Najib said that the Barisan Nasional (BN) government was guided by the Quran and Sunnah in discharging its responsibilities to the people as a whole.
"The theme is based on religious principles. We (BN) struggle to fulfil our promises to the people.Najib said that in Islam if any pledge was not fulfilled, it could be construed as being hypocritical.The basis of an equitable democracy is that the various communities -- ethnic and relegious -- get representation in the political decision making process. In a non-equitable democracy like India where intimidation and influence peddling on the basis of religious and ethnic origin often happens and is compounded by the fact that there are over a dozen major linguistic and ethnic communities, a multiplicity of race and over half a dozen relegious communities, it is difficult to build an equitable, enlightened and secular democracy.
Isn’t making noise about Muslim-vote, when in essence it doesn’t really exist, equivalent to polarising politics along religious lines giving advantage to extremists keen on communalising this phase? Secularism decides electoral decision of Muslim voters and not religious identity of candidates and/or parties fighting the political battle. This point is proved by there being absence of any national Muslim leader or party with considerable appeal among Muslim voters to turn the electoral tide. Year after year the Muslim voters remained the vote banks of otherwise secular parties and remained afraid of demanding equitable development for their community. But adopted a pattern of strategic voting. In each state depending on the situation, they decided which party was likely to give them equitable treatment and voted for it. Other than MCAthat is a self- pronounced anti-Muslim party they are willing to look at all parties.
Undeniably, their prevails a trend even among secular parties to display their concern for Muslims by giving substantial importance to clerics during their campaign and giving tickets to Muslims for contesting elections. But this is reflective of political strategy exercised by non-Muslim, secular parties and not the electoral decision taken by voters. There has been no instance of Muslims of any constituency having voted en-bloc to ensure victory of a particular Muslim candidate. In fact, unnecessary hype has been deliberately raised about the so-called Muslim-vote to try and polarise vote banks along communal lines.
Sadly, Muslim secularism continues to be virtually ignored to this day. What else is suggested by ease with which Muslims are held as suspect terrorists even when there isn’t substantial evidence against them?
It is, indeed, intriguing that amidst the wake of concern voiced by centre and state governments on countering terrorism, little attention has been paid to rectifying lapses in existing policies, because of which Indian Muslims continue to be the worst sufferers. While referring to security agencies’ failure to take timely action, Home Minister P. Chidambaram pointed out that most of these cases concerned so-called “jihadi terrorists and cadres of CPI (Maoist).” It is amazing that central government has not displayed similar concern regarding terrorist-incidents for which members associated with saffron brigade have been held as responsible. Should this be viewed as a biased approach held by the central government towards linking Muslims with terrorism and sparing non-Muslims, even when there is ample evidence against the latter being responsible for several terrorist incidents?
"We will fulfil our pledges to give confidence to the people. We want to prove that our country is a model of an Islamic nation,"
Corruption scandals such as that which involved UMNO’s Shahrizat Abdul Jalil and derogatory statements directed at the Chinese community made by UMNO leaders have so far failed to alter Chinese-only MCA’s rock solid loyalty to Barisan Nasional.
secularism faces a severe test when Muslims are given greater attention than ever before, that too for wrong and highly contradictory reasons.
This trend surfaces strongly during elections and when some terrorism-related incident hits the headlines. During elections, the focus is on so-called Muslim votes in areas where their electoral population is more than 20 per cent and several parties are in the fray.
"The theme is based on religious principles. We (BN) struggle to fulfil our promises to the people.Najib said that in Islam if any pledge was not fulfilled, it could be construed as being hypocritical.The basis of an equitable democracy is that the various communities -- ethnic and relegious -- get representation in the political decision making process. In a non-equitable democracy like India where intimidation and influence peddling on the basis of religious and ethnic origin often happens and is compounded by the fact that there are over a dozen major linguistic and ethnic communities, a multiplicity of race and over half a dozen relegious communities, it is difficult to build an equitable, enlightened and secular democracy.
Are the Imams really stupid to listen to Najib?
