth, this is what Anwar said:
We wish to accelerate economic development through the public sector, with the private sector serving as a catalyst, to ensure that the principles of integrity and responsibility are upheld and to end the distribution of licences, shares, contracts and privatised projects to friends and cronies.
The practice where opportunities are monopolised by the few rich, while the majority are ignored, will cease. Though the Bumiputera policy and the Special Position of the Bumiputera will be defended, its implementation will be reviewed to guarantee opportunities and exposure to more deserving people, and not to just the same cronies.
Opportunities for wider participation in the economy by the non-Bumiputeras will be practiced, not just to a small select group, but to a bigger group of entrepreneurs, especially in the small and medium enterprises category. Ability and excellence will be recognised and rewarded to ensure that Malaysian society continues to prog ress and prosper.
Anwar did not say that the Malays would be abandoned and left to the mercy of the capitalists, who are perceived as mostly non-Malays. Instead, this is what Anwar said:
To defend the special position of the Bumiputera community while protecting the rights of all other communities by giving emphasis plus offering opportunities to all other communities on the principle of justice.
What Anwar called for, to quote his own words, was: “to distribute the nation's wealth fairly and also reduce the gap between the rich and the poor.”
On Islam, this is what Anwar said in 1999:
To provide the Muslim community with the environment and the educational and legal systems conducive to the realisation of Islam as a complete way of life (ad-Deen) while the rights of all non-Muslims to uphold their respective religions or faiths will be protected.
Anwar also called for the establishment and elevation of the Syariah Court in accordance with the Federal and State Constitutions, with a Syariah Judicial Commission at Federal level and to reduce the influence of party politics in the State Islamic Councils, mosques and other Islamic institutions.
Yes, Anwar was very clear way back in 1999 what he wanted as far as the NEP and Islam are concerned. He has remained very clear-headed and consistent and has not wavered one bit. There is no confusion in his mind as to the direction (hala tuju) that must be charted. He has also remained steadfast and is not singing one tune to one community and another to the others.
One thing t hat all Malays must remember, you cannot be a good Muslim yet uphold the aspiration of the NEP at the same time, as both run contra to each other. Islam is about justice, as what Anwar said above -- and synonymous with the name of Parti Keadilan Rakyat (Peoples’ Justice Party). In Islam, justice is paramount and anything that violates this tenet goes against the very fundamentals of the religion.
And the NEP goes by the concept of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Islam does not allow one race to get ahead by denying another race what is due to them. What is due to them is due to them and Islam would go to great pains to protect their right to this.
Malays talk about Jihad. But very few understand the spirit of the word. To the Malays, Jihad means Muslims fighting against non-Muslims. This is not so. Jihad means opposing oppression, resisting oppressors and fighting in defence of the oppressed -- whether it is in defence of religion, life, liberty, territory, home and family that may be under threat from oppressors. If non-Muslims in Malaysia face oppression because of the NEP, then it is the duty of all good Muslims to oppose it even if they need to resist fellow Muslims in doing so. In this case, Muslims are oppressing non-Muslims, so Muslims must oppose Muslims to ensure that non-Muslims are not denied their rights.
Therefore, going by the spirit of Islam, Anwar is just being a good Muslim and is following to the letter what is demanded of all Muslims.
Nationalism is not allowed in Islam. Therefore the concept of Ketuanan Melayu violates Islamic teachings. And anything that the Ketuanan Melayu propagates, such as the NEP, becomes forbidden in Islam.
Anyway, putting religion aside, the original concept of the NEP was to reduce the gap between the different races and to reduce the gap between the haves and the have-nots. This may not necessarily mean Malays, as there are as many disadvantaged Chinese and Indians as there are Malays. This means, if the poor Chinese and Indians were included in the NEP, as it was originally intended, they too would become beneficiaries of the policy.
But the way it has been implemented, it is as if the NEP is only for the Malays. This is a fallacy and a great departure from what the architects of the NEP had intended. And the implementation rules seem to change ever so often that it becomes difficult to keep up with what is the latest policy.
For example, one day they say a certain industry (like car imports that require APs) must be 30% Bumiputera. Then, along the way, it changes to 51% Bumiputera. Just as you are settling in to the new rule, it changes yet again to 70% Bumiputera. Finally, the new ruling comes out that says only 100% Bumiputera is allowed.
When a certain industry starts going into the doldrums because they just cannot manage it based on 100% Bumiputera, they ‘relax’ the rules and say that non-Bumiputera equity is now allowed as long as they are export oriented. For certain industries, the Bumiputera content will be adjusted according to the ratio of exports.
Confusing isn’t it? But then, what about the poor Indians and Chinese? Where do they fit into all this? They don’t! They are left out of the equation, against the spirit of the NEP as intended when first conjured.
The NEP is an aspiration, not law. For all intents and purposes, the NEP violates the Federal Constitution. And any law or ‘aspiration’ introduced after Merdeka (Independence) of 31st August 1957 that violates the Federal Constitution automatically becomes invalid.
Article 4
(1) This Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation and any law passed after Merdeka Day which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.
Article 8
(1) Al l persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.
(2) Except as expressly authorized by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.
Article 4 of the Federal Constitution clearly spells out what can and cannot be done while Article 8 forbids such a thing called the NEP.
So we do not even have to look to Islam for the answer if we want to remain ‘secular’ about the whole thing. Article 8 (2) makes the NEP unconstitutional. Islam says so. Malaysia’s Constitution also says so. So what are we arguing about?
Any good fatwa sighted lately? - Salbiah Ahmad
A fatwa issued on July 18 by the British Muslim Forum (BMF) condemned the London bombings inter alia on the grounds that “Islam strictly, strongly and severely condemns the use of violence and the destruction of innocent lives”. There “is no justification in Islam for extremism, fanaticism and terrorism”.
The BMF has 250 member organisations. It issued the fatwa (edict) with approval of 500 UK Muslim clerics, scholars and imams. The “formal legal opinion” was issued “so that Muslims and non-Muslims can be clear about Islam’s stance on such acts”.
Muslims in Canada and the US followed suit. On July 28, 100 American Muslim organisations endorsed a fatwa condemning the use of violence and acts of terrorism. Americans hope that the fatwa adds moral authority to their often-stated condemnation of terrorism.
John Voll, professor of Islamic Studies at Georgetown University, said the fatwa represents a very important reminder to Muslim Americans of their need to be actively aware of the non-Islamic nature of violent extremism.
It is a pity that there was no scramble to rush a fatwa by our Muslim scholar associations on the July 18 pre-dawn attack on a peaceful village in Besut, Terengganu by a Malay-Muslim mob.
Perhaps civil society groups should take the lead from ‘Western Muslims’ and issue a fatwa condemning the attack in the fight against extremism. Lets go glokal.
Ziauddin Sardar writing, My Fatwa on the fanatics in The Observer, UK, proposed that “we must also reclaim a more balanced view of Islamic terms like fatwa”. Now that Islam has “become beset with the fatwa culture, it becomes necessary for moderate voices to issue their own fatwas”.
