The Perak Mufti has called for an amendment to be made to the Federal Constitution, which will exclude Islam from provisions that grant mothers equal rights to raise children according to their religious beliefs.
Perak Mufti Tan Sri Harussani Zakaria said that Articles 3, 5 and 11 of the Constitution in relation to religion, liberty and freedom must therefore be amended to exclude Muslims.
an implicit gender bias that most of us carry — men as well as women — a bias we may not even be consciously aware of, but which dictates our actions and behaviour. The need to be aware of this bias was stressed, because awareness of a problem is the first step towards resolving it. The column also examined psychological reasons for the cruelty some men perpetuate on women.The gender divide has sprung into sharp focus,the beast that always lay at our feet has suddenly become despicable and unacceptable. What has changed in recent times to sharpen the man-woman divide? Apart from the fact that women have stepped out of homes to challenge men in fields outside the home, increased awareness has led us all to question afresh the longstanding sexist bias.Pas-UMNO ’s fear is Muslim vote polarization that will work against it in the next general election. But the Muslim vote bogey is just that – a bogey.That’s a lesson political parties which preach secularism but practise communalism will have to learn quickly before 2018 closes in on them.
Events of the last few weeks have once again thrown into sharp relief why numerous commentators across the political divide, ideologies & cultures worry greatly about Islam. Some do not just worry; they fear.
They worry about and fear an ideology they worry about an ideology that considers half of humanity somehow “lesser” than the other half[iii]; that condemns young girls to a lifetime of ignorance and servitude[iv] and that justifies people getting into a paroxysm of rage over perceived or real “insults” to their sacred texts, symbols or figures.
Muslim Malaysia collects substantial tax revenue from gambling (Genting casinos, Toto, Big Sweep, Magnum and Damacai) and also from corporations which manufacture and/or distribute alcoholic beverages and hard liquor (i.e. spirituous liquor) Are the ‘purists’ in the Fatwa Council not aware that revenue thus derived is haram. If so why are they NOT RIGHT on the money? By the way, it has been credibly alleged that a former a IGP to wit Haniff Omar is a director of Genting Highlands Bhd. It has been likewise alleged Jamal Khir took funds from the Tabung Haji for his own use — to defray the expenses for a personal lawsuit. His ‘explanation’ is that he has returned the money. Again, a significant %age of the profits and income of privatized public utilities and GLC’s and the huge spinoffs from negotiated tenders go back to key figures and members of their families of the regime by a variety loopholes: proxies, shell companies, contrived cost overruns and illicit outflows.
How about Fatwa on porn shows sponsored by UMNO and Datuk T? Sexy ladies no, but naked China dolls OK? You guys may not consume alcohol, but you are more drunk than drunkards themselves.Luckily Yasmin Yusuf become a beauty queen in the 70′s. Nowdays, all beautiful muslim ladies can only be a mistress by the “His Holy” Shafei Apdal, Bung Mokhtar & Moron Patail all from Sabah.What do the Muftis and the Imams have to say on all this? The vast majority keep quiet; some call for more “retribution” so the “infidels” can be taught a lesson. How can a religion whose leaders and followers openly call for the death of an alleged “blasphemist” call itself a “religion of peace”[viii]? Or is it “peace” only on our terms – and of our choosing?
Could Jamil Khir Baharom and the National Fatwa council point out to our Indonesian brothers that they are doing something haram in organizing the Ms World pageant in Indonesia this year. If its haram to Muslim in malaysia, does it harm in Indonesia also? Is Islam in malaysia different from the rest of the world?
Where are the Muslim reformists? And why are they silent? Why do even the most progressive Muslims limit themselves to just “condemning” these incidents rather than taking the next step and actually fighting for reforms?
Reforms that would make the faith much more compatible with the values of openness, with the values of a liberal culture? Reforms that would create space for tolerating alternative interpretations & alternative approaches to “Truth” – whatever that may be?
Reforms that would make the faith much more relevant – instead of setting the stage for a clash of civilisations?
Why don’t community leaders and scholars denounce these unacceptable, barbaric acts committed in the name of Islam[ix] and forcefully argue that Islam can co-exist with civilisation? And that the Taliban are murderous perverts who have no place in a civilised society?