It is right to topple any Govt that is unjust to it’s people, irrespective of whether it is Muslim or not. Govt is of the people, by the people and for the people. Religion has a place in putting moral boundaries in the process of governance. This is true of any worthwhile religion. Injustice, victimization of the poor, corruption and cheating are condemned by any religion including I am sure, Islam. So how could changing a corrupt unjust government by the due process of a lawful electoral process be anti-Islam?
Regardless of whether one believes in one God or no god or many Gods or Goddesses, it is one’s duty to oust an unjust government. BN is an unjust government that has to be ousted for all believers or unbelievers to survive. Bloody hypocrite of a PM talks with a forked tongue. Bersih rallies are haram but he sponsors and supports Perkasa, Pekida, mat rempit rallies. All these are encouraged because they are orchestrated to glorify PM and UMNO.
Islamphobia is primarily promoted by Umno It has spread over the world Can someone please offer us non-malays the sweetness of Islam? lay off religion for politics, separate politics from religion. If I may add, same thing goes for racism as well. But then, who listens and who cares?Any government which is unjust will have to be disposed of —be it of a muslim belief , or of a christian religion or of a buddhist inclination What has religion got to do with it? Evil is not acceptable whether Islamic or christianic or buddhistic A ‘Muslim’ government doesnt automicaly qualify a government as perfect,above all faults The bastarded party has twisted everything Satan’s way! There is no more truth or justice! hilarious that Utusan is resorting to Islam to justify propping up unjust leaders. It is as good as an admission that Muslim politicians in government are unjust, thereby shooting themselves in their collective feet again.We don’t need a religion to tell us that it is proper to remove the government if it is unjust. Using common sense is enough. The government leaders are elected by the people to manage their country on their behalf. If the managers are unjust, corrupt and tyrannical, they do not manage the country properly. If that is the case, then they must be given the sack.
scans of 90 gay and straight men and women, and found that the size of the two symmetrical halves of the brains of gay men more closely resembled those of straight women than they did straight men. In heterosexual women, the two halves of the brain are more or less the same size. The lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community along with liberalism and pluralism were today branded as enemies of Islam by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak in front of a crowd of over 11,000 imams and mosque committee members from across the nation.“LGBTs, pluralism, liberalism ― all these ‘isms’ are against Islam and it is compulsory for us to fight these,” he said.Najib also said the government supports human rights, but within the boundaries of Islam.“We do support human rights, but we must do so within the boundaries set by Islam,” he said.The prime minister also told Muslims to avoid discord which could threaten those who safeguard Islamic principles.“If the nation falls into a state of chaos, who will safeguard these people?” he asked.The event, organised by the Prime Minister’s Office, started off with the Minister in Prime Minister’s Office Maj-Gen (R) Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom saying that imams must defend the government against these threats.“There are so many attacks on our religion. LGBTs, pluralism, liberalism, Seksualiti Merdeka. We must stand strong and defend the government,” he said.Attendees were also given a book which was written by Najib himself, entitled “Agenda Islam Dalam Transformasi Negara”.Yesterday, Opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim also said that he did not support the rights of LGBTs and advocates the sanctity of marriage being that between a man and a woman.Liberalism is the belief in total liberty and equality of an individual, while many conservative Muslims are opposed to religious pluralism because of fears it could lead to other religions being put on the same standing as Islam.This announcement came at a good time for me, as I’ve been thinking very much about judgment lately. I know that my own judgments have cost me a great deal over the years, and I’ve been exhorting my students and friends to consider how often they judge. I’ve noticed that the act of judging seems to follow observation as automatically as throat clearing follows a cough; as an act it is reflexive and ubiquitous, but can be trained away with a little practice. LGBT should be allowed their place under the sun. In the first place, they did not ask to be born with the stigma of their sexuality. Laws should not be passed to marginalize them. Likewise, the LGBT should not ask for special laws to protect them. Que sera sera… Dr.Jag Seattle, Washington first of all I am not against gay and certainly not supporting it, but for humanity I strongly, advice you human being go and study the actual(not the BN) human psychology books or info regarding all the patterns, gene and cells of a human being is differ that why you get a lot of type of characters in human, example polite, softer, fierce, get angry very fast, arrogant, playful, gays, pervert, psychotic just don’t try to bring it as an issue of politics, nothing the hell concerns it. Everything I mean really everything in this world comes in the roof of psychology that shows how your brain thinks and works. Because Malaysia haven’t really imposed this properly under the education system in fact this is the most important and top priority.I have been practicing this with my younger students for the past ten years and it works very well. Statistics of 75% success.
