Labels: Syariah?
posted by wan zaharizan b wan zan at 3:36 AM
0 comments
JULY 25 — I received a number of emails on my last blog, Reform Now. Most of the people who wrote to me asked whether I could comment more on the list of reforms that I suggested in the second part of the blog.
Well, here is a sincere attempt.
I would like to acknowledge eminent scholars and authors such as Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, Ziauddin Sardar, Muhammad Akhund, Ali Shariati, Irshad Manji, Dr Fazalur Rehman, Musa Al-Sadr, and Abdullah Chakralawi, whose published work helped me construct this modest attempt.
*****
While formulating Islamic laws, a rationalist and contextual approach to Islamic sources should be taken, keeping in mind Islam’s core values i.e., justice and mercy.
Islamic rules should always meet the following criteria: Compatibility with reason and compatibility with the requirements of (modern) times and people’s preferences.
How is that possible, wouldn’t the traditionalists protest?
Well, let’s take the example of Quranic verses dealing with slavery. Understandably, the institution of slavery was perceived as perfectly acceptable in the seventh century. But from eighteenth century onwards, through a widespread civil consensus between various world civilisations (including the Muslims), slavery was abolished as being an inhuman act.
Just imagine what the state of the Muslims would have been had they insisted on retaining slavery. The so-called Muslim ummah would have stood completely isolated with millions of Muslims preferring to adopt a more accommodating religion.
So my point is that when traditionalists demand that the Quran be understood literally and laws should then be based on this literalist reading, they are actually undermining the evolutionary spirit of the Holy book and relegating its status to being a document frozen in the social, political and cultural ethos of a distant past.
Islam and Islamic law should be understood and implied by each generation according to its own conditions.
*****
We should define Islam in such a way that it does not undermine its global standing. For this we need educated, pragmatic and rational political and cultural spokespersons. Obviously, people like the al Qaeda and the Taliban are the worst poster boys for Islam in the modern world.
But so are sectarian and communal hate-mongers found on TV screens these days across the Muslim world, and the many Muslim preachers doing the same in mosques in the West — ironically cursing and abusing anything to do with the West while at the same time gleefully benefiting from their adopted countries’ democratic and generous welfare systems.
And what about Muslims in the West who are fighting a little battle to wear the hijab and burqas in Paris, Zurich and London? Whenever a Pakistani protests at a western government’s take on the hijab and burqa, I usually agree with him. But at the same time, if the protester thinks that the French and the Swiss are being close-minded and intolerant, this does not mean we are any better. Harassment of women not wearing a hijab or a burqa is rampant in various parts of Pakistan.
Religion does not play such a major role in the lives of most Europeans. But they do take their secular values as seriously as Pakistanis do their religious principles. If we would like them to respect this side of ours, then we should be fully prepared to understand their values too — especially when we live among them in countries run by their ideals, beliefs and rules.
Most current Islamic rules regarding women’s rights do not meet the criteria of either justice or rationality. Most of these rules were devised by ancient jurists who were all men. Even in this day and age, it is the men who decide what is good or bad for Muslim women. A woman’s right to decide and make her own decisions decreed by the Quran is blatantly ignored, and hard-to-authenticate hadiths are often used to hit home the conservative male’s point of view on the matter.
But then, sadly, there are some Muslim women who inexplicably defend the conservative male point of view regarding Muslim women. Recently one saw a member of the PML-Q on a Pakistani television channel doing exactly that.
She had every right to air her stance, but think about it; what a disaster she might have been to the struggle of thousands of Muslim women in Pakistan who are doing a remarkable job in trying to assert their rights given to them not only by democracy, but by the Quran itself.
Can a woman who adorns a hijab and explains it as a liberating act, may as well be submitting to the historical male-driven tradition of claiming control over women?
Purda or wearing the hijab is an outcome of laws and social mores constructed over the last many centuries by judges, ulema and lawmakers who were all male. The Holy Book addresses the faithful women, who are told to shield their private parts and not to display their adornment “except what is apparent of it.” Scholarly disputes in the Muslim world revolve around what this last phrase means.
To modern Muslim thinkers, Muslim women enjoyed great autonomy in public and private life during the time of the Prophet — an autonomy they say, which later Muslim rulers and ulama took away. The issue of hijab is often used by conservative Muslims as a weapon against the struggle of Muslim women who want to understand the autonomy that was given to them during the Prophet’s time. These struggling women want to undo what came afterwards in the shape of various gender-biased laws and social practices aimed at subduing and controlling women.