Muslims continue to be implicated in the unchecked rise of fanaticism in Muslim
societies unless we stand up against them. The silent Muslim majority must now become vocal.
Malaysians as a whole have been trained to be in awe of the fatwa-issuing alim or ulama associations not to mention a government fatwa council.
For the silent Muslim majority especially, Sardar’s fatwa-making suggestion may seem outrageous. Frankly, even as I write this, I have no idea who this ‘silent Muslim majority’ may be. The difficulty is some of the Muslims and the groups they belong to may sometimes come out with all sorts of statements on some other occasion and then none at all on something like this.
Oppose extremism
There is also this troubling response I read on the Internet. A Muslim lawyer wrote in response to human rights lawyer, Edmund Bon’s query on representation of the Sky Kingdom accused. It was on the Malaysian Bar Forum e-news on Aug 5. The message offered an explanation as to why Muslim lawyers should not defend the villagers of the Sky Kingdom who are charged with disobeying a 1997 state fatwa on deviant teachings.
According to this lawyer “as Muslims”, they are obliged to uphold the sanctity and purity of Islam from ‘ridicule’ by believers or not believers (memelihara kesucian ugama dari dipersendakan sama ada oleh penganutnya atau bukan penganutnya).
Although she claims that she does not lend support to the “state government’s demolishing act” (referring to the July 31 state-sanctioned destruction of buildings), she cannot support the “personal belief” of the community and would not ipso facto defend the accused. She ends her message with, “There are reasons why they (lawyers) refuse to take the case and only they know the reasons why”.
Will this silent majority allow others to speak on their behalf?
This of course, opens another can of worms as to how our young people are taught law and Muslim law and practice (or not at all) in our local universities, which is a matter which requires national scrutiny other than scrutiny by the Malaysian Bar Council in approving admission for practice.
I wonder what was the whole national rationale of having syariah courts and syariah judges and syariah lawyers in the first place? Was it to merely implement executive decrees issued via fatwa? Is this in accordance with Islam and democratic practice as we know it?
And how many Muslims and Malays think that the accused should be left to defend themselves against all the elements including the mob extremist attack on them? As Sardar has opined in My Fatwa against the fanatics, the extremists and terrorists are among us, the Muslim communities of the world. They are part of our body politic. It is our duty to stand up against them. But I digress. Let us see how the legal profession faces up to this challenge in due course.
An e-mail dispatch from Jakarta last week informed me that the government-sanctioned Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) issued 11 fatwa on Jul 29. One was to outlaw “liberal Islamic thoughts” declaring “secularism and pluralism forbidden under Islam”. The “edict” was issued as a reaction to the Liberal Islam Network (JIL) and the Muhammadiyah Youth Intellectuals Network (JIMM).
MUI deputy chairman Umar Shihab was quoted as saying that both the “Western-infuenced” JIL and JIMM had strayed from the Indonesian brand of Islam. “The views that are developing in Europe and America are heretical and not allowed here,” he said. “However, we must not counter them with violence, but with logical arguments”. (Jakarta Post)
The MUI also renewed a fatwa against the Ahmadiyah sect. Many observers allege that it was this ban by the MUI that had an Ahmadiyah community south of Jakarta attacked by a mob of some 10,000 people in late July. National Human Rights commissioner (Komnas-HAM), M Billah condemned the attack as a human rights violation.
Peaceful dialogue
The MUI decrees came as a shock to other scholars and the human rights community as it came after Indonesia’s successful hosting of an interfaith dialogue involving 39 Asian and European countries in Bali. The MUI ban was seen as closing the door on interfaith initiatives including intra-faith dialogue among Muslims.
Muslim intellectuals and human rights defenders came together on Aug 2 to counter the decrees with logical arguments.
Public intellectual and Muslim scholar Azyumardi Azra dismissed the MUI fatwa on liberal Islam as counter-productive. “The state cannot enforce it for Muslims as it’s not legally binding. Muslims can or will ignore it”. The fatwa had the potential to divide non-Muslims and Muslims themselves. “The fatwas are not in line with the principles of Islam which promotes tolerance and peaceful dialogue with people of differing views.”
He said the ban on liberal thoughts reflected the intolerance being promoted by the MUI and indicated that it was trying to curb freedom of thought. He urged the MUI to hold an open discussion with people from different fields of expertise, not only Islamic jurisprudence.
In their statement the coalition of scholars and human rights defenders said that the MUI ban was out of line with the development of democracy which requires pluralism and the protection of citizens’ rights. Muslim scholar Ulil Abshar Abdalla advised MUI to promote interfaith and intra-faith dialogue if it wants to remain relevant.
The coalition which came together under the banner, the Democratic Education Association (P2D), called upon President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s administration to maintain pluralism and protect constitutional rights. The constitution is supported by all society, says human rights lawyer T Mulya Lubis, and it cannot be undermined or negated.
Fatwa culture
Are we beset with the fatwa culture of late? There is some confusion even with top politicians as to the place of fatwa in the country’s political regime.
In June, Deputy Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak announced that the government will request for a fatwa from the National Fatwa Council (NFC) before deciding on the implementation of a HIV plan involving free condoms and treatment using methadone to intravenous drug users. The NFC members include all state muftis.
The fatwa request was seen as irrelevant by some quarters as the issue of HIV prevention is a medical and a public health issue. It should not be left to the discretion of Muslim scholars in multi-ethnic, multi-religious Malaysia. NFC member and Perak Mufti Dr Harussani Zakaria was quoted in the press as saying that the proposals in the plan “are tantamount to condoning drug addiction and free sex”.
Government sources however defended their move to elicit a fatwa on the basis that all sectors of society need to be consulted on the successful implementation of the HIV plan. Pursuant to that the Health Minister Dr Chua Soi Lek, announced that the government will distribute free needles and condoms to intravenous drug users in January next year “after discussion” with Muslim
scholars. The NFC subsequently issued a statement to the effect that a fatwa will not issue on matters involving the medical aspects of the pandemic.
I am fascinated by a move led by Saari Sungib, of Jemaah Islah Malaysia (JIM) to petition the Council of Muftis on the Internal Security Act (ISA). The former ISA detainee and past JIM president, with 21 others had on Aug 5 last year petitioned this body to issue a fatwa on the ISA which “is clearly prohibited in Islam”. There has been no fatwa sighted on the ISA to date.
On Oct 22 last year, Saari called upon the muftis to play an advisory role to affect social change. Zaid Kamarudin of JIM has the same opinion. “The power of the mufti lies in his persuasive power with the people. If he feels strongly about something, he should call upon the other muftis and threaten to take drastic measures, such as resigning en bloc”.
While perhaps there is some consensus on the fatwa as persuasive advice or as a moral authority, we still have not grapple with the implications of a government-issued fatwa (an executive device) becoming legislation upon publication in the Government Gazette as provided for under state law. On the face of it, this process runs against the rule of law as enshrined in the Federal
Constitution. Laws are made by legislative bodies and that is Parliament at the federal level and state legislatures at state levels.