The Buddha said that in making a judgment we express a preference and in expressing a preference we create suffering in both judge and judged. Lao Tze, the great Taoist sage, said pretty much the same thing. Of course Lao Tze also said that the Tao — the ubiquitous, universal path and force — that can be expressed in words is not the same thing as the Way itself, then went on to write a whole scroll (book) on the subject. Even though words were less than ideal, even a great master had to use them to function in his role as teacher and guide.Therein, of course, lies the rub. Words and symbols are not the same thing as the ideas or objects they represent, yet we need them to communicate. In the same way, while excessive judgment can indeed cause separation and suffering, some judging is required if we are to live in a world with objects and others. Judging, like writing or speaking, is a useful tool. Eschewing it completely limits us and makes everyday life unworkable. Cleaving to an absolute, rigid idea may be OK, but without judgment we cannot make decisions and without decisions we cannot act. That’s fine if we are at the end of our days and ready to ascend a mountain to breathe our last, but living and working in a material world requires some judging.Both the Buddha and Lao Tze talk about taking a middle road and living a harmonious, balanced life, and that is precisely what is required when it comes to judging. In truth, some of us let the pendulum of judgment swing too far in the direction of inconsiderately judging everything and everybody. Working on our habit by trying to stop judging completely can be a useful exercise; it helps bring the pendulum back to center in the same way a strict regimen can help us regain control of our diet. Think of judging like eating. When we eat pathologically, we eat without discrimination. We simply see something and shove it into our mouth out of habit or a need for emotional gratification. To stop this habit, we make a few judgments and express some preferences too. We prefer nutritious food to junk. We prefer being healthy to being sick. We prefer to live a longer life. We prefer living to dying.We make judgments in our relationships, too. We simply must. If our spouse, child or partner suddenly stops bathing and working in favor of lying in bed in a drunken stupor all day, it may not be enough to withhold judgment. Can we be understanding and kind? Can we look to our own problems to understand why one or more of those issues rankles us so keenly? Can we wish to connect with them and feel their pain? We can and perhaps we should, but at the same time
we must also urge a bath and a job and perhaps even orchestrate an intervention
Isn’t making noise about Muslim-vote, when in essence it doesn’t really exist, equivalent to polarising politics along religious lines giving advantage to extremists keen on communalising this phase? Secularism decides electoral decision of Muslim voters and not religious identity of candidates and/or parties fighting the political battle. This point is proved by there being absence of any national Muslim leader or party with considerable appeal among Muslim voters to turn the electoral tide. Year after year the Muslim voters remained the vote banks of otherwise secular parties and remained afraid of demanding equitable development for their community. But adopted a pattern of strategic voting. In each state depending on the situation, they decided which party was likely to give them equitable treatment and voted for it. Other than MCAthat is a self- pronounced anti-Muslim party they are willing to look at all parties.
Undeniably, their prevails a trend even among secular parties to display their concern for Muslims by giving substantial importance to clerics during their campaign and giving tickets to Muslims for contesting elections. But this is reflective of political strategy exercised by non-Muslim, secular parties and not the electoral decision taken by voters. There has been no instance of Muslims of any constituency having voted en-bloc to ensure victory of a particular Muslim candidate. In fact, unnecessary hype has been deliberately raised about the so-called Muslim-vote to try and polarise vote banks along communal lines.
Sadly, Muslim secularism continues to be virtually ignored to this day. What else is suggested by ease with which Muslims are held as suspect terrorists even when there isn’t substantial evidence against them?
