Monthly Archives: October 2006

Articles

Interesting Read: Inadequate responses to recent affronts to Islam

5,389 Comments

Interesting Read: Inadequate responses to recent affronts to Islam
by Sayyid Al-Aiderus

Malaysia Today
http://www.malaysia-today.net/index.html

The recent flurry of suggestions and comments on the conversion of Mohammad Abdullah (M. Moorthy) culminated in a history-making move by non-Muslim Cabinet Ministers who signed and sent an unsolicited memorandum to their boss, the Prime Minister of Malaysia, that has embarrassed the government and raised the eyebrows, concern and temper of Muslims, especially the Malays in this country. The action was seemingly taken because of a series of recent events that resulted in a spate of views expressed by a segment of society that feels that Article 121 (1A) should be reviewed or amended. The Cabinet Ministers appear to have been encouraged and emboldened by the heated rhetoric of a few. Their insensitive and callous act has naturally offended Muslims in this country and has raised suspicion and questions of intent?thus invoking feelings of distrust and misgivings, especially about the sincerity of component parties, a trust that has been a long time in building. This move is all the more curious since it was made by seasoned politicians who undoubtedly knew exactly what they were doing, but interestingly enough, preferred to take the issue to a public platform rather than to a closed Cabinet.

Since then, eight of the nine Ministers have agreed to withdraw the memorandum, leaving Tan Sri Bernard Dompok standing in defiance of the Prime Minister’s call to reconsider the submission. However, the deed is done and the act has served its purpose?to show supporters that an attempt had been made to force the hand of an unyielding government. Where the solidarity of the National Front should have been paramount on the agenda of the component parties, they opted to show fragmentation. Hence, the Prime Minister and his party found themselves standing alone.

The somewhat initial reticent response from officials, either in speech or action, appears now to have been interpreted to mean an admission of the inadequacy of the law or an attempt at a back-handed apology or an expression of guilt.

In a plural society, discussing some issues is like kissing the head of a cobra: the act itself is intriguing, but in itself, it possesses little merit?a side show is a side show no matter how you cut it. Rev. Wong’s statement, which was placed prominently on the first page, right next to the pictures of the nine Ministers, is nothing more than double-talk: a loaded declaration that implies more than it says: it has forked some lightning. It is worth pondering why his statement, and not that of any one of the Ministers, was displayed on the occasion. (He states, “It should not be looked at as only a religious issue. It is a social issue emerging out of a religious matter.” It is interesting that Wong Chun Wah in his column ‘On the Beat’ concludes his article almost stating verbatim what Rev. Wong had said: “The issue should not be treated as a religious or racial issue but a social issue with social problems that have emerged out of religious laws.” More amazing is Rev. Wong’s remark that some people are attempting to turn this to an emotional issue. What did he expect? This is the reason why there are certain forums in which certain discussions should take place.

There is a part of religion that rightfully abandons reason and embraces emotion. The act of sending the memorandum is an affront to all Muslims: it is unacceptable and shows a total disregard for the feelings of a peaceful majority. I am reminded of a heart-rending story of a forced conversion that took place in the United States in 1989.

An Albanian Muslim father in Texas, Sadri Krasniqi, was wrongly accused of molesting his four-year old daughter in public during his son’s karate competition. He was eventually found innocent by the court, when experts proved that the manner of his expression of love to his daughter was part of a 1500-year old tradition of a people who do not have a history of molesting children, let alone have sex with them. However, the system jumped the gun, and the children were put up for adoption by the Texas Child Protective Services before the father was cleared of all charges. The children were forced to become Christians and the civil judge who had presided over the case considered it the right decision, even though prosecutors called the verdict a “disgusting result.” The judge purportedly had even said that the children were better off growing up as Christians. To the parents’ dismay, their children were forced to eat pork, wear crosses, attend church and perform other duties of a Christian. The Krasnisqis, who had owned 5 restaurants, lost everything in the course of clearing their name and attempting to get their children back. The children were never returned to them. It was reported on the news that the Governor of the State of Texas was the only one who could have corrected the situation, but Governor George Bush (yes, the present president of the U.S. of A), a conservative Christian, chose to do nothing.

Mohammad Abdullah’s case is not at all like that of Krasniqi’s. At least, our government has been compassionate and considerate with Mohammad’s family and has done much to help ease their pain. In the eyes of the Syariah court Mohammad was a Muslim; there was no mala fide in the decision. The courts went by his declaration that he was a Muslim. The issue here is Kaliammal was denied the right to be heard, not the right to bury her husband as a Hindu which is an outcome that may or may not have taken place if she was given a hearing. She claims that he was a practicing Hindu. Who is to say that he was not a practicing Muslim? Islam gives those who are physically-challenged or in difficult situations a great deal of latitude. Such a person would have been exempted from having to go to mosques and could have performed his prayers at home by just gesturing with his fingers or moving his eyes.

In recent developments, the Syariah courts have been portrayed as institutions that cannot act impartially and that Islamic law does not accommodate non-Muslims. The Syariah courts may have to take some of the blame for the former perception because of their dismal and embarrassing handling of some divorce cases. What needs to be made clear here is that non-Muslims have a voice in Syariah courts.

All of us jealously guard our own. Even people who are not religious tend to feel strongly about conversions. Hence, it is not surprising to me that some people are reluctant to profess their new faith to their family members or friends, afraid of repercussions that may even amount to violence or loss of life. I know through firsthand experiences narrated by friends who had converted to Islam that their family members stayed angry at them for years, including some who have refused to reconcile to this day and those who were victims of verbal and physical abuse.

Declaring one’s faith to one’s family members is a private issue. No government or institution should interfere with this right of an individual. Only a convert should decide on the right time to announce such an important change in his life to his family, a decision that may anchor upon so many factors, including the ill health or age of family members or the degree of their reaction, revulsion or acceptance of such news: in handling such vicarious situations, it is sometimes all in the timing.

In the last few months, the media has highlighted a great number of subjects that have stirred the emotions of the people: one was an issue of rights that was racially-laced, that is, the squatting incident, the other, the Islamic Family Law Bill that invited solicited and unsolicited comments from all over, including a sweeping character assassination by the Director of the Sisters in Islam, Zainah Anwar, who called the drafters of the Bill “patriarchal” and “misogynists,” words that usually make up her repertoire. Her fury sent her lashing out in every direction, once again referring to the rights of a man to divorce his wife, beat her, in cases of disobedience and a host of other complaints. (Of course, we all know that good Muslims constantly remind their wives of such things to keep them in line. I have reduced my wife-beating activities to only once a week after over twenty years of marriage. For those who are dense enough to believe this, I have to state categorically, I have never beaten my wife in my life). Heads of NGOs and citizens, who profess other religions, were encouraged to come to the aid of SIS, and in their zeal, more often than not, overstepped their boundaries by commenting on matters beyond their jurisdiction and scope, having found their courage in numbers and in the hasty retreat of Datuk Dr Abdullah Md Zin from the controversy. Then there is the incident of Jawi’s setting up of the Morality Policing Squad (The term “Snoop Squad” is a derogatory term and a misrepresentation of the purpose and intent of the program) which elicited naïve and uninformed responses from even the President of the Bar Council, Yeo Yang Poh, who expressed shock that holding hands could be considered a sin in the year 2006, hence, shifting attention from the more severe acts of public indecency that was mentioned and describing the move as a preposterous and antiquated act, thus, ignoring the reality that promiscuity may result from innocent touches. (Yes, Yeo, in a divine religion, a sin 1400 years ago would still be a sin today, though holding hands would not involve capital punishment; in fact, the prescription would be to offer advice and encourage couples from desisting from acts that may lead to grievous sins or incurable maladies. Even the US has moved its position on sex from asking people to use contraceptives to abstinence–while here we are talking about using condoms). We are all for a society that still maintains a certain degree of its conservatism and decorum in public.

The past few weeks have also brought out that highly western argument, in this case from Ivy Josiah, the President of Women’s Aid Organization, that women should not fear dressing in whichever manner they choose since this is their right, neglecting the fact that actions have consequences. If women choose to dress skimpily to attract attention to themselves, then, they should expect to be ‘complemented accordingly’ in the age old fashion of men. (No, we are not talking about harassment, but the kind of teasing and stares that invite hot-blooded, breathing individuals to life.) I doubt women wear mini-skirts to air out their legs or shove on fitting jeans to tighten their skins or squeeze out their fat or iron out their cellulite or wrinkles. The feminist activist Jac S Kee lamented that “Jawi has turned the quality of love and affection into a crime and social ill,” calling the program “ridiculous.” Public indecency is now described as a show of “love and affection” and to check such an expression is deemed “ridiculous,” and what does one call having sex in public these days”goodwill and romance?”