There is also the wider concern of selected interpretations of particular schools of thought which may be used in the formulation of fatwa and state Muslim law by the Muslim elite which offends the notion of plurality of interpretations in the Islamic tradition and the notion of state-neutrality in matters of conscience even in Islamic law.
Further, as we desire to build a system based on shared values of democracy and human rights in our multi-cultural society, it becomes incumbent upon us to continue to scrutinise, critique and challenge all our process, both Islamic and civil in origin. All opinions, scholar and the laity must be subject to the rigours of debate; the “logical arguments”.
Non-scholars arguably should be able to exert an influence to a public discourse that informs the sensibilities of the scholar and vice-versa. No one is unlearned. We have different experiences and different scholarship that would through the test of debate and speech strengthen our direction and vision.
The BMF has 250 member organisations. It issued the fatwa (edict) with approval of 500 UK Muslim clerics, scholars and imams. The “formal legal opinion” was issued “so that Muslims and non-Muslims can be clear about Islam’s stance on such acts”.
Muslims in Canada and the US followed suit. On July 28, 100 American Muslim organisations endorsed a fatwa condemning the use of violence and acts of terrorism. Americans hope that the fatwa adds moral authority to their often-stated condemnation of terrorism.
John Voll, professor of Islamic Studies at Georgetown University, said the fatwa represents a very important reminder to Muslim Americans of their need to be actively aware of the non-Islamic nature of violent extremism.
It is a pity that there was no scramble to rush a fatwa by our Muslim scholar associations on the July 18 pre-dawn attack on a peaceful village in Besut, Terengganu by a Malay-Muslim mob.
Perhaps civil society groups should take the lead from ‘Western Muslims’ and issue a fatwa condemning the attack in the fight against extremism. Lets go glokal.
Ziauddin Sardar writing, My Fatwa on the fanatics in The Observer, UK, proposed that “we must also reclaim a more balanced view of Islamic terms like fatwa”. Now that Islam has “become beset with the fatwa culture, it becomes necessary for moderate voices to issue their own fatwas”.
Muslims continue to be implicated in the unchecked rise of fanaticism in Muslim
societies unless we stand up against them. The silent Muslim majority must now become vocal.
Malaysians as a whole have been trained to be in awe of the fatwa-issuing alim or ulama associations not to mention a government fatwa council.
For the silent Muslim majority especially, Sardar’s fatwa-making suggestion may seem outrageous. Frankly, even as I write this, I have no idea who this ‘silent Muslim majority’ may be. The difficulty is some of the Muslims and the groups they belong to may sometimes come out with all sorts of statements on some other occasion and then none at all on something like this.
Oppose extremism
There is also this troubling response I read on the Internet. A Muslim lawyer wrote in response to human rights lawyer, Edmund Bon’s query on representation of the Sky Kingdom accused. It was on the Malaysian Bar Forum e-news on Aug 5. The message offered an explanation as to why Muslim lawyers should not defend the villagers of the Sky Kingdom who are charged with disobeying a 1997 state fatwa on deviant teachings.
According to this lawyer “as Muslims”, they are obliged to uphold the sanctity and purity of Islam from ‘ridicule’ by believers or not believers (memelihara kesucian ugama dari dipersendakan sama ada oleh penganutnya atau bukan penganutnya).
Although she claims that she does not lend support to the “state government’s demolishing act” (referring to the July 31 state-sanctioned destruction of buildings), she cannot support the “personal belief” of the community and would not ipso facto defend the accused. She ends her message with, “There are reasons why they (lawyers) refuse to take the case and only they know the reasons why”.
Will this silent majority allow others to speak on their behalf?
This of course, opens another can of worms as to how our young people are taught law and Muslim law and practice (or not at all) in our local universities, which is a matter which requires national scrutiny other than scrutiny by the Malaysian Bar Council in approving admission for practice.
I wonder what was the whole national rationale of having syariah courts and syariah judges and syariah lawyers in the first place? Was it to merely implement executive decrees issued via fatwa? Is this in accordance with Islam and democratic practice as we know it?
And how many Muslims and Malays think that the accused should be left to defend themselves against all the elements including the mob extremist attack on them? As Sardar has opined in My Fatwa against the fanatics, the extremists and terrorists are among us, the Muslim communities of the world. They are part of our body politic. It is our duty to stand up against them. But I digress. Let us see how the legal profession faces up to this challenge in due course.
An e-mail dispatch from Jakarta last week informed me that the government-sanctioned Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) issued 11 fatwa on Jul 29. One was to outlaw “liberal Islamic thoughts” declaring “secularism and pluralism forbidden under Islam”. The “edict” was issued as a reaction to the Liberal Islam Network (JIL) and the Muhammadiyah Youth Intellectuals Network (JIMM).
MUI deputy chairman Umar Shihab was quoted as saying that both the “Western-infuenced” JIL and JIMM had strayed from the Indonesian brand of Islam. “The views that are developing in Europe and America are heretical and not allowed here,” he said. “However, we must not counter them with violence, but with logical arguments”. (Jakarta Post)
The MUI also renewed a fatwa against the Ahmadiyah sect. Many observers allege that it was this ban by the MUI that had an Ahmadiyah community south of Jakarta attacked by a mob of some 10,000 people in late July. National Human Rights commissioner (Komnas-HAM), M Billah condemned the attack as a human rights violation.
Peaceful dialogue
The MUI decrees came as a shock to other scholars and the human rights community as it came after Indonesia’s successful hosting of an interfaith dialogue involving 39 Asian and European countries in Bali. The MUI ban was seen as closing the door on interfaith initiatives including intra-faith dialogue among Muslims.
Muslim intellectuals and human rights defenders came together on Aug 2 to counter the decrees with logical arguments.
Public intellectual and Muslim scholar Azyumardi Azra dismissed the MUI fatwa on liberal Islam as counter-productive. “The state cannot enforce it for Muslims as it’s not legally binding. Muslims can or will ignore it”. The fatwa had the potential to divide non-Muslims and Muslims themselves. “The fatwas are not in line with the principles of Islam which promotes tolerance and peaceful dialogue with people of differing views.”
He said the ban on liberal thoughts reflected the intolerance being promoted by the MUI and indicated that it was trying to curb freedom of thought. He urged the MUI to hold an open discussion with people from different fields of expertise, not only Islamic jurisprudence.
In their statement the coalition of scholars and human rights defenders said that the MUI ban was out of line with the development of democracy which requires pluralism and the protection of citizens’ rights. Muslim scholar Ulil Abshar Abdalla advised MUI to promote interfaith and intra-faith dialogue if it wants to remain relevant.
The coalition which came together under the banner, the Democratic Education Association (P2D), called upon President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s administration to maintain pluralism and protect constitutional rights. The constitution is supported by all society, says human rights lawyer T Mulya Lubis, and it cannot be undermined or negated.
Fatwa culture
Are we beset with the fatwa culture of late? There is some confusion even with top politicians as to the place of fatwa in the country’s political regime.
In June, Deputy Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak announced that the government will request for a fatwa from the National Fatwa Council (NFC) before deciding on the implementation of a HIV plan involving free condoms and treatment using methadone to intravenous drug users. The NFC members include all state muftis.