Why don’t the Muftis and the Imams take upon themselves the task of convincing Pakistanis and Arabs and Muslims elsewhere that it is quite alright to make fun of “Gods[x]”- and that there are other, alternative and peaceful ways to protest and express grievances or hurt sensibilities?
Or is the problem simply that unlike almost all other major religions, Islam has not yet undergone any reform or catharsis? Is this what holds Islam back?
Witness Saudi Arabia – the figurative heartland of Islam – where women are literally treated as “not equals” – and sometimes worse than second-class citizens[xi]?
Look at Maldives where the Islamic Affairs Ministry recently issued a circular banning “mixed-gender” dance events and where the Adhaalath Party, part of the Government, considers “youth’s addiction to music and songs, something that is ‘haram’ (forbidden)[xii]”
Or Malaysia where government has begun holding seminars aiming to help teachers and parents spot signs of homosexuality in children, in order to curb the “problem” of homosexuality[xiii]
Or Iran where the Legal Affairs Committee of Parliament regards law that prohibits girls below the age of 10 from being married off as ‘un-Islamic and illegal[xiv].”
Or closer home in Afghanistan, where a woman was publicly executed recently for the crime of adultery[xv] or Pakistan where more than a dozen girls aged four to sixteen were recently “traded” to resolve a dispute[xvi].
Which makes you wonder just who are these people who are making these rules and laws? And why do sane voices fear speaking up against them[xvii]? Is the problem at the heart of Islam, the silence of sensible Muslims?
Amina Wadud is one of the founding members of Sisters in Islam, a women group for gender equality and justice.A schedule lecture by an Islamic scholar from the US was on Monday scuttled by police who cited possible law and order problems in view of opposition by Muslim groups. Amina Wadud, considered an Islamic feminist, was to deliver a lecture on ‘Gender and Reform in Islam’ at the University of MadrasOn Sunday night, while Wadud was waiting to fly from Kozhikode to Chennai, vice chancellor R Thandavan hastened to call off the programme, following a text message from city police officer who said: “Police cannot allow this (the lecture) considering law and order (sic). Please take action to suspend / cancel the programme.”PK Abdul Rahiman, head of the Centre for Islamic Studies, said it was frustrating to be “dictated” by people from outside the university. “This has set a wrong precedent of police interfering in university programmes. We’ve lost an opportunity to host an internationally renowned scholar,” said Rahiman. Wadud’s books are part of the Islamic Centre’s curriculum.
to stop eve teasing or sexual harassment and stalking. “It is a serious matter… these practices are tolerated by the society. We need to first deal with the first step as it graduates to sexual assault,” he has said.
Agreed. But I believe we also need to step back several steps and attack our ‘conservative’ upbringing and ingrained stereotypes. We need to adopt a multipronged strategy where mothers and fathers, teachers, and anyone else who has contact with children is sensitised. A red flag needs to go up every time a woman tells her son, “You are a boy, don’t cry like a girl!” or “Study hard; you are not a girl whom I can just marry off!” or when a man says “I expect my son to look after me in old age; beti toh paraya dhan hai!” Such statements strengthen the foundation of a future sexist society.
It’s the stray remarks, the stereotypes that we need to be conscious of; the little jokes, the small practices that will make the bigger difference if we are vigilant. Every woman needs to be proud of herself and respect other women. No girl should be told to fetch a glass of water for her brother, unless the brother can be asked to fetch one for her with equal ease. No sweets should be offered or had at the birth of a boy unless these can be had for a girl’s birth as well.
Zero tolerance to any discrimination or crime against women is imperative. These are times of crisis and critical measures are needed to deal with them. Eve-teasing, stalking and harassment are not fun! They are shameful practices that depraved men with low esteem indulge in. Boys must understand that repeatedly trying to contact a girl who avoids you is not romantic. It is loser-behaviour and shows you in a poor, depraved light. Girls must be taught to protest and raise a voice against even the most ‘harmless’ eve teasing or ‘flashing’. Do not be misled by the word ‘teasing’, it’s clearly harassment.
Female foeticide and dowry should be treated with the disgust these deserve and stringent punishments devised for the doctors and families who practise it.
But most of all — and this cannot be stressed enough — our cops need to be sensitised. They need to be schooled, psychoprofiled and trained again, and yet again, on how to respond to various women-related crimes. Surprise checks with decoy victims should be conducted on cops, and they should be forced to tape/video record all interactions pertaining to crime against women. The government needs to recognize and reward exemplary acts by policemen to help women.