Then, there was the issue of the hijab, brought up by a non-Muslim graduating student at IIUM. There was an uproar from certain quarters of the public that prompted the issue to be discussed in the Parliament: all this over a university graduation attire. When I was a student in the University of the Ozarks in Clarksville, Arkansas, all students, regardless of their country of origin, race or religion, were required to attend chapel seven times in a semester or else they would not be able to obtain their grades. We did not object to this unconstitutional requirement; we just went along. Here in Malaysia, races that have lived peacefully with one another have suddenly become Islamophobics and every expression of discomfort is treated like a major ailment.

The Syariah is the domain of Islam and should be off limits to non-Muslims. Shura on Islamic matters should not involve non-Muslims. Muslims do not need non-Muslims to tell them what is good or not good for Islam. People like Judith Loh-Koh, President of All Women’s Action Society, should not even contemplate the possibility of giving feedback on the Islamic Family Law Act as she expressed the government should recently in the papers. Zainah Anwar, who has the ear of the media and certain quarters in the government and the sympathy of the West, does not represent mainstream Islam or the views of the majority of Muslim women. The organization has ideas and opinions that are highly questionable as far as the religion is concerned. Yet they are included in high level negotiations on matters pertaining to Islam, even though Zainah’s biases are deep-rooted and of a dubious nature, including her opinions about polygamy.

In a recent interview in the paper she said that people she knew who practiced polygamy said that it was difficult–nothing like stating the obvious. No woman need remind a man that polygamy is difficult, and no woman need stand in the way of a man who has the God-given right to practice it. No pilot survey result, as mentioned by Zainah, for or against polygamy, should ever be used as the basis to abrogate God’s laws or discriminate against men.

Zainah’s statement that the young daughters of her friends are “declaring that they have no plans to marry or that they will not marry a Malay” is laughable. People do not get married to get divorced. What are these parents prompting their children to do? lead a life of celibacy or promiscuity? Marrying a foreigner too presents its own variety of challenges. Those who are feeding their daughters with horror stories about marriage are irresponsible parents. The marriage of their daughters, we pray to God, will turn out better than the failed marriages of their parents. (I hope these parents provide better counsel to their very Malay sons). Those of us who are happily married sometimes wonder where this kind of animosity stems from and what bitter experiences in the lives of these angry women have caused them to view the world in such lugubrious terms and wasting their lives fighting a battle that cannot possibly be sanctioned by God or won through time. The issue of love is beyond anyone’s control: I seriously doubt that when love comes a calling, these young girls will be flipping through the pages of the Syariah laws before deciding on their future. (I propose a pre-nuptial agreement). People do not venture into the sacred institution of marriage with a load of confounding ‘what ifs’ that can only be answered by God.

There is a kind of extremeness expressed in our society that confronts decency. We are all for fair play and rights as given to us by the Creator, but there is a limit to everything, and the goings-on in recent weeks have tested our patience and honor sorely.

Articles

Interesting Read: Muhammad’s Sword

43 Comments

Interesting Read: Muhammad’s Sword
by Uri Avnery; Gush Shalom; September 25, 2006

Since the days when Roman Emperors threw Christians to the lions, the relations between the emperors and the heads of the church have undergone many changes.

Constantine the Great, who became Emperor in the year 306 – exactly 1700 years ago – encouraged the practice of Christianity in the empire, which included Palestine. Centuries later, the church split into an Eastern (Orthodox) and a Western (Catholic) part. In the West, the Bishop of Rome, who acquired the title of Pope, demanded that the Emperor accept his superiority.

The struggle between the Emperors and the Popes played a central role in European history and divided the peoples. It knew ups and downs. Some Emperors dismissed or expelled a Pope, some Popes dismissed or excommunicated an Emperor. One of the Emperors, Henry IV, “walked to Canossa”, standing for three days barefoot in the snow in front of the Pope’s castle, until the Pope deigned to annul his excommunication.

But there were times when Emperors and Popes lived in peace with each other. We are witnessing such a period today. Between the present Pope, Benedict XVI, and the present Emperor, George Bush II, there exists a wonderful harmony. Last week’s speech by the Pope, which aroused a world-wide storm, went well with Bush’s crusade against “Islamofascism”, in the context of the “Clash of Civilizations”.

IN HIS lecture at a German university, the 265th Pope described what he sees as a huge difference between Christianity and Islam: while Christianity is based on reason, Islam denies it. While Christians see the logic of God’s actions, Muslims deny that there is any such logic in the actions of Allah.

As a Jewish atheist, I do not intend to enter the fray of this debate. It is much beyond my humble abilities to understand the logic of the Pope. But I cannot overlook one passage, which concerns me too, as an Israeli living near the fault-line of this “war of civilizations”.

In order to prove the lack of reason in Islam, the Pope asserts that the prophet Muhammad ordered his followers to spread their religion by the sword. According to the Pope, that is unreasonable, because faith is born of the soul, not of the body. How can the sword influence the soul?

To support his case, the Pope quoted – of all people – a Byzantine Emperor, who belonged, of course, to the competing Eastern Church. At the end of the 14th century, the Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus told of a debate he had – or so he said (its occurrence is in doubt) – with an unnamed Persian Muslim scholar. In the heat of the argument, the Emperor (according to himself) flung the following words at his adversary:

“Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached”.

These words give rise to three questions: (a) Why did the Emperor say them? (b) Are they true? (c) Why did the present Pope quote them?

WHEN MANUEL II wrote his treatise, he was the head of a dying empire. He assumed power in 1391, when only a few provinces of the once illustrious empire remained. These, too, were already under Turkish threat.

At that point in time, the Ottoman Turks had reached the banks of the Danube. They had conquered Bulgaria and the north of Greece, and had twice defeated relieving armies sent by Europe to save the Eastern Empire. On May 29, 1453, only a few years after Manuel’s death, his capital, Constantinople (the present Istanbul) fell to the Turks, putting an end to the Empire that had lasted for more than a thousand years.

During his reign, Manuel made the rounds of the capitals of Europe in an attempt to drum up support. He promised to reunite the church. There is no doubt that he wrote his religious treatise in order to incite the Christian countries against the Turks and convince them to start a new crusade. The aim was practical, theology was serving politics.

In this sense, the quote serves exactly the requirements of the present Emperor, George Bush II. He, too, wants to unite the Christian world against the mainly Muslim “Axis of Evil”. Moreover, the Turks are again knocking on the doors of Europe, this time peacefully. It is well known that the Pope supports the forces that object to the entry of Turkey into the European Union.

IS THERE any truth in Manuel’s argument?

The pope himself threw in a word of caution. As a serious and renowned theologian, he could not afford to falsify written texts. Therefore, he admitted that the Qur’an specifically forbade the spreading of the faith by force. He quoted the second Sura, verse 256 (strangely fallible, for a pope, he meant verse 257) which says: “There must be no coercion in matters of faith”.

How can one ignore such an unequivocal statement? The Pope simply argues that this commandment was laid down by the prophet when he was at the beginning of his career, still weak and powerless, but that later on he ordered the use of the sword in the service of the faith. Such an order does not exist in the Qur’an. True, Muhammad called for the use of the sword in his war against opposing tribes – Christian, Jewish and others – in Arabia, when he was building his state. But that was a political act, not a religious one; basically a fight for territory, not for the spreading of the faith.

Jesus said: “You will recognize them by their fruits.” The treatment of other religions by Islam must be judged by a simple test: How did the Muslim rulers behave for more than a thousand years, when they had the power to “spread the faith by the sword”?

Well, they just did not.

For many centuries, the Muslims ruled Greece. Did the Greeks become Muslims? Did anyone even try to Islamize them? On the contrary, Christian Greeks held the highest positions in the Ottoman administration. The Bulgarians, Serbs, Romanians, Hungarians and other European nations lived at one time or another under Ottoman rule and clung to their Christian faith. Nobody compelled them to become Muslims and all of them remained devoutly Christian.