The fatwa request was seen as irrelevant by some quarters as the issue of HIV prevention is a medical and a public health issue. It should not be left to the discretion of Muslim scholars in multi-ethnic, multi-religious Malaysia. NFC member and Perak Mufti Dr Harussani Zakaria was quoted in the press as saying that the proposals in the plan “are tantamount to condoning drug addiction and free sex”.
Government sources however defended their move to elicit a fatwa on the basis that all sectors of society need to be consulted on the successful implementation of the HIV plan. Pursuant to that the Health Minister Dr Chua Soi Lek, announced that the government will distribute free needles and condoms to intravenous drug users in January next year “after discussion” with Muslim
scholars. The NFC subsequently issued a statement to the effect that a fatwa will not issue on matters involving the medical aspects of the pandemic.
I am fascinated by a move led by Saari Sungib, of Jemaah Islah Malaysia (JIM) to petition the Council of Muftis on the Internal Security Act (ISA). The former ISA detainee and past JIM president, with 21 others had on Aug 5 last year petitioned this body to issue a fatwa on the ISA which “is clearly prohibited in Islam”. There has been no fatwa sighted on the ISA to date.
On Oct 22 last year, Saari called upon the muftis to play an advisory role to affect social change. Zaid Kamarudin of JIM has the same opinion. “The power of the mufti lies in his persuasive power with the people. If he feels strongly about something, he should call upon the other muftis and threaten to take drastic measures, such as resigning en bloc”.
While perhaps there is some consensus on the fatwa as persuasive advice or as a moral authority, we still have not grapple with the implications of a government-issued fatwa (an executive device) becoming legislation upon publication in the Government Gazette as provided for under state law. On the face of it, this process runs against the rule of law as enshrined in the Federal
Constitution. Laws are made by legislative bodies and that is Parliament at the federal level and state legislatures at state levels.
There is also the wider concern of selected interpretations of particular schools of thought which may be used in the formulation of fatwa and state Muslim law by the Muslim elite which offends the notion of plurality of interpretations in the Islamic tradition and the notion of state-neutrality in matters of conscience even in Islamic law.
Further, as we desire to build a system based on shared values of democracy and human rights in our multi-cultural society, it becomes incumbent upon us to continue to scrutinise, critique and challenge all our process, both Islamic and civil in origin. All opinions, scholar and the laity must be subject to the rigours of debate; the “logical arguments”.
Non-scholars arguably should be able to exert an influence to a public discourse that informs the sensibilities of the scholar and vice-versa. No one is unlearned. We have different experiences and different scholarship that would through the test of debate and speech strengthen our direction and vision.
Friday, August 05, 2005
The Veiled Woman - Dina Zaman
I was invited to a surprise birthday dinner for a friend’s mother recently. The food was good, the company was lovely but I felt something was amiss. It was only when I drove back home that I realised what had been niggling me throughout the dinner.
All the aunties that had come to celebrate the occasion did not wear the hijab, or tudung. They came and left with uncovered heads and one had a dodgy wig on.
To see an uncovered head these days in Malaysia is not unusual, as there are many that go about their business in that fashion. But you cannot deny that there are more covered heads than uncovered, and when you meet older women that don’t wear the scarf, the sight is a bit jarring. I’ll be honest: there are a few of my mother’s acquaintances that should bundle themselves up in a burqa, and when one has had a bad Botox job or Einstein hair dyed in fire engine red, maybe covering up totally is a good idea.
Why we wear it
It was in the 1980s that we saw more and more women taking to the hijab. At that time the number was very, very few, and almost everyone had something nasty to say about the women that had taken to the cloth. It didn’t help that at that time, Al-Arqam was having a field day in the media, what with polygamous marriages and men sporting eyeliner. It was a major scandal.
I was in boarding school then, and the talk at that time, that frightened us 15 year olds, was the materialisation of a new ghoul: the Hantu Kum-Kum. The Hantu Kum-Kum was a tragic figure: she wanted to save her marriage, so she went to see a bomoh who put susuk (a primitive form of face lifting) in her face so that her husband would be devoted to her, instead of that hussy he was going ga-ga over. The catch: for the spell to work, she was not to look at the mirror for 40 days. Alas, like all women, vanity was her undoing, and she looked and her face became ugly instantly. It was so repulsive that she wore a shawl over her face and ran out of her home. She became a lonely spirit, and would do her best to befriend people, but because of her facial disfigurement, she could not say, "Assalamualaikum!" All she could utter was, "Kum-kum! Kum-kum!"
At that time, there was only one classmate that was covered up, I think her name was Azee. However, her dress was of no concern to us as she was funny, smart, and she too was equally scared of the Hantu Kum-kum. As each term passed, more took to wearing the veil. I don’t think my former classmates and I ever mulled over the issue; at that age all we were concerned about was getting through school.
And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss. (The Quran, Surah An-Nuur, Verse 31)
Why do modern, educated Malay women take to the scarf?
The reasons vary. For my friends and me, (yes, yours truly), wearing the scarf is a rite of passage. We are not wearing the hijab yet, but the intention to adorn the scarf is there. It’s just a matter of when. Some still want to perm or rebond their hair, some have to deal with husbands that do not want hijab-ed wives. We already have a wardrobe in mind. I suppose one reason why we have not heard the call of the hijab yet is because we do not want to end up like some women that we know, who wear it on and off, wear the scarf with short tee-shirts and confuse everyone, including themselves. Let’s give some dignity to the hijab.
The main reason for many women, is religion and obedience to God. Nur Fatihah Nur Izzati came from a very different background; she is a Mualaf, a revert, and her family was against her religious change. Her reversion was instinctive, for as a young girl, she was attracted by the sight of women in hijab, and would practise wearing it secretly at home.
"Donning the hijab is not only something personal, but it is what is required of us as Muslims," she e-mailed. Hijab is adorned for different reasons, motivation, she continued, but the main reason should be "… lillahitaala…" She went on to state that the hijab is not the drab garment it is made out to be, as scarved Muslim Malaysian women parade in all sorts of colours and styles.
Then there are the laugh-out-loud reasons as to why a woman takes to covering up. Siti Hafidah wrote to tell me that when she was younger, she was a tomboy. She cycled and ran around in shorts, tee-shirts and sported very short hair. She even confused her extremely near-sighted grandmother, who always wondered whose son it was that had come to visit her. Siti’s attire change came about to protect her integrity and identity as a woman: her boyish looks had attracted the unwanted attention of besotted schoolgirls.
"I’m VERY STRAIGHT, let me tell you that! So I put on a scarf to show the girls I was a girl, and didn’t take it off throughout school. And somehow, feminity crept in, I became more lady-like. But I still do my white water rafting and hiking!"
Muslim women bloggers
In blogland, Malaysian Muslim women talk about their decision to wear the hijab with great humour. These women are educated and known in their respective fields, such as Zaharah Othman, who writes for a national newspaper. Another blogger who goes by the name 'Aunty N', wrote about the day she donned a scarf for good.
Then there are young women like Anedra and Blabarella that have intentions to cover up, but are waiting for the day. In the meantime, they content themselves by buying clothes that cover their aurat. If they wore skirts once, it’s now the baju kurung or pants suits for them.