The patriarchal notions of women’s rights and laws among Islamists have their roots in ancient pre-Islamic Arab culture and prejudices and not in Islam. No religious principal should be imposed by force, because Islam has declared that there is no compulsion in faith.
There is nothing wrong in asking a person to pray, adorn the hijab or grow a beard, just as there is no harm if that person does not pray, wear a hijab or grow a beard. It’s a matter between him/her and God. And if he/she does not believe in a God, then it’s a matter that does not concern you, as long as he/she is not imposing his lack of faith.
Quran is a book of guidance. So the state, government or any political group or lobby cannot force people to observe rules intended as guidance, because judgement, punishment and reward in this respect belongs to God.
*****
Democracy (in Muslim countries) is the best system at this point in time.
The many reformist regimes in the Muslim world which once proudly implemented various modernist economic and political ideas failed to revitalise their societies. Industrial development and modern education were attempted but without also allowing a vibrant democratic culture to prevail.
Democracy is vital to sustain economic, social and political development. Without it one is only implementing Modernism without modernity. The result, as we have seen in various modern Muslim states, is the emergence of dictatorships and societies that were always venerable to becoming myopic and intransigent at the first sign of economic and political failure.
Islam has neither proscribed nor prescribed a particular form of government.
No matter what Syed Qutb or Abul Ala Mauddudi wanted us to believe, Islam in the light of the Quran only wants to ensure that governments, whatever their form, are based on justice. The whole idea of a so-called “Islamic State” is a twentieth century concoction.
Islam should not be identified with politics because “political Islam” (that pursues to create an ‘Islamic State’) has led to repression and encouraging the religion’s abuse for individual and group advantage.
*****
The usage of hadith in legislation should be handled carefully and critically because most are difficult to authenticate.
A government or an individual using a hadith as a pretext for any action does not mean that action has divine approval. It usually means that that government and individual is simply exploiting religion to forward their own version of the faith. Or maybe the issue is entirely non-religious, but a hadith is being used to give it a religious colour. Who is to say which hadith is authentic or not?
All administrative and political matters are human affairs and hence, not subject to religious rules.
*****
Syariah is man-made. It needs to be updated, refreshed and revitalised through ijtihad (rational/open debate), and according to the needs of the time.
The Syariah was formulated according to conditions of a particular time and place (medieval Arabia). Power of Islamic legislation should flow back to the people through democracy.
The spirit and body of Islam is represented by the people and not by religious organisations or the clergy because Muslims commune directly with God.
By discouraging democracy, looking for scapegoats for ones own failings, and turning religion into a hollow ritualistic and rhetorical fest has drained the spirit of Islam of some of it most imperative ingredients: justice, progress, reason and mercy.
*****
There is no official clergy in Islam. In fact, a lack of official clergy in the religion makes it most compatible with secularism. Yet, we are always going against this by constructing pillars of political and spiritual officialdom that trap us within their narrow confines, leaving us cut-off from our true potentials to play an open and intellectually robust role in world affairs.
Islam provides the ethical basis of a society, while government is based on rational premises. Thus, there is no need for the caliphate as a model for the exercise of power.
The call for a modern caliphate is nothing more than yet another synthetic and fanciful pillar of religious-political officialdom.
The state/government has political functions while religious functions belong to the people according to their own will, need and consensus. To avoid dictatorship, repression, state coercion and stagnation, Muslim political systems must not rest on theological foundations.
Everything under the unity of God is plural. There is only one God, but many kinds and types of Muslims. Rather, all types of men and women, Muslim or otherwise. Nobody but God can determine exactly who or what a real or true Muslim is, and/or who or what a kafir, or an infidel, is.
There are two telling verses in the Quran:
“To you your religion, to me my religion.” (Sura 109, Verse 6).
And:
“To each among you, have We prescribed a Law and an Open Way. And if God had enforced His Will, He would have made of you all one people.” (Sura 5, Verse 46)
Hence it is quite clear that hostile and discriminatory forms of inter-religious relations have nothing to do with Islam.
Belief in God must mean a faith in humanity, justice, mercy, reason, tolerance and spiritual and material well-being. Going against these (especially in the name of faith) is an exhibition of arrogance and bigotry, and of passing judgment on matters that God alone has the wisdom and power to adjudicate. — dawn.com
* Nadeem F. Paracha is a cultural critic and senior columnist for Dawn Newspaper and Dawn.com.
