Boston remembers Fedra, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia and other transgendered and gender-variant victims of hate who were brutally murdered this year.

“I want people to understand that doing the right thing often does more harm than good. The standard of normal that we aim for is imaginary. People don’t fail to meet the definition of normal gender, but the definitions fail to meet the people. Being born without a vagina was not my problem. Having to get one was the real problem. My “sexual dysfunction” posed less of a threat to my health than the parts of the Syndrome that disabled me. So why is a vagina all I was given to cope with a much greater loss?”

- Tobias K. Davis

Last night, I attended a cold reading of The Naked I, a play in two acts written by Tobias K. Davis as an alternative to the Vagina Monologues, which assumes the stable identity of being female. In Naked, Tobias takes the idea of sex and gender beyond the binary, exploring the voices of transgenders, transexuals, cisgenders, and other gender-variant identities.

* * * * * *

I stumbled into the meeting, panting from a sprint. I thought I was late. I walked in the lounge expecting to see familiar faces but I found out I almost didn’t know anyone who was there. A cap hit me on the waist and fell to the floor. I bent down to pick it up and looked for the owner.

“Hey,” said someone. I saw a guy. A girl. Neither. Either. “What’s your name?” he asked.

“Ummm…” I tentatively gave him my name. “I’m Justin.” His handshake was more ‘man’ than mine.

Introductions soon began. We went around the circle. “I’m Mickey. And I prefer the pronouns he/him/his.”

“Jenny. Ze or male pronouns…”

“Eliza. Female pronouns, she, her, hers.”

As the night went on, we read monologues and short plays from Davis’ work. The reading slowly went into discussing the relevance of the characters to our personal lives. I wasn’t straight. But I think I wasn’t a tranny, too. So I kept quiet and listened.

“I’ve had enough of people calling me ’she’, so I decided if I took T (testosterone), people would start calling me ‘he’.”

“I’ve always been happy about my body, you know, never regretted anything. I mean, yeah, there are some things I’d like to change, but I don’t know, like, I don’t want to change something I’ll regret. It’s just easier to be either man or woman. Right now, I’m both.”

“Today, looking back, I wouldn’t have taken T. I mean, I don’t regret it - but you should dictate what you want to be to the world and not let the world dictate what you are. Now, I walk into a male bathroom and no one bats an eye - it’s something I enjoy - but you know, sometimes, it’s better to be happy with who you are.”

“I wish everyone was like children. They’re so receptive. The 30 year old woman I used the date, well, she’s a single mom, and her 6 year old would always ask me why everyone calls me ’she’ when I’m a boy. Like I mean, I’ve been screwing with her mom. And she knows it but everyone else doesn’t.”

“When I had a boyfriend, he would tell me all about the male bathroom etiquette.”

He kept looking my way while he was explaining the male bathroom etiquette. I finally spoke. “Really? I never knew there was such a thing. No wonder when I said Hi to the guy standing next to me, he gave me a dirty look.”

Last night, I visited St. Luke’s and St. Margaret’s church for the memorial service of Rita Hester, a transgendered member of the community, who was killed 10 years ago. After listening to several speakers who represent various intersections and sections of the community, we walked in the -5 degrees Celsius night carrying candles. We arrived at a plaza, grouped into a circle and started reading the names of those who died this year due to hate crimes.