Of course there are detractors of the hijab; namely women that had worn it once and have taken it off. Most confess that they wore it out of peer pressure at school, or to obey their parents. Roslina, who’s in marketing, spoke about her decision to take her tudung off. As a young girl, she was made to wear the scarf by her mother, and was never comfortable with it. She got used to it but it was when she went to university that she and her friends sat down to talk about their hijab. They wanted to find their 'true, inner selves', so one by one took off their tudung. Roslina shaved her head and went goth – black nails, black lipstick, black clothes.
"Looking at today, many tudung-ed girls are not what you think either. Some hide behind the veil to be something else. I’m speaking from experience. They are actually scared of being themselves, so they hide. Just look at the pictures you saw on the internet, doing immoral things and necking in the woods."
"I wasn’t sure what the tudung meant to me. I think I put it on because I was scared of my mother, and I thought I was being the good girl. From this mumbo jumbo that I went through, I realized that there are a lot more people out there who don’t wear the tudung but that doesn’t mean that they are wild and have no religious education. And (there’s) a lot to be said about the tudung-ed ones, what with them wearing tight blouses and sporting visible tummies."
Having said all this, she stated, she did not discount wearing the hijab again, but at a later age.
Googling on 'hijab' led me to this very enlightening article that was filed in The Telegraph, 31 December 2003:
The Muslim veil has become a hot political issue in France – but Stella White cannot see what the fuss is about. A Catholic from Kent, she explains the joys of the complete cover-up.
"Yet for many, including myself, the veil is not an instrument of coercion, but a means of liberation. Personally, I have never felt so free as I do when I am wearing it."
"Before you presume that I am regurgitating propaganda from a culture that has brainwashed me, I should point out that I am a Catholic, not a Muslim. I am not from the mysterious East, but am a 32-year-old woman from boring Kent. Nor am I a prude: my life has included spells as an exotic dancer, kissogram and glamour model. Three of my best friends are strippers. I have had relationships with Muslim men, but none of them ever demanded I wear the hijab; in fact, they found my behaviour slightly embarrassing. There is nobody in my past that has coerced me to wear a veil. I do so simply because I love it."
"I relish the privacy; the barrier that the hijab creates between myself and the harsh, frenetic world, especially in London. I find a great peace behind the veil: I don't feel invaded by nosy passers-by; the traffic, noise and crowds seem less overwhelming. I can retreat into my own safe world even as I walk and, on a practical level, I feel completely secure from unwanted advances."
White went on to reveal her observations on manners and respect that she was blessed with as a veiled woman. While her mother mother, on the other hand, claimed that she, White, wore it because she couldn't be bothered to brush her hair, despite being Catholic, taking off the veil was not an option.
Our men, oh, our confused men
Men, being men, have their own theories when it comes to hijab-ed women. One of my male acquaintances has fantastic fantasies when it comes to tudung-ed women. It is the hidden that is erotic to him. He desires to smell the hair, the perspiration, to meet the hidden jewel behind the veil.
He’s still single.
We girls, when we get together, we gossip about, what else, men and their idiosyncrasies. They can be the worst devils on earth, but ultimately they want the virginal and covered demure Malay girl. We have a male friend that had this torrid affair with a mistress of a Datuk, and is hankering to marry a relative of someone. The relative is the quintessential Anak Dara Melayu Ayu dan Patut Dinikahi - The Archetype Virgin Malay Girl That Malay Men Ought to Marry(everything we girls aren’t lah). The lothario told us that to marry such a personage was a gift from God, and that his position and status would elevate upon marrying the virgin (who by the way is clueless about her admirer).
"Freakin’ delusional, isn’t he?" we sniped.
"Malay men. What do you expect," another snorted with laughter.
On the other hand, we have men that are observant Muslims but do not want hijab-ed wives. "Darat-lah," one of my friends told me. Darat in Terengganu-speak means Hicksville. Somehow, there is still this stigma that covered women, in spite of their beauty and education, can’t speak English and are from some sticks in a rural area. Another reason: a veiled woman becomes a desexualised persona. She becomes such a revered figure that she becomes asexual.
With the advent of veiled personalities such as Wardina, Waheeda, Norjuma, Jasrina Jasni (hereby known as Jazrina, based on a report in Berita Harian, 26 July, 2005), veiled girls are the IT girls of the 21st century.
High profile pairings have only served to awe suitors and admirers of covered young women. "Is she like ...?" is the question. And because these personalities are good looking, the beauty stakes have gone up.
If before, young women had self-esteem issues when they compared themselves to models and actresses, now, there is a phenomenon of the veiled celebrity. On one hand the veiled personality is a good example of modesty and Muslim modernity, and on the other, impressionable young men want look-alikes of personalities and young women think the only ticket to a good life is by donning coloured contact lenses and landing a rich man.
It’s not a bed of roses for my tudung-ed friends. From dealing with public perception that they are not literate to being told that they should take off their veils because they’re so 'not Malay', it is an uphill task, but the number of veiled women is increasing.
The veil is no longer a religious and personal symbol of one’s submission to God but also political. In Europe where hate crimes against the Muslims are rising, the veil is a red flag that begs for racist attacks. It is viewed ambiguously: it is a sign of liberation as well as oppression. Of sophistication as well as dowdiness.
Hijab-ed women in this country come in all sorts of packages. You’ll get the hip youngster shopping at Guess and Coach in a white scarf and fitting shirt and jeans, to the foul-mouthed executive that has everyone shaking their heads and perpetuating the myth of the Ugly Tudung-ed Woman, right up to feminists saying it’s not what you wear, it’s your heart that counts. There are many arguments for and against the hijab. I’ve written about tudung lesbians. Say what you want. They’re here to stay.
My friend, Idlan Zakaria, who occasionally submits articles to this column, emailed me recently:
I am starting to think that the hijab is being trivialised because Islam to a certain extent is being trivialised in Malaysia. We make all Malays Muslims by way of constitution; so that religion isn't something that you work at, that makes up a system of belief and is about faith; instead we are making it a birthright. In the same vein, the lackasadaical attitude towards the tudung is a manifestation of this attitude.
In the same way we have treated religion as a hereditary ornament, as something we wear around our necks but know nothing about; we treat the tudung the same : a statement, something to wear on our heads, but not something we embody in our behaviour or our actions. In the same way that we are Muslim because our parents are / were; we wear the tudung because everyone else is.
I use the term we liberally - this is not a catch all statement; in the same way that we have pious observant Muslims among Malays, we too have earnest Muslimahs wearing the tudung for what its worth.
These are just my observations.
I once wrote about my mother wearing the hijab for The Sun (the column is now defunct) many years ago, and allow me to echo what she said when I asked her why.
"Because God has given me so much. This change is such a small offering to Him, but it’s the least I can do."
All the aunties that had come to celebrate the occasion did not wear the hijab, or tudung. They came and left with uncovered heads and one had a dodgy wig on.