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or the publication. The Malaysian Insider does not endorse the view unless specified.
I admire your desire to fight for equality, but I feel that as Malaysians, we should at least have a strong grasp of our national language regardless of our background. Therefore, I don’t think that requirements of a credit for BM is too big to ask.
“Gender inequality” does not accurately describe the issue and should be changed to “unreasonable gender bias”. Men and women were NOT created to be equal, if they were, then there we would all be reproducing asexually. There are no hard and fast rules on gender issues, and the real issue is treating everyone with respect.
We cannot judge the actions of our [forebears] from our standpoint. Habits/ rituals/ social stigmata usually evolve from the necessity to survive, and during trying times, the need to survive trumps all else. Investing in the male members ensures earning power remains within the family, sustaining a family unit.
Fairness is a concept that only exists in the english language and nowhere else. Fairness is subjective, while justice applies to everyone. Is it coincidental that the people who invent and embody the spirit of fairness also have the highest divorce rates in the world?
Dear Chong Eng,
Your view is wrong. It would not stand in Malaysia and it would not stand in any other country. Every citizen should master their national language. Bahasa Malaysia is our national language and everybody should have a fair command of it. Nobody should live in a cocooned world where they only master their mother tongue and do not obtain the proficiency of other languages, especially the national language, which can only be gained through interaction with other people.
It does not have anything to do with racial discrimination regarding admission to university courses which you proved in your other point regarding mediocre students getting into university. Your view is so wrong that I believe it would paint the DAP very badly, and provide [fodder for] the likes of Perkasa and Utusan to solidify their stereotype of the DAP being un-Malaysian and chauvinistic towards the general Malaysian populace.
Your view would hurt your party if it is misconstrued as the general reflection of DAP members. I am disappointed in you.
I wonder at the ‘Malaysian Chinese’ hoping for a ‘Malaysian Malaysia’. Shouldn’t she be insisting on being a Malaysian Malaysian if she’s sincere about ‘Malaysian Malaysia’? Perhaps it’s unfair to single out Chong Eng. DAP don’t seem to have their act together on this essential policy at all. How can “Malaysian Malaysia” ever be compatible with “Malaysian first, Chinese second”? Surely Malaysian Malaysia lives or dies on whether Malaysians are – you know – Malaysian or not?
It has nothing to do with mastering the national language.
Even if the DAP were to master the Malay language, even if all the Chinese-Malaysians speak eloquent Malay, they would still be called un-Malaysian.
It is just the way the people in Perkasa and Utusan Meloya are.
You don´t have to look further than Indonesia for a good example.
A large percentage of Chinese-Indonesians speak perfect Bahasa Indonesia. There are many who speak no other languages at all. They even find it weird to be called “Chinese-Indonesians”. But yet, those who are non-Muslim Chinese-Indonesians are discriminated against — presumably because they are not Indonesian enough.
So, tell me why the same thing would not happen here in Malaysia, and I will go sign up for a course in the Malay language.
Dear Mr Kooo Keng Kuat
What you say is not true at all! It is wrong to say the Indonesian Chinese are discriminated against or are second class citizen quite the opposite. In hindsight the policy of One Language and One Name(Indonesian) although cruel when first introduce has created a more Indonesian Chinese as oppose to Chinese Indonesian.
We should strive for Malaysian Malay, Malaysian Chinese instead of Chinese Malaysian or Malay Malaysian which is wrong. It does not create an Identity. Chinese made up 3% of the population of Indonesia but I am happy when I look at them because they identify themselves as Indonesian first but in Malaysia under DAP it is the opposite.
We are not Indonesia, we are more democratic in many ways but we fail to create a national identity and after 50 years of independence it is sad. We as(k) only a credit in the National Language even me being a Malay did not achieve that credit. Many Malays in the civil service due to not having a credit were denied promotion. We accept that in good faith.
If being proficient in the language would help in creating a Malaysian Identity why not? Although I must say they are a lot of things that need to be done. In Razak report and an Education Report done by the British before independence both agreed that a singular stream of education was needed to unite the country but people like you would oppose it. Prof Khoo Kay Kim on record agreed to it but then he is not a politician but an Academician.
It is a small step but it is a baby step but the government under Tunku and Later Tun realize that an educated masses is needed for the well being of the country so private institution like TAR was set up to cater for these segment of people regardless that it does not make sense but to deny one’s right to educate themselves is wrong but for the purpose of government policy a minimum credit for Bahasa is requested even if you want to work in a government aided chinese school but not private run chinese school.