True, the Albanians did convert to Islam, and so did the Bosniaks. But nobody argues that they did this under duress. They adopted Islam in order to become favorites of the government and enjoy the fruits.

In 1099, the Crusaders conquered Jerusalem and massacred its Muslim and Jewish inhabitants indiscriminately, in the name of the gentle Jesus. At that time, 400 years into the occupation of Palestine by the Muslims, Christians were still the majority in the country. Throughout this long period, no effort was made to impose Islam on them. Only after the expulsion of the Crusaders from the country, did the majority of the inhabitants start to adopt the Arabic language and the Muslim faith – and they were the forefathers of most of today’s Palestinians.

THERE IS no evidence whatsoever of any attempt to impose Islam on the Jews. As is well known, under Muslim rule the Jews of Spain enjoyed a bloom the like of which the Jews did not enjoy anywhere else until almost our time. Poets like Yehuda Halevy wrote in Arabic, as did the great Maimonides. In Muslim Spain, Jews were ministers, poets, scientists. In Muslim Toledo, Christian, Jewish and Muslim scholars worked together and translated the ancient Greek philosophical and scientific texts. That was, indeed, the Golden Age. How would this have been possible, had the Prophet decreed the “spreading of the faith by the sword”?

What happened afterwards is even more telling. When the Catholics re-conquered Spain from the Muslims, they instituted a reign of religious terror. The Jews and the Muslims were presented with a cruel choice: to become Christians, to be massacred or to leave. And where did the hundreds of thousand of Jews, who refused to abandon their faith, escape? Almost all of them were received with open arms in the Muslim countries. The Sephardi (“Spanish”) Jews settled all over the Muslim world, from Morocco in the west to Iraq in the east, from Bulgaria (then part of the Ottoman Empire) in the north to Sudan in the south. Nowhere were they persecuted. They knew nothing like the tortures of the Inquisition, the flames of the auto-da-fe, the pogroms, the terrible mass-expulsions that took place in almost all Christian countries, up to the Holocaust.

WHY? Because Islam expressly prohibited any persecution of the “peoples of the book”. In Islamic society, a special place was reserved for Jews and Christians. They did not enjoy completely equal rights, but almost. They had to pay a special poll-tax, but were exempted from military service – a trade-off that was quite welcome to many Jews. It has been said that Muslim rulers frowned upon any attempt to convert Jews to Islam even by gentle persuasion – because it entailed the loss of taxes.

Every honest Jew who knows the history of his people cannot but feel a deep sense of gratitude to Islam, which has protected the Jews for fifty generations, while the Christian world persecuted the Jews and tried many times “by the sword” to get them to abandon their faith.

THE STORY about “spreading the faith by the sword” is an evil legend, one of the myths that grew up in Europe during the great wars against the Muslims – the reconquista of Spain by the Christians, the Crusades and the repulsion of the Turks, who almost conquered Vienna. I suspect that the German Pope, too, honestly believes in these fables. That means that the leader of the Catholic world, who is a Christian theologian in his own right, did not make the effort to study the history of other religions.

Why did he utter these words in public? And why now?

There is no escape from viewing them against the background of the new Crusade of Bush and his evangelist supporters, with his slogans of “Islamofascism” and the “Global War on Terrorism” – when “terrorism” has become a synonym for Muslims. For Bush’s handlers, this is a cynical attempt to justify the domination of the world’s oil resources. Not for the first time in history, a religious robe is spread to cover the nakedness of economic interests; not for the first time, a robbers’ expedition becomes a Crusade.

The speech of the Pope blends into this effort. Who can foretell the dire consequences?

Articles

Pope Benedict, Islam and Violence

42 Comments

Pope Benedict, Islam and Violence
by Dr. Mazeni Alwi

When the Christians of Jerusalem decided to give in to the Muslim army that had been laying siege to the city under the command of Amr bin Al As (RA), they set a condition that Caliph Umar (RA) must come in person, to sign the peace treaty. Umar and his attendant had only one camel and they took turns to ride from Medina to Jerusalem. He approached the city peacefully and by foot, to be cordially received by its Christian guardian, Bishop Sephronious. Umar signed the peace treaty with the rulers of Jerusalem which read,

“This is the protection which the servant of God, Umar, the Ruler of Believers, has granted to the people of Jerusalem. The protection is for their lives and property, their churches and crosses, their sick and healthy and for all their coreligionists. Their churches shall not be used for habitation, nor shall they be demolished, nor shall any injury be done to them. There shall be no compulsion for these people in the matter of religion, nor shall any of them suffer any injury on account of religion. The people of Jerusalem must pay the poll tax like the people of other cities and they must expel the Byzantines and the robbers …”

The gates of the city were opened and Umar went to the Temple Mount and said his prayer. Afterwards the Bishop invited him to tour the biggest church of the city. Umar was in the church when the time for the afternoon prayer came. The Bishop offered to let him pray in the church. “No” replied Umar, “If I do so, the Muslims one day might take this as an excuse to take the church from you”. So Umar prayed on the steps of the church. He then gave the Bishop a pact that forbade Muslims from ever praying on the steps of the church. Until today, the keeper of the key to Jerusalem’s Church of Holy Sepulchre is in the same Muslim family for generations. The fire-bombing of a church in Gaza in the wake of Muslim protests over Pope Benedict’s speech represents an aberration in Christian – Muslim relations in Palestine, one that is spurred by the radicalization of society under a long and brutal military occupation than the teachings of Islam itself.

The portrayal of Islam as a religion that preaches violence and is primarily spread by it is nothing new in western discourse. It is the most potent argument for justifying all manner of prejudicial treatment on the religion and its followers, from soft discrimmatory policies to islamophobic writings in the media even to occupation of muslim lands killing their innocents, destroying their societies and plundering of their resources. This is something that Muslims have learned to accept to live with, especially in the last few years.

But why did the Muslim react in such a manner when Pope Benedict repeated something that we are already accustomed to hearing from not so friendly western public figures? After all flamboyant televangelists like Jerry Falwell have said worse things than the Pope – calling the Prophet of Islam a paedophile and terrorist – yet we never asked for an apology. In the modern era, not least because of the late Pope John Paul II, Muslims have a genuine respect for the head of the Catholic church. The Crusades, the Reconquista, the Inquisitions were far behind us. The Catholic Church with its long history and tradition, its large number of faithful and the authority of its leadership, its unambiguous moral precepts and its liturgies and rites represent what constitutes Christian orthodoxy to ordinary Muslim eyes, as the last bastion against the inexorable march of secularization of western society. The Pope and the church is seen as embodying the vestiges of sacredness and other worldliness of that society, whose historical trajectory and fortunes is a reminder to us of the dangers of unfettered hubris. This is also an era where few have the neither the desire nor the stomach for religious wars. Where the role of religion in society has been radically rolled back, both the Islamic and Christian orthodoxies should be sharing a common vision of restoring spirituality to moderate the rampant individualism, materialism as well as other less edifying aspects of modernity. This is at least the general view point of ordinary Muslims, given the position as the Christian faithful as “People of the Book” and the reverence with which Jesus (AS) is held by Muslims.

Therefore, to Muslim eyes, what the Pope said in his address at his old university about the Prophet and Islam is totally uncharacteristic for someone holding the office of Head of the Catholic Church. That Pope Benedict was the Vatican’s foremost theologian before his appointment, for His Holiness to have descended to the language and rhetorics of American televangelists pressed into the service of President Bush’s war on terror is a great disappointment and utterly shocking to Muslims.

One can’t help comparing him to his predecessor, whom Muslims regarded as someone who had served his faith with utmost sincerity, and at the same time a genuine builder of bridges. At his death Muslim religious leaders praised Pope John Paul as having contributed greatly to his religion and humanity, as a unique example in spreading peace and tolerance among peoples. When the Muslim world felt anguished and humiliated, he stood firmly against the US-led occupation of Iraq and the Israeli separation wall, pointing out that US Middle East policies were not helping the cause of peace.