To see an uncovered head these days in Malaysia is not unusual, as there are many that go about their business in that fashion. But you cannot deny that there are more covered heads than uncovered, and when you meet older women that don’t wear the scarf, the sight is a bit jarring. I’ll be honest: there are a few of my mother’s acquaintances that should bundle themselves up in a burqa, and when one has had a bad Botox job or Einstein hair dyed in fire engine red, maybe covering up totally is a good idea.
Why we wear it
It was in the 1980s that we saw more and more women taking to the hijab. At that time the number was very, very few, and almost everyone had something nasty to say about the women that had taken to the cloth. It didn’t help that at that time, Al-Arqam was having a field day in the media, what with polygamous marriages and men sporting eyeliner. It was a major scandal.
I was in boarding school then, and the talk at that time, that frightened us 15 year olds, was the materialisation of a new ghoul: the Hantu Kum-Kum. The Hantu Kum-Kum was a tragic figure: she wanted to save her marriage, so she went to see a bomoh who put susuk (a primitive form of face lifting) in her face so that her husband would be devoted to her, instead of that hussy he was going ga-ga over. The catch: for the spell to work, she was not to look at the mirror for 40 days. Alas, like all women, vanity was her undoing, and she looked and her face became ugly instantly. It was so repulsive that she wore a shawl over her face and ran out of her home. She became a lonely spirit, and would do her best to befriend people, but because of her facial disfigurement, she could not say, "Assalamualaikum!" All she could utter was, "Kum-kum! Kum-kum!"
At that time, there was only one classmate that was covered up, I think her name was Azee. However, her dress was of no concern to us as she was funny, smart, and she too was equally scared of the Hantu Kum-kum. As each term passed, more took to wearing the veil. I don’t think my former classmates and I ever mulled over the issue; at that age all we were concerned about was getting through school.
And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss. (The Quran, Surah An-Nuur, Verse 31)
Why do modern, educated Malay women take to the scarf?
The reasons vary. For my friends and me, (yes, yours truly), wearing the scarf is a rite of passage. We are not wearing the hijab yet, but the intention to adorn the scarf is there. It’s just a matter of when. Some still want to perm or rebond their hair, some have to deal with husbands that do not want hijab-ed wives. We already have a wardrobe in mind. I suppose one reason why we have not heard the call of the hijab yet is because we do not want to end up like some women that we know, who wear it on and off, wear the scarf with short tee-shirts and confuse everyone, including themselves. Let’s give some dignity to the hijab.
The main reason for many women, is religion and obedience to God. Nur Fatihah Nur Izzati came from a very different background; she is a Mualaf, a revert, and her family was against her religious change. Her reversion was instinctive, for as a young girl, she was attracted by the sight of women in hijab, and would practise wearing it secretly at home.
"Donning the hijab is not only something personal, but it is what is required of us as Muslims," she e-mailed. Hijab is adorned for different reasons, motivation, she continued, but the main reason should be "… lillahitaala…" She went on to state that the hijab is not the drab garment it is made out to be, as scarved Muslim Malaysian women parade in all sorts of colours and styles.
Then there are the laugh-out-loud reasons as to why a woman takes to covering up. Siti Hafidah wrote to tell me that when she was younger, she was a tomboy. She cycled and ran around in shorts, tee-shirts and sported very short hair. She even confused her extremely near-sighted grandmother, who always wondered whose son it was that had come to visit her. Siti’s attire change came about to protect her integrity and identity as a woman: her boyish looks had attracted the unwanted attention of besotted schoolgirls.
"I’m VERY STRAIGHT, let me tell you that! So I put on a scarf to show the girls I was a girl, and didn’t take it off throughout school. And somehow, feminity crept in, I became more lady-like. But I still do my white water rafting and hiking!"
Muslim women bloggers
In blogland, Malaysian Muslim women talk about their decision to wear the hijab with great humour. These women are educated and known in their respective fields, such as Zaharah Othman, who writes for a national newspaper. Another blogger who goes by the name 'Aunty N', wrote about the day she donned a scarf for good.
Then there are young women like Anedra and Blabarella that have intentions to cover up, but are waiting for the day. In the meantime, they content themselves by buying clothes that cover their aurat. If they wore skirts once, it’s now the baju kurung or pants suits for them.
Of course there are detractors of the hijab; namely women that had worn it once and have taken it off. Most confess that they wore it out of peer pressure at school, or to obey their parents. Roslina, who’s in marketing, spoke about her decision to take her tudung off. As a young girl, she was made to wear the scarf by her mother, and was never comfortable with it. She got used to it but it was when she went to university that she and her friends sat down to talk about their hijab. They wanted to find their 'true, inner selves', so one by one took off their tudung. Roslina shaved her head and went goth – black nails, black lipstick, black clothes.
"Looking at today, many tudung-ed girls are not what you think either. Some hide behind the veil to be something else. I’m speaking from experience. They are actually scared of being themselves, so they hide. Just look at the pictures you saw on the internet, doing immoral things and necking in the woods."
"I wasn’t sure what the tudung meant to me. I think I put it on because I was scared of my mother, and I thought I was being the good girl. From this mumbo jumbo that I went through, I realized that there are a lot more people out there who don’t wear the tudung but that doesn’t mean that they are wild and have no religious education. And (there’s) a lot to be said about the tudung-ed ones, what with them wearing tight blouses and sporting visible tummies."
Having said all this, she stated, she did not discount wearing the hijab again, but at a later age.
Googling on 'hijab' led me to this very enlightening article that was filed in The Telegraph, 31 December 2003:
The Muslim veil has become a hot political issue in France – but Stella White cannot see what the fuss is about. A Catholic from Kent, she explains the joys of the complete cover-up.
"Yet for many, including myself, the veil is not an instrument of coercion, but a means of liberation. Personally, I have never felt so free as I do when I am wearing it."
"Before you presume that I am regurgitating propaganda from a culture that has brainwashed me, I should point out that I am a Catholic, not a Muslim. I am not from the mysterious East, but am a 32-year-old woman from boring Kent. Nor am I a prude: my life has included spells as an exotic dancer, kissogram and glamour model. Three of my best friends are strippers. I have had relationships with Muslim men, but none of them ever demanded I wear the hijab; in fact, they found my behaviour slightly embarrassing. There is nobody in my past that has coerced me to wear a veil. I do so simply because I love it."
"I relish the privacy; the barrier that the hijab creates between myself and the harsh, frenetic world, especially in London. I find a great peace behind the veil: I don't feel invaded by nosy passers-by; the traffic, noise and crowds seem less overwhelming. I can retreat into my own safe world even as I walk and, on a practical level, I feel completely secure from unwanted advances."
White went on to reveal her observations on manners and respect that she was blessed with as a veiled woman. While her mother mother, on the other hand, claimed that she, White, wore it because she couldn't be bothered to brush her hair, despite being Catholic, taking off the veil was not an option.
Our men, oh, our confused men
Men, being men, have their own theories when it comes to hijab-ed women. One of my male acquaintances has fantastic fantasies when it comes to tudung-ed women. It is the hidden that is erotic to him. He desires to smell the hair, the perspiration, to meet the hidden jewel behind the veil.