I see no wrong on that so it is sad we have an MP like Chong Eng but i am proud that she has overcome her difficulties in life to achieve success but I hope she always look at the bigger picture and not harp on issues like this!
As for Indonesian Chinese during BJ Habibie time the issue of Pribumi and non pribumi was made unlawful and in Gus Dur time the Chinese New Year or Hari Imlek was recognize as an Indonesian Holiday! Dismantling laws that divide the people is a step just like Lincoln did during the civil war in the 1870′s was a step although it took nearly hundred years later before the civil right movement achieve the desired result but if you see the breakdown of votes to Obama there is a significant number of whites who still (cling) to idea of white supremacist.
But it is a step and we together must make the step how small it is we must make it together!
Well pointed out, Adrian. DAP falters on this path too often.
TC Ang: Sounds like a very patriarchial, heteronormative view
Adrian,
I think what CE mean is that she didn’t see a need to have credit in BM in order to become a teacher in Chinese language school, or to be an engineer, or doctor and etc. A credit in BM doesn’t signify that you are fluent or have a fair comment of that language. And I believe DAP is more inclusive than what you have imagined, so why care about what Perkasa or Utusan says or writes?
TC Ang,
Hmmm….I cannot understand how you could relate CE’s “Gender inequality” to “Men and women were NOT created to be equal, if they were, then there we would all be reproducing asexually.” I think it is more like semantic disagreement rather than factual portrayal from CE context.
“Fairness is subjective, while justice applies to everyone.”
Why is fairness subjective? You mum give both you and your brother RM5 each, I would say it is fair and justice, but if your mum gives you RM6 while your brother get RM 4, I would say it is unfair but I can’t say it is no justice, because money was given to both.
@Sooth
@Adrian Eng-Hock Goh
I think both of you subscribe to the concept “that as Malaysians, we should at least have a strong grasp of our national language regardless of our background.”
In most of the cases, the Chinese-Malaysians who lack at least an intermediate-level of proficiency in the Malay language did not choose to be so. There are 3 reasons:-
1) It was their parents who made the decision for them, e.g. either to send their children to Taiwan universities [which actually have a very high-level of education-standards, by the way], or to de-emphasise the Malay language, or whatever. In an Asian society like ours, they don´t really have a choice when they were between the ages of 1 to 18. And in today´s world, it is not unrealistic for parents to still be making decisions for their children who are well into their mid-20s — more so if they are still fully or partially dependent (financially) on their parents.
2) (Compounding the problem is) The kind of amusing politics we have here in Malaysia, e.g. the continued virtual segregation of the various ethnic communities, among other things. In such a system, a member of a particular ethnic group would rather (and naturally as a matter of instincts and survival) learn the language which is most commonly used in his environment. So, if you are a Chinese-Malaysian, like Chong Eng in the 1950s to 1970s, or a yuppie working in the private-sector in 2010, why in the world would you want to kill yourself to have the ability to string a proper sentence in the Malay language? [I am not saying that this is the right attitude, no no, but melayu pasar is sufficient.]
3) (As a result of No. 2 above) There are still many Malaysians (including Sabahans and Sarawakians) who did not go through the official education-system. Many go through parallel systems of education, and many more, none at all. [Note that "gone through the education-system" and "literacy" are different, e.g. you may not have gone to school, but you have taught yourself to read and write the simplified form of a language. So, Malaysia´s statistics of 87.4% literacy-rate in 2009 says nothing much about the real problem.]
So, the nationalistic statements in your respective comments sound like fancy ideas in Malaysian reality. It´s like a mind with an odd implant from a racially homogeneous foreign country (say the UK, Germany, Russia, or Perkasa´s fantasy-Tanah Melayu)… much like the fancy believe that gender equality can really exist in an Islamic society.
And just to show me and the readers here that you do have a “strong grasp” of, or have “mastered”, the national language, please reply to my comment in Malay so that I may reply to you in Malay — if you do have anything to reply to.
TC Ang:
1. “Men and women were NOT created to be equal, if they were, then there we would all be reproducing asexually.” Gender equality doesn’t prevent or disrupt sexual reproduction.
2. “Investing in the male members ensures earning power remains within the family, sustaining a family unit.” This doesn’t make sense. It’s an especially odd thing to say when Chong Eng explicitly says that the men in her village did much less than the women to support their families financially.
3. “Fairness is a concept that only exists in the english language and nowhere else.” Um, what?