Not only did Pope Benedict’s attack on Islam and the Prophet followed by a half-hearted apology grudgingly given evoked strong reaction in the Muslim world, a number of western commentators took him to task for his low-brow critique of Islam that appeared more like common-place prejudice and questioned his possible motives, juxtaposing his well known position on Turkey with regards to its EU membership bid for greater effect. One notable piece that has been in wide circulation among Muslims was written by the veteran Israeli journalist and peace activist Uri Avneri. Drawing many examples mainly from the Ottoman era and Andalusian golden age to debunk the Pope’s thesis, he gave an insightful account of Muslim society’s tolerance of Christians and Jews in their midst, some flourishing as scholars while some others rose to the ranks of ministers.

It has to be admitted that wars are part of Islamic history from very early on, but perhaps not more or not less than in the history of other religions that have built civilizations. Wars were simply an instrument of politics for much of the history of human civilization up to the recent era when the massive destruction and colossal loss of lives wrought by modern warfare in World War II made us shudder, and diplomacy and international law became established as the framework for settling the affairs of nations. The battles led by the Prophet at Badr and Uhud was a defence against the idolators of Mecca who mustered a superior force to annihilate the nascent Muslim community. In the classical Islamic period there were many wars fought between Muslim political entities vying from power within the larger body-politics of the Islamic Caliphate – wars that were motivated primarily by worldly ambitions. The biography of Ibn Khaldun tells of his fortunes and reversals as he switched political loyalties from one court to another in the mini kingdoms of North Africa of the 1300’s. It was during one of his low periods that he spent 3 years in isolation to write his “History of the Maghreb” whose introductory volume, “the Muqaddimah” became a celebrated text today a pioneering work in sociology/historiography. In the early Islamic period violent strife stirred up by extremist elements like the Kharijites had been the cause of costly internecine battles that took the lives of some eminent companions of the Prophet (SAW). The war that the first Caliph Abu Bakr (RA) waged on the rejecters of the zakat was perhaps the rare instance where religion rather than realpolitik had been the basis.

It is understandable that in the context of the politics times, the prophet and his companions took part in battles and wars. Even in the era of the primacy of international law, however undesirable and destructive wars are, they may be inevitable and legitimate. Just as “just war” is an accepted concept in international law and diplomacy, jihad in its specific military sense is part of the Islamic lexicon. What Islam laid down should war becomes inevitable is ethical limitations and chivalrous conduct, that the humanity of the adversary must be respected, that non combatants, women, children, the aged and religious leaders must not be harmed and that public buildings, dwellings, crops and water sources must not be destroyed. The books of fiqh of the classical Islamic period would customarily have a chapter on Jihad to remind Muslims of their religious duty to act within the limits.

Needless to say, how Muslim armies conducted themselves throughout Islamic history or what their motives were for going to war may not necessarily accord with what have been laid down in the books of Fiqh anymore than the conduct of crusader Reginald of Chatillon or the Serbian militia’s murder and rape of Bosnian Muslims in the name of defending Christendom represent Christian teachings.

Had Pope Benedict questioned why the Muslim armies crossed the Straits of Gibraltar and went on to conquer Spain for Islam or why the Moors pushed north as far as Poitiers and Tours in the French heartland to support his argument, we may have some difficulty in giving a convincing answer, never mind that conquest of Spain gave birth to civilization that became a conduit for Europe’s recovery of the Greek intellectual legacy though the works of Ibn Rushd, Ibn Sina and Al Faraby that was to pave the way for the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. But Pope Benedict chose to attribute to Prophet Muhammad (SAW) himself the violence and the sword to perpetuate the western prejudice on Islam. Thanks to early Muslim scholars for their scrupulousness who have recorded in meticulous detail the prophet’s life, his companions and Islam’s early history, it is not difficult to respond to misconceptions and deliberate distortions. One such example from Al Tabari is the “Covenant of Umar” the second Caliph of Islam, a document addressed to the people of Jerusalem after the conquest of the city in 638 CE, 5 years after the prophet’s death, narrated in the introductory passage above. Not only did Umar (RA) act in a just manner that is a reflection of his deep piety, being one of the Prophet’s closest companions, he also exhibited the austere simplicity (zuhd) that was exceptional for the age when conquering emperors would ride in triumphantly with pomp and splendor. The Caliph took turns to ride the one camel he shared with his attendant from Medina to Jerusalem. Al-Tabari also wrote in detail of similar treaties made by the Prophet’s companions with the inhabitants of other conquered cities in Syria-Palestine and Egypt. It is clear that the Islamic conquest of Jerusalem and other cities in the region was not to seek conversion of the Christians. It was an imperative of realpolitik of the age and the Muslims sought to put Islamic political order in place of the Byzantines who happened to be Christians.

In Baladhuri’s account of the early jihad (Futuh al Buldan – the openings of the nations), there is clear evidence of the importance Muslims attached to the idea of “no compulsion in religion”, as demonstrated by a text written by the Prophet to the Christian community of Najran in Southern Arabia guaranteeing them certain social and religious rights under Islamic rule,

“Najran and their followers are entitled to the protection of Allah and to the security of Muhammad the Prophet, the Messenger of Allah, which security shall involve their persons, religion, lands and possession, their camels, messages and images (a reference to crosses and icons) … No attempt shall be made to turn a bishop, a monk from his office as a monk, nor the sexton of a church from his office”

The other controversial point raised by Pope Benedict commented on the verse “There is no compulsion in religion (2:256)”, was the charge that the Prophet was the author of the verse which he later abrogated. He noted that the “experts” say that this was composed early on when “Muhammad was powerless and still under threat” but later he ordered the use of the sword in the service of the faith. Was the Pope implying that the Quran was authored by the Prophet? While this is perfectly understandable for a non muslim to hold as a personal opinion, to insist so publicly in such a manner while holding the highest office in the Catholic Church is insensitive and does great damage to good faith between Muslims and Christians.

The decline of religion and religious culture in the west, the catholic countries like Spain, France, Italy and Ireland included, is not about to let up. Known for his doctrinal conservativeness, this must be one of Pope Benedict’s major area of concern. In the attempt to conflate Christianity with post-modern, post-Christian west and doing its bidding by recycling the old European myths about Islam and its Prophet – is this a sign of desperation in a struggle against the relentless decline of religion? In the modern European context Islam is not in competition with Christianity. Muslim readily recognize Europe’s Christian heritage and its immense contribution to western civilization from art and architecture to the development of academic disciplines and the university, to providing the ethical foundations in liberal thought, even if many have decried religion as an obstacle to human progress. The idea of re-asserting Christian values, culture and identity in highly secular Europe is going to be tough and one can only view it with resigned pessimism. However it is something that many Muslims could identify with if the vision is to leaven secular modernity with a moral and ethical compass that is expansive and accommodative. However the Pope started on the wrong footing by reviving the old prejudices against Islam.

Today it is the Muslims who continue to fiercely hold on to the notion of the Sacred Transcendent, Divine Guidance and Grace through prophethood, of unambiguous immutable moral precepts and values, and of the Sacred Law without having to apologize to secular materialism. If the Catholic Church needs friends in these lean times, they can find them in the Muslims.

Letters

Abused junior doctors

190 Comments

Abused junior doctors
by Shazee Ali Ghazali

Letter from a young MPF’ian (Shazee Ali Ghazali, Monash 2007)

I am an 18 year old about to start medical studies in two months and as a result have been reading with great interest the on-going debate surrounding the working environment of housemen and junior doctors.

I have friends who are studying medicine at the moment, friends who have completed their studies and are beginning work, and friends who are already successful doctors.

I am at a loss to fully comprehend the divergent views I read in the newspapers about the medical culture related to the working ambience of the young doctors.

There are those who complain about long working hours and unreasonable on-call duties. And there are those who swear by this method, like the current Health Minister (NST Dec 15, 2006) and the president of MMA (NST Nov 30,2006) arguing it is the ideal method in training a doctor for the real world.

In my humble opinion, doctors need to experience the stress and long hours that come in the early stages of their career in order to prepare themselves for the road ahead. Before starting university most medical students know what they are getting themselves into and they just have to keep their heads down and take what comes.

But having said that, there is no point in working a doctor to his bone only for him to make an error due to fatigue or the loss of sleep. One would create unnecessary risks to the patient and compromise the quality of medical care. Isn’t that just being contradictory to being a doctor?

What is even more disturbing are the stories of bullying of housemen and junior doctors by their superiors. I think this goes against the ethics of being a doctor. As care givers doctors learn bedside manners and learn to deal with all sorts of people. Communication is vital. Those who abuse their power, humiliate and bully are in gross violation of the oaths they take. How can one be a likeable, friendly and successful doctor while being an arrogant, cruel and harsh superior?