He’s still single.
We girls, when we get together, we gossip about, what else, men and their idiosyncrasies. They can be the worst devils on earth, but ultimately they want the virginal and covered demure Malay girl. We have a male friend that had this torrid affair with a mistress of a Datuk, and is hankering to marry a relative of someone. The relative is the quintessential Anak Dara Melayu Ayu dan Patut Dinikahi - The Archetype Virgin Malay Girl That Malay Men Ought to Marry(everything we girls aren’t lah). The lothario told us that to marry such a personage was a gift from God, and that his position and status would elevate upon marrying the virgin (who by the way is clueless about her admirer).
"Freakin’ delusional, isn’t he?" we sniped.
"Malay men. What do you expect," another snorted with laughter.
On the other hand, we have men that are observant Muslims but do not want hijab-ed wives. "Darat-lah," one of my friends told me. Darat in Terengganu-speak means Hicksville. Somehow, there is still this stigma that covered women, in spite of their beauty and education, can’t speak English and are from some sticks in a rural area. Another reason: a veiled woman becomes a desexualised persona. She becomes such a revered figure that she becomes asexual.
With the advent of veiled personalities such as Wardina, Waheeda, Norjuma, Jasrina Jasni (hereby known as Jazrina, based on a report in Berita Harian, 26 July, 2005), veiled girls are the IT girls of the 21st century.
High profile pairings have only served to awe suitors and admirers of covered young women. "Is she like ...?" is the question. And because these personalities are good looking, the beauty stakes have gone up.
If before, young women had self-esteem issues when they compared themselves to models and actresses, now, there is a phenomenon of the veiled celebrity. On one hand the veiled personality is a good example of modesty and Muslim modernity, and on the other, impressionable young men want look-alikes of personalities and young women think the only ticket to a good life is by donning coloured contact lenses and landing a rich man.
It’s not a bed of roses for my tudung-ed friends. From dealing with public perception that they are not literate to being told that they should take off their veils because they’re so 'not Malay', it is an uphill task, but the number of veiled women is increasing.
The veil is no longer a religious and personal symbol of one’s submission to God but also political. In Europe where hate crimes against the Muslims are rising, the veil is a red flag that begs for racist attacks. It is viewed ambiguously: it is a sign of liberation as well as oppression. Of sophistication as well as dowdiness.
Hijab-ed women in this country come in all sorts of packages. You’ll get the hip youngster shopping at Guess and Coach in a white scarf and fitting shirt and jeans, to the foul-mouthed executive that has everyone shaking their heads and perpetuating the myth of the Ugly Tudung-ed Woman, right up to feminists saying it’s not what you wear, it’s your heart that counts. There are many arguments for and against the hijab. I’ve written about tudung lesbians. Say what you want. They’re here to stay.
My friend, Idlan Zakaria, who occasionally submits articles to this column, emailed me recently:
I am starting to think that the hijab is being trivialised because Islam to a certain extent is being trivialised in Malaysia. We make all Malays Muslims by way of constitution; so that religion isn't something that you work at, that makes up a system of belief and is about faith; instead we are making it a birthright. In the same vein, the lackasadaical attitude towards the tudung is a manifestation of this attitude.
In the same way we have treated religion as a hereditary ornament, as something we wear around our necks but know nothing about; we treat the tudung the same : a statement, something to wear on our heads, but not something we embody in our behaviour or our actions. In the same way that we are Muslim because our parents are / were; we wear the tudung because everyone else is.
I use the term we liberally - this is not a catch all statement; in the same way that we have pious observant Muslims among Malays, we too have earnest Muslimahs wearing the tudung for what its worth.
These are just my observations.
I once wrote about my mother wearing the hijab for The Sun (the column is now defunct) many years ago, and allow me to echo what she said when I asked her why.
"Because God has given me so much. This change is such a small offering to Him, but it’s the least I can do."
Discourse in Islam Should be Open to All - M Bakri Musa
Contemporary ulama and Islamic scholars would like us to believe that discourses in Islam are their exclusive preserve. The rest of the ummah (community) need not partake; suffice that we meekly follow whatever they dispense. This is a flawed and shortsighted assumption.
These ulama and scholars contend that Islam, like any other body of knowledge, is highly specialized and has voluminous scholarship. Thus, only experts – themselves – can responsibly discuss the issues. They compare Islam to medicine, where laypersons presumably should not discuss with their physicians details of their malady and treatment. Likewise, the laity should not engage the ulama on matters Islamic.
This particular viewpoint was reiterated recently by the President of the Malaysian Muslim Medical Association, Dr. Musa Nordin. He cited the example of a sick newborn, where only a super specialist like a neonatologist is needed. No ordinary physician, much less a layperson, should have an input.
Learning the Wrong Lesson from Medicine
I humbly admit that my knowledge of Islam is meager, but I do know a bit more about medicine. The ulama’s perception of today’s medicine is clearly erroneous. True, there was a time when the prevailing culture was encapsulated in the saying, “Trust me, I am a doctor!” Thankfully, those days are long gone. Such an attitude is still prevalent in many Third World societies as exemplified by Dr. Musa Nordin’s statement.
Today, patients engage their physicians on details of their therapy. I welcome and indeed encourage such discussions with my patients. A well-informed patient is an important resource. With so much medical information readily available, patients are remarkably well informed.
When patients consult me, I go over all the treatment options, including non-surgical ones, discussing the benefits as well as possible side effects of each. I consider each patient encounter an opportunity to educate my patients and to learn from them. In the end, it is the patient’s decision as to what modality to choose. This is part of the informed consent.
There is no one “best” treatment, only the best treatment for a particular patient under a specific circumstance. Consequently, physicians must respect the patients’ needs and wishes. I have modified therapies based on the patient’s personal wishes, as with a young woman concerned with cosmetic appearance, or Jehovah Witness patients whose religious belief precludes their receiving blood products.
In the intensive care unit of my modern hospital, physicians gratefully acknowledge the valuable contributions of others in the care of our patients, from the social workers and priests to the nurses and respiratory therapists. We physicians do not have a monopoly on the clinical wisdom.
Medicine as a discipline also has been receptive to and benefits from ideas in other disciplines. Research in military aviation resulted in the G-suit for pilots, which gave rise to the “mast suit” used to stabilize patients in shock. A further spin off is the compression stockings used in preventing blood clots in the extremities. From space research, we get the elemental diet used in treating intestinal disorders. Advances in instrumentations come from the seemingly unrelated field of engineering.
If physicians were to adopt the insularity of the ulama and refuse to engage experts in other fields, medicine would not have made such spectacular advances.
Advances also come from the lay public. The American Cancer Society, a lay organization, educates the public and is responsible for the increasingly early detection of cancer. Locally, Marina Mahathir and her AIDS Foundation have done more than the medical profession in raising public and official awareness of AIDS.
If I can engage my patients in complicated medical concepts without being condescending, then surely the ulama could do likewise with their flock. If I can understand quantum physics, then surely I can comprehend the intricacies of Islamic theology.