It is, indeed, intriguing that amidst the wake of concern voiced by centre and state governments on countering terrorism, little attention has been paid to rectifying lapses in existing policies, because of which Indian Muslims continue to be the worst sufferers. While referring to security agencies’ failure to take timely action, Home Minister P. Chidambaram pointed out that most of these cases concerned so-called “jihadi terrorists and cadres of CPI (Maoist).” It is amazing that central government has not displayed similar concern regarding terrorist-incidents for which members associated with saffron brigade have been held as responsible. Should this be viewed as a biased approach held by the central government towards linking Muslims with terrorism and sparing non-Muslims, even when there is ample evidence against the latter being responsible for several terrorist incidents?
"We will fulfil our pledges to give confidence to the people. We want to prove that our country is a model of an Islamic nation,"
Corruption scandals such as that which involved UMNO’s Shahrizat Abdul Jalil and derogatory statements directed at the Chinese community made by UMNO leaders have so far failed to alter Chinese-only MCA’s rock solid loyalty to Barisan Nasional.
But one recent statement by an obscure Johor state assemblyman endorsing the Islamic punishment for serious crimes is apparently enough reason for MCA to rethink its solidarity with UMNO.
“If hudud is implemented then MCA will come out from BN,” said the party’s Labis member of parliament Chua Tee Yong, who is also the son of none other than its president Chua Soi Lek.
The younger Chua, who replaced his father as Labis MP following the latter’s resignation over an adulterous affair captured on CCTV in 2008, currently leads the party’s Young Professionals Bureau.
He was reacting to a call by UMNO’s Kemelah state representative Ayub Rahmat that ‘true hudud’ be implemented in Johor to cover both Muslims and non-Muslims, unlike what he described as ‘distorted hudud’ being proposed by PAS-led Kelantan which cover only Muslims.
But Chua junior was clearly riled up by the call, as was his father who lashed out at Ayub as being “out of his mind”, and clearly echoes strong anti-Islam sentiments that have underlined past public statements by Chua senior.
The thirty-something also could not resist resorting to the MCA’s favourite subject: the PAS-DAP cooperation in Pakatan Rakyat.
“DAP is still working closely with PAS. What is DAP stance on it?” he was quoted by news site Free Malaysia Today as saying.
PR has set its eyes on the southern state, long considered as UMNO’s stronghold. Several gatherings organised by PAS in the state have recently attracted unprecedented large crowds, and many analysts have linked Ayub’s call to the fear of an ‘upset’ against BN at the coming polls.
.PKR, PAS and DAP…dont be stupid by getting into this Hudud argument every now and then…wasnt there a joint statement on this subject the last time around ?This is very unproductive and does not help anyone except UMNO. Just drop it and move on and concentrate on the real issues…the size of the bread on the table is reducing for every humble Malaysian..tell us what you are going to do about it..dont give me this crap about hudud and subjects of alike…!Hudud again? This issue has been debated since Mahathir’s era. Even UMNO rejected Hudud! Living on this earth require us to follow the law set up by human with intergrity or without hehehe. If you in heaven then you may follow the rule of God. It’s weird that you want to establish hudud and you youself will enforced it. We kafir ok with it provided that God able to appear and be the judge…we kafir all will follow..don’t worry. But manage by human who will die and gone forever is absurd! Sorry PAS your idea for Hudud nation does’t make sense and idiotic. Today, the world is a world of science and technology. We need research and development to improve the judical system and mode of investigation
.PKR, PAS and DAP…dont be stupid by getting into this Hudud argument every now and then…wasnt there a joint statement on this subject the last time around ?This is very unproductive and does not help anyone except UMNO. Just drop it and move on and concentrate on the real issues…the size of the bread on the table is reducing for every humble Malaysian..tell us what you are going to do about it..dont give me this crap about hudud and subjects of alike…!Hudud again? This issue has been debated since Mahathir’s era. Even UMNO rejected Hudud! Living on this earth require us to follow the law set up by human with intergrity or without hehehe. If you in heaven then you may follow the rule of God. It’s weird that you want to establish hudud and you youself will enforced it. We kafir ok with it provided that God able to appear and be the judge…we kafir all will follow..don’t worry. But manage by human who will die and gone forever is absurd! Sorry PAS your idea for Hudud nation does’t make sense and idiotic. Today, the world is a world of science and technology. We need research and development to improve the judical system and mode of investigation
HOSTILITY AND PREJUDICE AGAINST ISLAM THE PERPETRATORS LUNATICS ASYLUM CALLED THE UMNO & PARTNERS MCA,MIC AND GERAKAN
A new wave of anti-Muslim intolerance and antagonism is sweeping Europe. The far right political gains seen in some parts of the continent are alarming. Anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim and extreme right parties seem to be cashing in on economic hardship and austerity measures. In a blinkered world of “us” and “them” they have found in Europe’s Muslim citizens the “others”.