What is needed in Malaysia is a balance between clinical training that comes with long hours and a generous dose of humanity from all quarters involved in the training and nurturing of these young doctors.

The ordinary layperson trust doctors with their life, most of the time blindly because they have so little knowledge of medicine. Our responsibility is to honour that trust and heal them with our hard earned medical knowledge and skills, with a mega dose of empathy, love and compassion. If we make a mistake, due to negligence brought on by fatigue, we have failed ourselves, our profession and a life dear to family and friends may be lost.

Letters

Abused junior doctors who grow up to become abusive consultants

292 Comments

Abused junior doctors who grow up to become abusive consultants
by Dr. Musa Mohd. Nordin

15th Dec 2006
The Editor NST

Dear sir,

I refer to the Health Minister’s outburst as headlined “Stop your whining, housemen told” ( NST Dec 15, 2006).

Hitherto, many doctors who were “enslaved” in the 24-36 straight call hours of medical apprenticeship due to the paucity of numbers would vouch for the good that it has endowed them in their future medical careers, as reiterated by the Health Minister. Many senior doctors, from the high offices of health ministers, medical directors, deans, consultants down to specialists and registrars would rationalise this as part of the gruelling training process of any wannabe doctor.

Junior doctors are hammered with multiple anecdotes of nightmarish calls including “graveyard shifts” which their seniors have had to endure during their clerkship and yet survived unscathed. Junior doctors continue to suffer in silence and are led to believe by their seniors that this is all part of the tradition of medical training. This “medical tradition” in due time becomes entrenched in the system because the values continue to be perpetuated by “abused junior doctors who grow up to become abusive consultants”.

There is however a major flaw in this premise because there is a world of difference between what is deemed as training and what is downright bullying (for want of a better word) and being inhumane. The latter work culture I am afraid is more prevalent within our local medical circles. One of my paediatrician colleagues even hastened to add that the local medical culture is second only to the military in harshness.

“It may seem a strange principle to enunciate as the very first requirement in a hospital that it should do the sick no harm.” (Nightingale F. Notes on Hospitals. London, England: John W. Parker and Sons; 1859). Florence Nightingale echoed what Hippocrates first said “first do no harm”.

And as alluded to by others, the overworked and fatigued doctor poses a risk to patient care, compromising quality medical care and resulting in errors. The American Academy of Paediatrics demonstrated that the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) imposed limits on resident work hours resulted in less patient errors due to fatigue and less doctors falling asleep whilst driving from work. The paediatric residents in the Neonatal and Paediatric Intensive Care Units ( NICU & PICU ) and their program directors rated residents well being as the factor most enhanced by the work hours limit (Paediatrics 2006;118:e1805-e1811).

It goes without saying that training, internship and residency are fundamental to the nurturing of a medical professional and his preparedness for future clinical responsibilities. Long hours, after office hours and on call hours are part and parcel of this holistic training to ensure an adequately and appropriately trained doctor who will discharge his duties with evidence based medical know how, hands on skills, display and prescribe humanitarian values.

Many who have had the benefit of medical training in the US, UK or Australia at the undergraduate or postgraduate level, would very quickly discern the cultural divide in the Malaysian way of training our junior doctors compared to their own training during their house or registrar jobs.

It would not be too far fetched to suggest that our housemen and junior medical officers, the lowest in the medical tier, are not infrequently harassed, intimidated and humiliated by their senior colleagues ( senior medical officers, registrars, specialists, consultants, head of departments, and deans included ). And this domino effect of psychological harassment goes right up the echelon to those in high office.

The oft echoed clarion call of professionalism and team work remains a loud noise which fails to transform into true deeds in ward rounds, case discussions, journal clubs, audit sessions or mortality reviews. The human and professional value, to quote our PM, “modal insan”, of the junior doctor as an important member of the medical management team is ill recognized and hence unappreciated. It would not be an exaggeration to suggest that their fate is doomed as cliched “yours is not to question why, yours is just to do and die”.

This unhealthy work ambience has somewhat improved over the years but there is much more that needs doing to make the working lives of the junior doctors bearable, enjoyable, a truly learning and meaningful experience.

Those crazy, inhumane call hours should have long been thrashed in the bin of painful medical history never to be repeated. And yet our junior doctors continue to be “enslaved” like their predecessors. Is there truly a lack of “enlightened HODs” who could sort this technicality at their various judicial levels? Maybe they ought to learn a lesson or two about innovative rostering from the good ex-matron in Sungai Buloh (NST 13 Dec, 2006)

A surgeon colleague of mine in his MOH (Ministry of Health) days, who gave the weekend off to all who did calls the preceding 48 hours was ticked off by his HOD because this was against the rules. Many of these ludicrous rules which often burdens the junior doctors most, ought to be scrapped and consigned to the archives of “medical non-sense”

More importantly, those in the highest of office in the Ministry of Health (MOH) and universities ought to address these oft recurring scenarios apart from many other pressing issues which concerns these voiceless and helpless junior doctors.

The tragic death of Dr. Nor Baizura in her course of duty, exposing the lack of insurance cover and compensation for the most junior of doctors in the medical hierarchy, is but one such issue.

It is most unfortunate when senior members of this profession of healing and caring, love and mercy, fail to display this very same compassion and benevolence towards those most junior and most vulnerable in their midst.

Dr. Musa Mohd. Nordin
Damansara Specialist Hospital
119 Jalan SS20/10
Damansara Utama
PJ 47400
Tel : 603-77222692
E-mail : musa@mpf.org.my

Letters

Response to Mingguan Malaysia

199 Comments

Response to Mingguan Malaysia
by Dr. Sheik Johari Bux bin Sheik Yaacob Bux

Ketua Pengarang
Utusan Malaysia

Tuan, Assalamu Alaikum

Tajuk utama Mingguan Malaysia 22 oktober 06, “Tangani ekstremis agama” yang di petik dari kata-kata menteri Kemajuan Luar Bandar, Datuk Abdul Aziz Shamsudin kepada pemberita di Miri adalah amat dikesali.

Ia nya seolah-olah menggambarkan bahawa ekstremisme agama adalah suatu gejala besar yang mengancam keharmonian kaum dan menggagalkan projek-projek kerajaan.

Ini bertentangan sekali dengan semangat dan langkah bijaksana Kementerian Dalam Negeri yang telah membebaskan tujuh tahanan ISA tempoh hari.

Memang kita akui bahawa ekstremisme agama adalah suatu gejala yang membahayakan dan harus ditangani dengan tegas dan bijak. Namun didalam konteks Malaysia yang diakui dunia sebagai negara Islam contoh, fenomena ini adalah terlalu kecil dan mudah ditangani oleh pihak yang berwajib.

Menggembar-gemburkannya sehingga menjadi tajuk utama akhbar hanya akan mengundang tohmahan, prasangka dan prejudis terhadap agama Islam. Sekali gus ia mengeruhkan lagi keharmonian masyarakat kita yang berbilang kaum dan agama.

Lebih malang jika ianya diutarakan semata-mata untuk saham politik tanpa adanya sebarang bukti yang kukuh. Adakah kita ingin dilihat sebagai jaguh dalam “war on terror”dan mendapat pujian dan sanjungan dari barat?

Sesunggunhnya, kegagalan projek-projek pembangunan adalah berpunca sebahagian besarnya dari gejala rasuah, ketidak-telusan, campurtangan politik dan kelemahan jentera pentadbiran. Kami mengalu-alukan keperihatinan dan penekanan terhadap hal-hal ini yang menjadi misi utama pentadbiran Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

Kami berharap akhbar-akhbar Malaysia akan lebih bertanggung jawab dan bersikap lebih bijaksana dalam menyajikan berita dan maklumat kepada rakyat. Kami juga berharap agar anggota-anggota kabinet lebih berhemah dalam memperkatakan isu-isu agama.

Memberi gambaran bahawa ekstremisme agama adalah serius di negara kita akan menjejaskan hubungan antara kaum dan melembabkan aliran modal asing, sekali gus memberi kesan negatif terhadap pertumbuhan ekonomi kita.