The voluminous literature and legend of scholars in Islam are a blessing, not a curse. I have learned from the great scholars regardless of their sectarian allegiance or whether they are non-Muslims. I certainly do not need a Muslim Pope wannabe to filter what I can and cannot read. God gives me akal (intellect), and entrusts me to use it wisely and responsibly.
Liberal Education for Future Ulama
I am flattered that our ulama are learning from medicine. Unfortunately, they are emulating a profession of a century ago, not today’s modern medicine. Consequently, they are learning all the wrong lessons.
The ulama could adopt one item from my profession, at least as practiced in America. The education of future ulama, like that of physicians, should be broad based. They should study the humanities as well as the social and natural sciences before embarking on religious studies. That would rid them of their intellectual insularity quite apart from enhancing their understanding of the Holy Book.
If we expose our future ulama to modern economics before they pursue their Islamic Studies, they would then appreciate modern financial instruments like taxes, and be able to discuss their differences and similarities with the Muslim tithe. If they were exposed to the behavioral sciences like psychology, they would be better able to manage the problems of their ummah. Currently, the responses of our ulama to the many problems of modern living have been to recite simplistically the holy texts.
I am a better physician for having had a liberal education before studying medicine. In the same vein, our ulama would be much better informed, more intellectually curious, and most importantly, have greater humility if they were exposed to subjects and disciplines outside of the narrow and traditional confines of Islamic Studies. They would also be better ulama if not human beings if in they were exposed to the wider society during their formative years of intellectual and social development.
In their intellectual and social isolation, these ulama never hesitate to make pronouncements and issue fatwas on subjects they absolutely have no clue. Nor do they have the humility to seek advice from others more knowledgeable.
Polio is back in many Muslim countries simply because some ignorant ulama decreed that the vaccine is made from porcine material, or that it is invented by Western specifically Jewish bent on maiming Muslims. Such idiocies put our children in great jeopardy. These ulama are curiously silent on the serious problems such as AIDS, drug addiction, and corruption facing our society.
Our ulama and scholars would have far greater influence on the ummah by the power and strength of their reasoning and scholarship, not on how tightly they can control our thoughts and thinking.
These ulama and scholars contend that Islam, like any other body of knowledge, is highly specialized and has voluminous scholarship. Thus, only experts – themselves – can responsibly discuss the issues. They compare Islam to medicine, where laypersons presumably should not discuss with their physicians details of their malady and treatment. Likewise, the laity should not engage the ulama on matters Islamic.
This particular viewpoint was reiterated recently by the President of the Malaysian Muslim Medical Association, Dr. Musa Nordin. He cited the example of a sick newborn, where only a super specialist like a neonatologist is needed. No ordinary physician, much less a layperson, should have an input.
Learning the Wrong Lesson from Medicine
I humbly admit that my knowledge of Islam is meager, but I do know a bit more about medicine. The ulama’s perception of today’s medicine is clearly erroneous. True, there was a time when the prevailing culture was encapsulated in the saying, “Trust me, I am a doctor!” Thankfully, those days are long gone. Such an attitude is still prevalent in many Third World societies as exemplified by Dr. Musa Nordin’s statement.
Today, patients engage their physicians on details of their therapy. I welcome and indeed encourage such discussions with my patients. A well-informed patient is an important resource. With so much medical information readily available, patients are remarkably well informed.
When patients consult me, I go over all the treatment options, including non-surgical ones, discussing the benefits as well as possible side effects of each. I consider each patient encounter an opportunity to educate my patients and to learn from them. In the end, it is the patient’s decision as to what modality to choose. This is part of the informed consent.
There is no one “best” treatment, only the best treatment for a particular patient under a specific circumstance. Consequently, physicians must respect the patients’ needs and wishes. I have modified therapies based on the patient’s personal wishes, as with a young woman concerned with cosmetic appearance, or Jehovah Witness patients whose religious belief precludes their receiving blood products.
In the intensive care unit of my modern hospital, physicians gratefully acknowledge the valuable contributions of others in the care of our patients, from the social workers and priests to the nurses and respiratory therapists. We physicians do not have a monopoly on the clinical wisdom.
Medicine as a discipline also has been receptive to and benefits from ideas in other disciplines. Research in military aviation resulted in the G-suit for pilots, which gave rise to the “mast suit” used to stabilize patients in shock. A further spin off is the compression stockings used in preventing blood clots in the extremities. From space research, we get the elemental diet used in treating intestinal disorders. Advances in instrumentations come from the seemingly unrelated field of engineering.
If physicians were to adopt the insularity of the ulama and refuse to engage experts in other fields, medicine would not have made such spectacular advances.
Advances also come from the lay public. The American Cancer Society, a lay organization, educates the public and is responsible for the increasingly early detection of cancer. Locally, Marina Mahathir and her AIDS Foundation have done more than the medical profession in raising public and official awareness of AIDS.
If I can engage my patients in complicated medical concepts without being condescending, then surely the ulama could do likewise with their flock. If I can understand quantum physics, then surely I can comprehend the intricacies of Islamic theology.
The voluminous literature and legend of scholars in Islam are a blessing, not a curse. I have learned from the great scholars regardless of their sectarian allegiance or whether they are non-Muslims. I certainly do not need a Muslim Pope wannabe to filter what I can and cannot read. God gives me akal (intellect), and entrusts me to use it wisely and responsibly.
Liberal Education for Future Ulama
I am flattered that our ulama are learning from medicine. Unfortunately, they are emulating a profession of a century ago, not today’s modern medicine. Consequently, they are learning all the wrong lessons.
The ulama could adopt one item from my profession, at least as practiced in America. The education of future ulama, like that of physicians, should be broad based. They should study the humanities as well as the social and natural sciences before embarking on religious studies. That would rid them of their intellectual insularity quite apart from enhancing their understanding of the Holy Book.
If we expose our future ulama to modern economics before they pursue their Islamic Studies, they would then appreciate modern financial instruments like taxes, and be able to discuss their differences and similarities with the Muslim tithe. If they were exposed to the behavioral sciences like psychology, they would be better able to manage the problems of their ummah. Currently, the responses of our ulama to the many problems of modern living have been to recite simplistically the holy texts.
I am a better physician for having had a liberal education before studying medicine. In the same vein, our ulama would be much better informed, more intellectually curious, and most importantly, have greater humility if they were exposed to subjects and disciplines outside of the narrow and traditional confines of Islamic Studies. They would also be better ulama if not human beings if in they were exposed to the wider society during their formative years of intellectual and social development.
In their intellectual and social isolation, these ulama never hesitate to make pronouncements and issue fatwas on subjects they absolutely have no clue. Nor do they have the humility to seek advice from others more knowledgeable.
Polio is back in many Muslim countries simply because some ignorant ulama decreed that the vaccine is made from porcine material, or that it is invented by Western specifically Jewish bent on maiming Muslims. Such idiocies put our children in great jeopardy. These ulama are curiously silent on the serious problems such as AIDS, drug addiction, and corruption facing our society.
Our ulama and scholars would have far greater influence on the ummah by the power and strength of their reasoning and scholarship, not on how tightly they can control our thoughts and thinking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