In this fevered atmosphere of rising nationalism Islam, the religion of its most-impoverished people, is taking over the continent. Never mind the agonies such sentiments caused when acted upon by the Norway killer, Anders Breivik last year. “Racism is the lowest form of stupidity; Islamophobia is the height of common sense!” said one group in 2008.
To any person with a modicum of common sense such attitudes are absurd and bordering on a mythical view of reality. We must check their rise. In a powerful indictment, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Thomas Hammarberg, posted a blog about how European Muslims are stigmatised by populist rhetoric (October 2010).
“European countries appear to face another crisis beyond budget deficits – the disintegration of human value. One symptom is the increasing expression of intolerance towards Muslims. Opinion polls in several European countries reflect fear, suspicion and negative opinions of Muslims and Islamic culture,” he wrote.
He was not alone in giving Europeans this warning; many people across British politics and media have shared similar sentiments for some time. Amnesty International has shared this concern. In its April 2012 report “Choice and prejudice: discrimination against Muslims in Europe”, Amnesty exposes the impact of discrimination on Muslims. Marco Perolini, Amnesty’s expert on discrimination, says: “Muslim women are being denied jobs and girls prevented from attending regular classes just because they wear traditional forms of dress, such as the headscarf. Men can be dismissed for wearing beards associated with Islam… Rather than countering these prejudices, political parties and public officials are all too often pandering to them in their quest for votes.”
“It is disheartening that a continent… is allowing itself to be influenced by the forces of intolerance and hate.”
Amnesty International has accused France, Belgium and the Netherlands of failing to implement proper laws banning discrimination in employment.
It is disheartening that a continent that had learnt many lessons in such a hard way, after the devastation of the two World Wars, and which prides itself in equality and human rights, is allowing itself to be influenced by the forces of intolerance and hate. It is now open season to malign Muslims because of their religious and cultural practices. Yet Muslim immigrants arriving after the war joined in the effort to rebuild the economies of war-torn Europe in the 1950s. In almost every field of life, Muslims have been an integral part of the European tapestry. Muslims are today at home in Europe, have been contributors to its past and are stakeholders in its future.readmore http://muslimjournalmalaysia.blogspot.com/2012/07/islamophobia-new-political-disease.html?zx=3aeaa5933ded6210
In this fevered atmosphere of rising nationalism Islam, the religion of its most-impoverished people, is taking over the continent. Never mind the agonies such sentiments caused when acted upon by the Norway killer, Anders Breivik last year. “Racism is the lowest form of stupidity; Islamophobia is the height of common sense!” said one group in 2008.
To any person with a modicum of common sense such attitudes are absurd and bordering on a mythical view of reality. We must check their rise. In a powerful indictment, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Thomas Hammarberg, posted a blog about how European Muslims are stigmatised by populist rhetoric (October 2010).
“European countries appear to face another crisis beyond budget deficits – the disintegration of human value. One symptom is the increasing expression of intolerance towards Muslims. Opinion polls in several European countries reflect fear, suspicion and negative opinions of Muslims and Islamic culture,” he wrote.