Dr. Sheik Johari Bux bin Sheik Yaacob Bux
Ahli Lembaga Pengarah
Muslim Professionals Forum
Suite 1810, 18th Floor, Plaza Permata, Jalan Kampar,
Kuala Lumpur 50400
Tel : 03-40427139

Letters

Response to “Hate Ideology a Threat to Unity” NST Oct 20, 2006

4,341 Comments

Response to “Hate Ideology a Threat to Unity” NST Oct 20, 2006
by Dr. Musa bin Mohd. Nordin

On God’s chosen day, Friday, of His blessed month, Ramadhan, Muslims worldwide would immerse themselves in prayer and contemplation. The men folk would congregate in the mosques to listen to the Friday sermon, perform the obligatory Friday prayers, celebrate the solidarity and fraternity of this one ummah and offer alms to help mitigate the suffering of humanity world over.

It is most unfortunate that some have chosen this choicest of day and month, in her Friday -sermon-, to spew unprovoked insinuations that the bulk of her fellow Muslim Malaysian citizenry are propagators of the -hate ideology- (see Hate ideology a threat to unity, NST page 12, Friday, Oct 20, 2006).

Amongst the luminaries (or is it culprits) of this band wagon of the -ideology of hate and intolerance- and the mobilization to -halt any further democratization and liberalizing of this country- are the likes of;

  1. ACCIN ( Allied Coordinating Committee of Islamic NGOs ), whose roll of members includes JIM, ABIM, Malaysian Chinese Muslim Association (MACMA), Islamic Information & Services (IIS), Research & Information Centre On Islam (RICOI) and many others
  2. Defenders of Islam (PEMBELA), a fraternity of at least 80 Islamic NGOs
  3. Mothers In Iman (MII), incorrectly labelled Mothers Against Apostasy, which includes ladies in the Muslim Professionals Forum ( which she has also selectively singled out ) who spearheaded its inception in close collaboration with ladies from the 80 NGOs in PEMBELA.
  4. And her hit list continues.

It would seem that virtually all the main players in the Islamic NGO and professional scene are guilty of being agent provocateurs of this -hate ideology- which she furthers adds -poses a clear and present danger ( not very original I might add in her choice of cliche ) to the Malaysia that we know and love-.

An early morning SMS from a doctor friend sums it succinctly, -The writer is correct about a hate culture – her own hatred and disgust for all those who do not share her views on Islam.-

Our Prime Minister himself has not been spared of her Friday rantings. She alleged that the PM -sent the wrong signal- when he ordered the clampdown on public debate related to issues of religious sensitivities. She disputed the wisdom of the PM’s directive and that the gag order was a sign of weakness, the government kow-towing to the assault of the Islamist (see -MPF lauds PM’s directive-, Aug 04, 2006, www.mpf.org.my)

She coined the term Islamist supremacist to refer to those whose -use of mob intimidation and threat violence worked in coercing the government- into submission thus restricting the freedom of expression . This is very reminiscent of the adulterous spinning of Islamic terminologies ala President Bush. Moving from -the axis of evil- outdated by 2006, to -Islamist, Islamic radicalism, militant jihadism- deemed too academic and jargony, to his recent favourite -Islamofascist- and more currently referring to the Islamic terrorist enemy as wanting to -establish, extend and spread the Caliphate-. I wonder how the Home Ministry would view her flagrant disregard for the Ministry’s autonomy and independence and their being black mailed in broad daylight by a bunch of Islamist supremacist !

Now she fears for the judiciary which is similarly being threatened by this mob rule of law. The AG chambers has a committee which deliberates on these fragile issues of religion and the law. I understand that the writer’s grouping was part of this committee until they were unceremoniously removed because of their dishonouring the rules of engagement decided by the committee.

It makes one wonder who is the one displaying the mob rule culture and undertaking unilateral decisions to project and champion their own version of Islam vis a vis the law.

The sublimity and loftiness of this religious and intellectual discourse has plummeted rock bottom with the multiple name callings and abusive brandings by the writer. But then, she has a comprehensive and exhaustive repertoire of journalistic jargon, among others branding the drafters of the Islamic Family Law Amendments bill as -misogynists- and -patriarchal-.

Despite all this, our religion of peace and compassion, of the mind, body and soul, teaches us, nay commands us to -Call unto the way of thy Lord with wisdom and fair exhortation, and reason with them in the better way- (Surah XVI, An-Nahl : 125).

We recognize and respect the views of a miniscule of Muslims who champion a hyper liberal interpretation of Islam – making Islam subservient to prevailing secular notions of rights, freedoms and gender equality. Understandably, they would view some or all of the Shariah rulings as being too restrictive or embarrassing to their western and secular sensibilities. It is most unfortunate that the human rights language has been notoriously abused by a few individuals and groups who are pushing for Malaysian Muslims to jettison their religious traditions and adopt wholly the west’s post modern materialism and secular ideologies.

These differing percepts are anticipated and humanly inevitable. Nonetheless, such views remain a minority within the larger Muslim community, however fashionable and vociferous they may be with the generous media space accorded to them at the expense of mainstream views. The wisdom being to recognize that these differences and anomalies are strictly and entirely a religious in-house issue, normal to any religious community, and best resolved intra-faithfully.

We however regret that these few Muslims, anxious to be decorated as champions of progressive, Liberal Islam have turned these normal internal differences into national issues by seeking the support of those outside the faith who share the common desire for complete secularisation of society, to force religion and spirituality into the private domain (see MPF Press Release, Policing Morality, March 2005, www.mpf.org.my)

Not withstanding, these differing jurisprudential and philosophical opinions are being solicited by the legal authorities both civil and Shariah, in an attempt to crystallize the authentic and unadulterated Islamic position within the context of the Malaysian law. To disengage unilaterally from this process and undertake a roadshow of vengeance does not augur well for oneself nor one’s organization.

The Muslim Professionals Forum recognize and reaffirm the inalienable right of any individual or group to express their opinions in a public forum within the stipulates of the law. We’ve similarly had our share of -hate mails- and the writer’s most recent piece fails to disguise her venomous contempt and hostility of the public space accorded to all others notably towards the -tactical sprouting of new Islamist NGO- for a fertile and healthy discourse. The few isolated incidents of misdemeanours were grossly exaggerated and extrapolated as representative of the mainstream Muslim position.

The writer alludes to democratization as a desired ultimate goal but fails to mention the thousands of massacred Muslim children, women, men, the old and infirmed, conveniently described as collateral damage in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, , Afghanistan and Chechnya amongst others, killed in the name of DEMOCRACY. Instead, she chose to highlight the one alleged case of death threat. This strangely is not -hate ideology- to her but perhaps an acceptable adverse effect of the roadmap towards the utopia of democracy.

From the very outset, our modus operandi has been one of enlightened discourse, discussions and negotiations within the context of the law, more recently under the auspices of the legal chambers of the country – can one be more legitimate and democratic than this ?

(see -Article 11 demonstration in Penang-, 19 July 2006, www.mpf.org.my).

The writer quoted Clive Kessler to reinforce her notions of the threat of these -pious new Malay Muslim middle class activists-. Unfortunately, we have a rather adverse view of the mentioned authority. It is very difficult to take a -long time commentator on Malaysian politics and Islam- seriously if he is unable to tell the difference between Islam Liberal and Islam Hadhari ( see -Response to Clive Kessler’s- article www.mpf.org.my ).

Suffice for me to quote a short excerpt from our response; -Those who take the effort of objectively evaluating the papers presented at our (MPF) Liberal Islam seminar will easily recognize Professor Kessler’s malicious slander, “…. the Muslim Professionals Forum (MPF) held an all-day event to give unbridled rein to such criticism of the Prime Minister’s religious orientation and supporters under the banner “Liberal Islam: A Clear and Present Danger”. To equate Liberal Islam with Islam Hadhari is most preposterous and highly irresponsible. Suffice for us to highlight one simple fact which escaped Professor Kessler – the keynote address at our seminar was delivered by respected scholar Muhammad Uthman El-Muhammady, distinguished fellow at ISTAC, formerly a fellow at IKIM and the government’s most recognizable spokesperson for Islam Hadhari. It is plain obvious that he had not read the conference papers. His is a mere gut reaction based on a blind support for a particular interpretation of Islam which has little acceptance among Muslims-.

