ISLAM BASHING

The recent debacle at the forum organised by the Bar Council reminds us of the affronts to the Muslims of Malaysia sometime ago and our response to it. This is what we wrote then:



INADEQUATE RESPONSES TO RECENT AFFRONTS TO ISLAM

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.

Sayyid Al-Aiderus