He was not alone in giving Europeans this warning; many people across British politics and media have shared similar sentiments for some time. Amnesty International has shared this concern. In its April 2012 report “Choice and prejudice: discrimination against Muslims in Europe”, Amnesty exposes the impact of discrimination on Muslims. Marco Perolini, Amnesty’s expert on discrimination, says: “Muslim women are being denied jobs and girls prevented from attending regular classes just because they wear traditional forms of dress, such as the headscarf. Men can be dismissed for wearing beards associated with Islam… Rather than countering these prejudices, political parties and public officials are all too often pandering to them in their quest for votes.”
“It is disheartening that a continent… is allowing itself to be influenced by the forces of intolerance and hate.”
Amnesty International has accused France, Belgium and the Netherlands of failing to implement proper laws banning discrimination in employment.
It is disheartening that a continent that had learnt many lessons in such a hard way, after the devastation of the two World Wars, and which prides itself in equality and human rights, is allowing itself to be influenced by the forces of intolerance and hate. It is now open season to malign Muslims because of their religious and cultural practices. Yet Muslim immigrants arriving after the war joined in the effort to rebuild the economies of war-torn Europe in the 1950s. In almost every field of life, Muslims have been an integral part of the European tapestry. Muslims are today at home in Europe, have been contributors to its past and are stakeholders in its future.readmore http://muslimjournalmalaysia.blogspot.com/2012/07/islamophobia-new-political-disease.html?zx=3aeaa5933ded6210
To support this claim, some figures cite the Qur’anic injunction to “command right and forbid wrong.” This command, taken at face value, might seem to call for the government enforcement of Islamic morality on men and women, but a closer look at the Qur’an yields an abundance of evidence indicating that the sacred text does not support such an interpretation.
To “command good and forbid evil” (amr bil ma’ruf wa nahy an al munkar - امر بالمعروف و نهى عن المنكر ) is one of the basic moral obligations that the Qur’an places on Muslims. This injunction, given by the Prophet Luqman in verse 31:17, is binding on all believers:
Keep up the prayer, my son; command what is right; forbid what is wrong; bear anything that happens to you steadfastly: these are things to be aspired to. (31:17)
Elsewhere in the Qur’an, the ideal believers are described as those who “enjoin good and forbid evil” (9:112). The following is merely one of several verses sprinkled throughout this holy book that echo this message:
The believers, both men and women… enjoin what is good and forbid evil, they attend to their prayers and pay the alms and obey God and His Messenger. On these God will have mercy, for God is Almighty and Wise. (9:71; see also 3:104, 3:110)
Muslims interpret this principle in many different ways. Some believe that “commanding” and “forbidding” mean giving sound, sincere advice grounded in Islamic tenets to friends and family. Others apply the principle to government, assuming that the state should legislate Islam. Striking a balance between these two poles, others still read the injunction as a call to public preaching and educational outreach, or a general obligation to speak against oppression. Many radical thinkers, like the influential Egyptian ideologue Sayyid Qutb, gave politicized readings of these passages. In the second volume of his famous exegetical work, Fi Zilal al-Quran, Qutb writes that “[a]nyone may be able to invite to what is good, but no one can enjoin and forbid unless he is equipped with real authority” (p. 165, emphasis added). For him, “enjoining” and “forbidding” amount to state enforcement. The straightforward logic of this conclusion is certainly attractive, but in actuality, this line of reasoning finds little support in the Qur’an.
Arabic words are based on a system of trilateral roots. The root of the word “enjoin” is a-m-r, and its variations appear dozens of times throughout the Qur’an, usually translated as “enjoin,” “command,” or “bid.” Some readers assume that an element of force is involved in “commanding,” but the word’s usage throughout the Qur’an suggests otherwise.
In a passage about Moses and Pharaoh, the word “command” is used in a way that removes all possibility of force. Pharaoh, growing wary of Moses’ burgeoning influence in his kingdom, consults his advisors about how to proceed, asking them, “What, then, do you enjoin (tamuruna - تَأْمُرُونَ )?” (7: 110) According to the Qur’an, Pharaoh was a supremely arrogant, narcissistic man who forced his people to worship him as a deity (26:29, 28:38). If the Arabic word for “enjoin” suggested force or coercion, Pharaoh would never have used it when speaking to his advisors, over whom he had absolute authority.