The writer must be extremely desperate to have to extract a quote from Astora Jabat, ex-columnist Mingguan Malaysia to substantiate her writings. His infamous, weird, wayward and unschooled fatwas (edicts) are well known to all and sundry.

We have more than a sprinkling of Islamophobic writers who would like to conjure an image of the “Malaysian Islamist” as some sinister guy with hostile bearded faces, adorning a robe, sporting large weird turbans, no fun guys, who beat their women-folk , hate having non-believers as neighbours and are walking time bombs! The public opinion survey by Dr. Patricia Martinez of Universiti Malaya’s Asia-Europe Institute which polled 1,029 randomly-selected Malaysian Muslims across the peninsula between Dec 15 and 18, 2005 would be a rude awakening to their coloured journalistic egos and debunk many of their ill informed suppositions and generalizations.

“- Some of the findings really repudiate some of the claims being made about Muslims, or even what many of us have assumed. For example, the growing orthodoxy, which came through in the survey, does not mean that Peninsular Malaysian Muslims are growing less open to diversity in the country. The results also discredit some of the assumptions and generalisations about Malaysian Muslims– (The Sun, 6 Sept 2006).

— As such, claims writ large about who Muslims in Malaysia are and what they want, feel and need, are sometimes exaggerations if not generalisations. The results are mixed, neither confirming only moderation nor indicating overwhelming orthodoxy. But what the survey results do confirm, hearteningly, is that Muslims are able to live with the diversity that is Malaysia, and the reality that is our world-. (NST, Opinion: Thumbs up to living in Malaysian diversity, 10 Aug 2006).

The overwhelming majority in the survey defined themselves primarily as Muslims rather than by their national identity as Malaysians and a resounding 97.1% were comfortable living alongside people of other faiths. This heightened Islamic religiosity should not be interpreted as worrying trends of exclusivism or extremism, as many have elected to erroneously conclude. Instead it is back to basics, back to the holy text and the traditions of the prophet, reflected in the sacred Islamic law (Shariah). The Shariah is the epitome of the Islamic spirit, the very manifestation of the Islamic way of life based on an unqualified submission to the will of God. -For each We have appointed a divine law and a traced out way. Had Allah willed He could have made you one community. But that He may try you by that which He as given you- ( Al-Quran; V:48 ).

In practice, our co-religionists have always been able to exercise the right to opt for the westernised lifestyle without regard for Shariah “with impunity”. We have always respected the lifestyle choices of our fellow Muslims. The least we ask of them is to reciprocate this respect and not to denigrate Islam and the Shariah. (see MPF press release -Shariah enactments tramples civil liberties with impunity? April, 2005)

The undertones and sentiments of her writings -hate ideology a threat to unity- are not only divisive to Muslim unity and solidarity, but also sow the seeds of racial and religious divide by making the non-Muslims feel that they have been deliberately marginalised and maligned by the Muslims. That is the CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER.

Dr. Musa Mohd. Nordin

Founding Director

Muslim Professionals Forum

Suite 1810, 18th Floor, Plaza Permata,
Jalan Kampar,
Kuala Lumpur 50400
Tel : 03-40427139

Letters

Response to “Hate Ideology a Threat to Unity” NST Oct 20, 2006

3,374 Comments

Response to “Hate Ideology a Threat to Unity” NST Oct 20, 2006
Puan Mimi Nora Abdul Majid

TAKE A LOOK IN THE MIRROR AND SEE THE HATRED IN THYSELF
In her NST column of 20 Oct 06, Zainah Anwar takes Muslim self-loathing to a new height, lambasting all who disagree with her views of Islam as purveyors of a “culture and ideology of hate”. And why not, Muslim self-loathing and self-hate has become very marketable since September 11. Irshad Manji and Hirsi Ali have made careers out of it. Zainah herself has occasionally basked in the international limelight.

People with prejudice against Islam and the Islamophobic media would pat you on the back and give you media access that others can only dream of. Neoconservative think-tanks and western foundations who take it upon themselves the burden of a civilizing mission to bring ‘democracy’ to the Muslim world (i.e secularizing Muslim mainstream society beyond recognition) would give you support and international exposure.

Yours is the courageous voice of the most ‘oppressed’ in Muslim societies, when in reality such women usually come from a privileged background, with western education and a highly westernized lifestyle out of touch with the mainstream values and traditions of their society.

Now out of a sense of noblesse oblige and a deep embarrassment of something they don’t fully understand, they embark on a mission of bringing their sisters out of the bondage and slavery of mainstream Islam. If Zainah is Tunisian, Moroccan or from some other Muslim country where such efforts are going on in earnest, it might work.

Her chronic self-loathing has made her believe her own and the Islamophobes’ propaganda that Muslims who don’t subscribe to her interpretation of Islam as some ominous force wearing black robes who oppress their women and leave them toiling at home the whole day, hate having nonbelievers as neighbours, and bent on killing those they don’t like.

But she lives in Malaysia where Muslim women have made significant strides in the various professions, public administration, politics and even in the corporate world, yet remaining well at ease with the teachings and values of mainstream Islam. Compared to them, Zainah’s strengths seem to be her brash outspokenness and a fool’s courage of delving too deeply into things that she has no prerequisite knowledge.

For, Islamic jurisprudence and Quranic exegesis are academic disciplines in their own right. Perhaps it is this realization that is making her desperately lash out in all directions, attacking all the Muslim NGOs who have joined together to express concerns over the secular ambitions of a few that seem to be targeting Islam specifically . Everyone who disagrees with her idea of what Islam should be are purveyors of a “hate ideology” that “halt any further democratization and liberalizing of this country”.

The list includes ACCIN, JIM, ABIM, MACMA, and PEMBELA, an umbrella organization of some 80 Muslim NGOs which obviously takes its name from one of its key founders, the Peguam Pembela Islam.

We accept that there are weaknesses in the institutions and agencies that are tasked with the administration of Islam and Muslim affairs in this country. That is quite understandable given that our religious officials largely come from an educational and social background that may may not equip them with the necessary skills and understanding when dealing with delicate issues in Malaysia’s more urban environment where many more Muslims have adopted the western lifestyle and there is greater interaction between Muslims and non-Muslims.

But Zainah has disingenuously been using these institutional weaknesses to attack the Shariah, the institution of the Ulama and the teachings of mainstream Islam especially where they concern moral precepts and gender issues. In doing so many Muslims feel that she has helped mislead non-Muslims to have a negative view on Islam and perpetuate old prejudices, and emboldened some with powerful positions in the media to join the Islamophobia bandwagon in a very public manner. This has hurt Muslim sensitivity to a point that it is causing serious distrust between Muslims and non-Muslims.

In her latest column she cranks up her crusade on mainstream Islam a few notches as a response to Muslims, through the various established and newly formed NGOs, who raised their concerns over the handling of the Azlina Jailani’s apostasy case. A Muslim who chooses to leave the religion (murtad) has to go through the proper procedure as stipulated by law, just as someone who wishes to enter the fold of Islam has to. However, Zainah and colleagues in the Article 11 Forum have turned this into a “human rights” issue rather than one of procedure, attempting to force-feed their views of how the relevant constitutional provisions are to be interpreted in a manner that is highly provocative and extremely insensitive to mainstream Muslim sensitivities.

It is not unexpected that such a vile affront can and did lead some Muslims to be agitated and issue words that she rightly identified as “hatred” and “threats”. This knee-jerk reaction is unequivocally regrettable and unacceptable. However, none of these can be attributed to the NGOs she attacked. These NGOs have acted in a very responsible manner in voicing out their legitimate concerns and actually helped rein in the emotions in the street and defused the tension.

None of the statements issued by PEMBELA or its affiliates could be described as representing “an ideology of hatred”. After all among the founders of PEMBELA are some of Malaysia’s highly illustrious and respected lawyers and former presidents of the Bar Council. But Zainah’s infantile, hyperbolic rhetorics are not the least surprising. Her trademark style is to liberally name-call those who disagree with her Liberal Islam agenda as “fanatics”, “extremists”, “supremacists” etc to hide her lack of substance in her arguments.

Yes, we heard that there were death threats against the founder of Article 11 Forum. We condemn such uncivilized actions and believe that the police should investigate the matter. But knowing Malaysians, nobody would be so foolish as to think that the Article 11 Forum founder is worthy enough to be turned into a martyr.