Media has to accept its role in promoting stereotypes of women as lesser beings and in social and moral degradation. Raunchy lyrics that denigrate women and suggest/promote violent acts should be avoided. Television, which is far more invasive than movies, needs to consciously work on its portrayal of women in serials. Women actors should refuse to dance to raunchy numbers that suggest that a woman is an object to be desired, coveted and consumed!
Going back to our President’s speech, he urged government and civil society to work together. “Nothing should be allowed to spur cynicism, as cynicism is blind to morality. We must look deep into our conscience and find out where we have faltered. The solutions to problems have to be found through discussion and conciliation of views,” he said.
Very true. Efforts to make a difference are not just the responsibility of the government, but of civil society as well. Let us simultaneously try to influence the bigger picture, as well as attack the mess within us! It is MY responsibility; it is YOURS as well. It is HIS responsibility, and also HERS!
A senior police officer said the decision to stop the lecture was taken at “a higher level.”
Sixty-year-old Wadud, born to an Afro-American Methodist family in Maryland, embraced Islam at 20. She is one of the founding members of Sisters in Islam, a women group for gender equality and justice. A consultant to MUSAWA, a global women’s movement, she made news in 2005 when she addressed a congregation of women and men – something which only male imams are allowed to do – in New York.
Early on Monday, she reacted to the university’s decision by tweeting from Kozhikode: “I have announced my intention to leave India for good as soon as I have completed some commitments in the region already scheduled.”
Those looking forward to listening to Wadud were disappointed at the turn of events. Former judge of the Madras high court K Chandru said the incident was similar to the ban on Taslima Nasrin. “When a battalion of police is camping before the US Consulate in the city for several months, why don’t they give protection to an Indian university,” he asked.
University sources said the police officer who spoke to them said that an earlier speech by Wadud in Karur in Tamil Nadu had created problems. However, according to Wadud, she had never been to Tamil Nadu before. “She considers it as an assault on her dignity,” said a source.
The vice-chancellor was not available for comment. The Madras University Teachers Union (MUTA) and the Professors Forum, too, refused to talk about the incident. A police officer said, “On Sunday night we were told to inform the university. We are also looking at whether her visa conditions permit her to give such lectures.”
Sisters In Islam (SIS), a non-government Muslim organisation comprising mostly women, drew flak from a conservative Muslim columnist today for purportedly putting civil liberties ahead of their religion’s glory.
The women’s group had recently waded into a row over the rights of Muslim women to take part in the Miss Malaysia World 2013 beauty pageant, and raised its concern on the overreach of fatwa (religious edicts) by Islamic officials here beyond the faith’s intent.
In an opinion piece in Malay paper Mingguan Malaysia, columnist Ku Seman Ku Hussain lashed out at the women’s group for what he viewed to be an attempt to undermine and denigrate Islam by one of its own by persistent questioning of the religion’s authorities here on the grounds the edicts were not legislated into civil law.
“It seems for SIS, fundamental rights freedoms are more important than prohibiting Muslims against insulting their own religion,” he said, in the article titled “Apabila Sisters In Islam mempertikai mufti [When Sisters In Islam dispute the mufti]”.
The columnist noted the group saw itself as a champion of Muslim rights, but criticised SIS for its advocacy of fundamental freedoms that ran counter to what he said were Islam’s teaching.
He stressed that such statements issued by SIS on the fatwa against Muslim women joining beauty contests must be clarified as the group persisted in speaking out under the name of Islam, “to save Muslim women from being trapped in an agenda that blackens Islam”.
“It is unfortunate because SIS defends the human rights of the four Muslim women because the Federal Territory Mufti has forbid them from taking part in the Miss Malay World.
“But at the same time SIS does not fight for Islam because it does not see the mufti’s prohibition as an effort to preserve Islam from being tainted,” Ku Seman said.
He advised Muslims to drop those matters he said did not contribute to Islamic development, singling out beauty contests as an example.
“We should not wait for SIS because the recommendation for Muslims not to be beauty queen organisers is not gazetted under the law.
“SIS will never support this suggestion as long because as it is not made into law, it is a violation of human basic rights,” the columnist said.
Four Muslim women were dropped as contestants in the Miss Malaysia World 2013 pageant and are now under investigation for allegedly breaching the National Fatwa Council’s edict and allegedly insulting Islam.