In another passage, the careful reader finds that the word “enjoin” is distinguished from compulsion even more clearly. Verses 34:31-33 describe an exchange between two groups of sinners in the afterlife, with the weaker ones blaming the stronger for leading them to hellfire: “…it was your scheming, night and day, enjoining us (tamurunana - تَأْمُرُونَنَآ ) to disbelieve in God and set up rivals to Him” (34:33). But had the weaker group truly been forced to rebel against God, God would not banish them to hell in the first place. After all, the Qur’an warns that “one who denies God after he has believed, with the exception of one who is forced to do it, . . . shall incur the wrath of God” (16:106, emphasis added). Obviously, by virtue of their abode in the afterlife, this group of people does not fall within the category of those coerced into disbelief. They were not compelled to reject God, but only encouraged (see 39:64 for a similar usage).
The Arabic word which specifies coercion in verse 16:106 is ukriha (أُكْرِهَ), from the root k-r-h. In the Qur’an, this root denotes true compulsion (see 4:19, 10:99, 20:73, 24:33), and it most famously appears in verse 2:256, which declares that “there shall be no compulsion (ikraha - إِكْرَاهَ) in matters of faith.”
Interestingly enough, a group of verses about Satan remove any doubt about whether or not the use of the verbs “enjoin” and “forbid” in the Qur’an imply coercion. At cursory glance, we find several verses warning us that Satan will “command” humankind to do evil:
Satan threatens you with the prospect of poverty and commands you (wayamurukum – وَيَأْمُرُكُم ) to do foul deeds; God promises you His forgiveness and His abundance…. (2:268)
[A]nd whoever follows in the footsteps of Satan should know that he enjoins (yamuru – يَأْمُرُ ) only indecency and evil. (24:21; see also 4:118-119, 2:168-169)
Those familiar with the Qur’an will know that Satan’s command has nothing to do with force or compulsion, because God has assured readers that Satan “has no power over those who believe and put their trust in their Lord; he has power only over those who are willing to follow him” (16:98-100). In another passage, Satan’s tactics are described in more detail:
And when everything will have been decided, Satan will say: … I deceived you. Yet I had no power at all over you: I but called you (da’awtukum) – and you responded unto me. Hence, blame not me, but blame yourselves.”(14:22)
How can Satan “command” people when he “has no power” over any being except “those who are willing to follow him”? The obvious answer is that his “commands” are not enforced; he only “calls” to people – and they choose to listen. Thus, the Qur’an makes clear that “enjoining” something does not mean enforcing it, but rather promoting it.
Just as “commanding” or “enjoining” good does not imply coercion, neither does “forbidding evil.” The Arabic word for “forbid” (based on the root n-h-y) is used in three different ways in the Qur’an. In a metaphorical sense, it refers to exerting self-control or making oneself “immune” to bad inclinations. For example, the Qur’an describes a type of person who “feared the meeting with his Lord and restrained (wanaha - وَنَهَى ) himself from base desires” (79:40), and tells Muslims are to pray regularly, because prayer “restrains one (tanha - تَنْهَىٰ ) from indecency and evil” (29:45). Both examples illustrate a more abstract, spiritual meaning of “forbidding evil” — to shield oneself from becoming vulnerable to evil.