We think that the Prime Minister was wise enough to put a limit to this cultist approach to “freedom of expression” in the interest of the nation’s social harmony and stability without needing to succumb to “pressure” from PEMBELA.

Yes, we too want to restore the “Malaysia that we know and love”, a Malaysia whose constitution guarantees the place of Islam as the religion of the Federation, where the Shariah in its presently limited sense can co-exist with civil law and non-Muslims are guaranteed the freedom of following and practising the religion of their choice. This has worked reasonably well that we have received worldwide accolades and recognition as a model Muslim nation.

It is only when those with a skewed focus on what constitutes fundamental human rights, and exploiting the current environment of relative openness, pursue their secular vision shared by the few with such dogged fanaticism that we are seeing an unprecedented crack in our religious harmony.

Finally, Zainah takes great pains to advertise her commitment to democracy. She lamented that this “ideology of hate and intolerance” is halting “any further democratization and liberalizing of this country.” Big words indeed. But Zainah talks about democracy and liberty only when it suits her crusade against mainstream Islam. When it comes to the fundamentals, where was she?

The dark events of 20 September 1998 and what followed is still fresh in the memory of those who are truly concerned with the health of our democracy. Never mind about the 2 protagonists (the then PM and his deputy) locked in a mortal political combat. Malaysians witnessed with horror the unprecedented rape of our institutions of democracy in that macabre game of politics – the Judiciary, the office of the Attorney General, the police, the civil service…where citizens who had legitimate rights to protest were beaten in the streets and some of those around the ex-deputy PM suffered a fate much worse. We did not hear a squeak from Zainah even when she later had the power and authority of a Human Rights Commissioner.

One cannot help being very suspicious of her pious platitudes to democracy and liberty. When it comes to mainstream Muslims exercising those very rights within the limits that our Constitution accords us, she tells the whole world that we are a hateful and intolerant lot. Someone should pass her the mirror.

Puan Mimi Nora Abdul Majid
Founding Member

Muslim Professionals Forum ( MPF ) & Mothers in Iman ( MII )
Suite 1810, 18th Floor, Plaza Permata,
Jalan Kampar,
Kuala Lumpur 50400
Tel : 03-40427139

Letters

Letter to Guardian : Islam is for freedom of choice and freedom of speech

2,258 Comments

Letter to Guardian : Islam is for freedom of choice and freedom of speech
by Dr. Azzam Tamimi

From Rushdie to the Pope, Islam has been wronged in the name of freedom of speech though in fact it is the one religious tradition that has always stood for freedom of choice and speech

So much injustice has been done to Islam over the issue of freedom of speech. Certain quarters choose to champion the cause of freedom of speech by indulging in acts whose primary objective is to tarnish the image of Islam through unfounded claims and to demonize it or demean its Prophet Muhammad through what they describe as literary or art works. Muslims have been put on the defensive episode after episode since the despicable novel by Salman Rushdie through the ugly Danish cartoons all the way down to the irresponsible remarks by Pope Benedict XVI. Muslims had every right to be offended because as they saw it these were not innocent exercises of freedom of speech but deliberate abuses that say nothing but untruth about Islam and its Prophet. However, the resort by some Muslims to violence has damaged their cause even further. Islam has been the victim at times of deliberate abuse and at times of irrational responses to such abuse by ignorant Muslims.

In fact, Islam – as shown clearly by its history and as its sources reveal – has always been a struggle for freedom of choice and of speech.

For thirteen years since receiving the first Qur’anic revelation in Mecca in 610 CE, Prophet Muhammad responded to the ‘elders’ who rejected his call to worshipping the One and Only God, Allah the Creator, by challenging them not to ‘obstruct the way’ between him and the people. “Let the people choose” was his slogan. Instead, the elders of the tribe of Quraysh, who feared the loss of their power and prestige, used every resource at their disposal in order to prevent any public discussion of what the Prophet had to say about the paganism the Arabs inherited from their forefathers. And it was not just paganism but a way of life littered with some of the most heinous atrocities committed against the weak and the vulnerable. Prophet Muhammad’s message was perceived as a revolution, a rebellion aimed at liberating minds and souls from human-imposed shackles and restrictions.

There is no better proof to the fact that Islam stands for freedom of thought and of expression than the esteemed status “the seeking of knowledge” is assigned in the Qur’an as well as in Prophetic traditions. The first word of revelation was iqra’, meaning read or learn or recite. “Learn in the Name of your Lord who Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood; learn in the Name of your Lord, the Most Bountiful, Who taught (the use of) the pen and taught man that which he knew not.”

Before Islam came to them, the Arabs prided themselves of being an illiterate community; very few of them learned anything apart from poetry and elementary astronomy enough to help them cross the desert at night. Still, very few of them ever left Arabia or interacted with the bastions of civilizations to the north and the south. While the Arabs despised Jews and Christians, the Qur’an called them the ‘People of the Book’ and linked itself to their religious traditions. Despite having been revealed first to the Arabs, the language of the Qur’an spoke in universal terms to the global human community. From day one, this was not meant to be a religious tradition for a particular racial or ethnic group but for the whole of mankind claiming direct link to all preceding divine missions from Noah through Abraham and Moses all the way down to Jesus.

As an eternal guarantee of the human freedom to choose, the Qur’an declared that “there is no compulsion in religion” and that no person’s conversion to Islam would be acceptable if not out of an absolute free will. Yet, Islam spread out of Arabia in all four directions in record time and the Ummah rapidly grew into a huge community. There is no evidence whatsoever that conversion was coerced although incentives might have been introduced by political regimes at times either in favour of conversion or in favour of discouraging it. What attracted millions of people was the liberating message of the new religion which declared that “an Arab is no better than a non-Arab, a white is no better than a black and a yellow is no better than a red.” The two great empires of the day, that of Byzantium and that of Sassania, had been oppressive powers that suppressed and persecuted the nations that came under their influence. Wars of attritions between the two empires augmented the suffering of millions of people who were being turned into fuel for a conflict that raged for several decades. Not only did the rising Islamic power provide a better alternative but it also emancipated many nations that had been enslaved by the two decaying powers.

It did not take long for Islam to provide humanity with great centres of civilization where scholarship flourished like never before. Philosophers and scientists – Muslim, Jewish, Christian and Sabian alike – turned cities such as Baghdad, Cordova and Seville into minarets of enlightenment for the benefit of all humanity not only innovating but also building on the legacies of the Hellenistic and Persian civilizations. Without the contributions of such centres of learning Europe today would still be in total darkness.

Today, most Muslims live in countries that are governed by despots who, like the elders of Quraysh, fear for their prestige and influence. In majority Muslim countries the police and intelligence services have no job other than muzzle people and make sure that nothing but what pleases the autocratic ruler is said or even whispered. It is not unusual for a person to lose his or her life for speaking out in public in contradiction to the wish of the despot. The largest number of prisoners in any given Muslim country happens to be prisoners of conscience. Few criminals or thieves are in prison because the real thieves are those in power. In fact, much of the struggle that has been going on in Muslim countries from the Atlantic to the Pacific oceans is about freedom. People are fighting for the freedom not only to say what they wish but even the freedom to dress the way they like. It is here that the roots of ‘terrorism’ happen to be. The reason why some people resort to violence in Muslim countries is the lack of space for discussion about issues that matter and the brutality with which people who dare speak out are met.

Those of us Muslims who live in the liberal West appreciate more than anybody else the great bounty of being able to say what we like and to be able to lead the way of life we choose. It is because of this that many of us are gravely concerned that one of the repercussions of the U.S.-led war on terrorism is that the liberal West is undermining one of its most treasured achievement. The defence of freedom of speech in the USA and Europe is becoming increasingly selective. This was supposed to be a political right to be employed by those who are governed against those who govern. Now, authorities in the alliance for war in Afghanistan and Iraq are heading in the direction of stifling the public so as not to question policy or criticize the perpetration of blunders. What is of greater concern is that leading authorities in the liberal West are the backers of some of the most autocratic regimes across the Muslim world.

Freedom of speech is not about the right to publish offensive cartoons or to claim about Islam what is false and unfair but it is to stand up to tyrants and oppressors and prevent them from doing in our name what we abhor and detest. What is frequently claimed to be freedom of speech today is nothing but abuse most intended to settle scores or accomplish fame or perhaps infamy.