The council had issued an edict in 1996 prohibiting Muslim women from taking part in beauty pageants, and the fatwa was gazetted as law, making it an offence punishable with a three-year jail term or a RM3,000 fine or both.
The recent spotlight on Islamic decrees by Malaysian authorities on its followers as well as non-Muslims has drawn much debate over their enforcement here, with some groups deeming certain provisions under religious law to be regressive while others voice concern over a worrying trend of overt Islamisation in a multicultural country.
For those who missed Maureen Dowd’s or Rush Limbaugh’s commentary on Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner, there are a multitude of responses now circulating on major media outlets. Most are discussing how both Dowd and Limbaugh attribute Huma’s standing with her husband during his most recent scandal more to his being able to walk all over her, attributing her willingness to be mistreated to her being a Muslim woman raised in Saudi Arabia. Says Dowd in her op-ed for the NY Times, “WHEN you puzzle over why the elegant Huma Abedin is propping up the eel-like Anthony Weiner, you must remember one thing: Huma was raised in Saudi Arabia, where women are treated worse by men than anywhere else on the planet.”
Amongst the many responses that have gone up to Dowd and Limbaugh, my favorite has to be a post that went up recently on New York Magazine‘s website by Adam Smith, simply titled “Maureen Dowd and Rush Limbaugh Explain Why Abedin Supports Weiner.” It’s not that the content of his piece is particularly unique in comparison to others that have gone up. All pretty much cite Dowd and Limbaugh as being overtly simplistic, bigoted, and extremely ignorant in their viewpoints. What made this article stand out to me were the “Keyword” tags at the bottom.
“Get more: assholes, rush limbaugh, maureen dowd, huma abedin, anthony weiner”
Pardon the language, but really is there any better way to describe Dowd, Limbaugh and the rhetoric that they spew?
When you puzzle over why Dowd would write something like this, would you attribute it to her being a woman? Or if you puzzled over why Limbaugh said what he said, would you attribute it to his being white? Would you also say that Dowd’s opinion is suddenly representative of what all women think or Limbaugh’s opinion is what all white people think? Probably not, especially not the latter two points. Yet somehow every Muslim represents all Muslims, and every time a Muslim does anything, it’s because they are Muslim. The extremely reductionist approach that many journalists and media outlets have comfortably taken when dealing with Islam and Muslims is getting pretty ridiculous at this point.
Recently the world witnessed Fox News at its best in an interview with Professor Reza Aslan on a book he’s written on Jesus Christ. If you haven’t seen the interview, I’ve included it below. It’s probably the worst piece of journalism ever and highlights quite heavily again this reductionist approach. Despite Reza’s consistently stating that he wrote this book as a historian with multiple degrees in the field of religion and 20 years of experience in the field and that his arguments differ quite extensively from what mainstream Islamic theology dictates around Jesus, the host can’t stop bringing up that he’s a Muslim and keeps going back to it.
Huma Abedin is more than just her Islam. Reza Aslan is more than just his Islam. Every Muslim has a name, a story, and a set of complex variables to their identity that makes them who they are. The process of otherizing and racializing the Muslim community has reached such a low point. The rhetoric that simplifies any Muslim’s actions and identity solely to their Islam needs to go. Every sense of nuance is removed from the discourse and what you are left with is a racist, hateful perspective of a community that is more diverse than arguably any other community in the world. But not everyone likes diversity and will do what they can to maintain and preserve a sense of privilege, regardless of who they must walk over and push down to hold on to it.
What kind of woman pushes down another woman who is being mistreated by a man? And how does the NY Times let something like that get published? Dowd has made suspect any claims that she has to being a feminist by making life more difficult for a woman in need of support. Her arguments should not be taken as authoritative in any way, and neither Huma Abedin nor Muslims anywhere should change anything about themselves as reaction to Dowd’s simplicity.
I have a name and a narrative, and I won’t let some jerk take that away from me. My sense of validation will not stem from being accepted by individuals who live in a bubble that makes it hard for them to be anything other than ignorant. I have many facets to my identity and am more complex than the simplistic analysis that you have undertaken of me and so many other minority groups, both in the present time and in years past. I am proud of everything that makes me who I am and will not live a life in reaction to you or your simplistic worldview.