The third, and most common, usage of “forbid” (n-h-y) is in reference to revelation. Scores of verses (such as 6:56, 4:31, 7:157, 7:166, and 11:61-2) describe God “commanding” and “forbidding” through His prophets and scripture. As with the word “enjoin,” we should not understand forbiddance as an act of force, but rather, an act of communication. Many translators, for example, render “forbid” in verse 11:116 as “speak out against” or “warn against”:
Why, then, were there not among the generations before you upright men who would speak out against (yanhawna – يَنْهَوْنَ ) the [spread of] corruption on earth—except for the few whom We saved?” (11:116)
The Qur’an often employs the words “forbid” or “command” in the context of a person using his or her intellect. These passages show that enjoining and forbidding depend on reason and conceptual understanding, rather than force:
Say, “I have been forbidden (nuhitu – نُهِيتُ ) to invoke those whom you invoke besides God—seeing that clear signs have come to me from my Lord.”(40:66)
Other verses describe people being “commanded” by their own beliefs (2:93) and “ordered” by their reason (52:32). It is interesting to note that the word “understanding” (al-nuha, seen in verses such as 20:54 and 20:128) shares the same Arabic root (n-h-y) as the word “forbid” (nahy).
Radicals like Sayyid Qutb (and Ayaan Hirsi Ali) may insist that Islam’s holy book commands Muslims to enforce “Islamic law” through state power, but it seems their views are not grounded in careful study. The Qur’an does not require Muslims to force their morality on others when it tells them to “enjoin right and forbid wrong.
Still, by sending these two women to London under the guise of progress, Saudi Arabia will indeed be taking a trophy home for once again proving that among its Arab neighbors, when it comes to blatant backwardness, hypocrisy and systemic gender discrimination, it takes home the gold, and then some.
I grew up in the Arab world with two older sisters, both of whom participated in sports beginning as little girls. My oldest sister played tennis and ran cross-country competitively. My other sister, Luma, grew up playing soccer competitively and would go on to help found the first women’s soccer team at one of the Arab world’s premier universities — the American University of Beirut.
My Arab mother raised me to respect both women and men as equal. It is one thing to segment your society and prevent gender-mixing, but to prevent women from exercising and participating in team sports in 2012 and to justify it with the importance of adhering to Sharia law, obtaining a male family member’s approval and dressing modestly is insulting to women, Islam and the Olympics.
What is worse, on July 5 2012, Saudi Arabia’s sports ministry denied a request by private citizens to hold a women’s Ramadan sports tournament that would have included basketball, volleyball and football.
Less than a week later, with just under two weeks before the start of the Olympics, Saudi Arabia reluctantly ended its status as the last Olympic nation to refuse to send women athletes to compete.
Saudi Arabia’s international attempt to save face is as pathetic as it is paradoxical.
Human Rights Groups may have forced Saudi Arabia’s hand, after spending many months demanding that Saudi’s male athletes be banned from the games so long as the government refused to allow women to compete. Eventually, the government gave in.
But unlike Qatar, another Arab state that is sending women to the Olympics for the first time, Saudi Arabia continues to be the only country in the world to prevent girls from taking part in sports in government schools. Qatar on the other hand is also building a high performance training center aimed at involving women in sports and has boasted a Women’s Sport Committee for over a decade. Saudi Arabia still segregates and oppresses women in society, which includes preventing them from playing sports, not providing any state sports infrastructure for women and marginalizing them from participating in public life.
On Twitter, the anticipation around Sharkhani and Attar’s participation has prompted a hashtag to emerge in Saudi Arabia that describes the women as the “Prostitutes of the Olympics”.
Ahmed Al Omran, a famous Saudi blogger and a friend, shared this tweet featuring a list of all Saudi athletes that will compete in London. In it he notes that Sarah Attar appears without a headscarf on the Olympics website.
Ahmed also points out that Saudi’s most senior sports official Prince Nawaf bin Faisal said the women can only participate if they “wear suitable clothing that complies with Sharia law, are accompanied by their guardian… and they do not mix with men during the games…”
The offensive Arabic hashtag, #عاهرات_الاولمبياد, has also prompted a backlash.readmorehttp://muslimjournalmalaysia.blogspot.com/2012/07/is-it-muslims-duty-to-enforce-islamic.html
secularism faces a severe test when Muslims are given greater attention than ever before, that too for wrong and highly contradictory reasons.
This trend surfaces strongly during elections and when some terrorism-related incident hits the headlines. During elections, the focus is on so-called Muslim votes in areas where their electoral population is more than 20 per cent and several parties are in the fray.
No comments:
Post a Comment