This year, we remembered (re-member - put them together again in our memories, our visions, and our hopes) Kellie Telesford of Thornton Heath, UK, Brian McGlothin of Cincinnati, Gabriela Alejandra Albornoz of Santiago, Chile, Patrick Murphy of Albuquerque, Stacy Brown of Baltimore, Adolphus Simmons of Charleston, Fedra of Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia, Ashley Sweeney of Detroit, Sanesha Stewart of the Bronx, Lawrence King of Oxnard, CA, Simmie Williams Jr. of Fort Lauderdale, Luna of Lisbon, Portugal, Lloyd Nixon of West Palm Beach, Felicia Melton-Smyth of Porta Vallarta, Mexico, Silvana Berisha of Hamburg, Germany, Ebony Whitaker of Memphis, Rosa Pazos of Sevilla, Spain, Juan Carlos Aucalle Coronel of Lombardi, Italy, Angie Zapata of Greeley, CO, Jaylynn L. Namauu of Makiki Honolulu, HI, Samantha Rangel Brandau of Milan, Italy, Nakhia Williams of Louisville, Ruby Molina of Sacramento, Aimee Wilcoxson of Aurora, CO, Duanna Johnson of Memphis, Dilek Ince of Ankara, Turkey, Teish Cannon of Syracuse, Ali of Iraq, and all the other trans women and men around the world who lost their lives to transphobia this year, whose faces we never saw and names we never heard, because they were living on the margins of societies who did not respect nor want them.

(Note: The list of names were taken from Melissa McEwan’s blog, Teaspoon by Teaspoon. She was present last night at the vigil with this to say: “Social justice work is like trying to empty the ocean with a teaspoon. But with enough teaspoons and enough time, we will empty it. Each of you have a teaspoon with you. Each of you, by coming here tonight, has chosen to empty that ocean of anger and hate one teaspoon at a time.”)

Over the course of a few days, the issue of the fatwa (religious decree) issued against women who dress up as men has become an issue of Muslims versus non-Muslims.

In the past two weeks, women were the target of a religious decree banning them from dressing up as men and partaking in lesbian sex. The National Fatwa Council of Malaysia issued a fatwa condemning women from dressing up as men - which the newspapers report as an opposition against tomboyism, or gejala pengkid (in Malay). Other media services report that the NFC is banning lesbian sex.

Protests soon followed that drew the ire of the police and, as of today, the spiritual leader of Parti Islam Malaysia. The Inspector General of the Police, a few days ago, issued a statement sayig that “non-Muslim” (see note below) NGOs should stay out of the issue. “The fatwa is only applicable to non-Muslims.” It was a warning telling non-Muslims not to interfere. Today, the spiritual leader of PAS issued a statement that such protests were going against the “teachings of Allah”.

What these sentiments fail to understand is that the issue has nothing to do with religion. It is not a matter of protecting the rights of non-Muslims to be free from following religious law, but protecting the rights of every individual to dress the way he or she likes. Both Muslims and non-Muslims who are against the fatwa find that the prohibition of certain dress codes on a particular sex is a breach of fundamental human rights. It is also a form of discrimination against individuals who identify as queer, lesbian, or transgendered.

The fatwa is problematic because it assumes a stable definition of gender and sex. In a time when fashion is becoming increasingly androgynous, practical, and gender-neutral, the fatwa fails to integrate the present conditions of society. T-shirts are worn by women because they are sometimes just practical for work, for hot weather, and for convenience. Pants are worn for the same reasons. They could also be worn for fashionable reasons.

What the fatwa does is to draw a specific distinction between manly and womanly clothes, thus disparaging and destroying the many intersectionalities found within fashion and between man and woman. It upholds the archaic and patriarchal dichotomy between man and woman. It creates spaces for men and women, and segregates one from another. Such limitation on individuals within society can only be seen in terms of a state endorsed institution trying to impose on the privacy and personal decisions of an individual.

Making the issue a Muslim/non-Muslim one only avoids the real issue of the matter. It veers the discussion into contentious debate, pitting non-Muslims against Muslims. This gross misrepresentation of the reasons behind our opposition of the fatwa perverts the real discussion that has been prematurely cut short: the issue of personal rights, gender identity, and the policing of privacy by the state.

We are opposing the fatwa not because it limits our non-Muslim preclusion from Islamic law, but because it limits and condones the limitation of self-expression and personal choice of individuals.

A note on the media reports: the reports are calling the NGOs “non-Muslim NGOs” or “NGO bukan Islam”, which is not true. The NGOs involved are bukan anything, or not anything. They don’t represent Muslims, nor do they represent the non-Muslims. They are representing individuals, regardless of their religious or areligious affiliations, who, for the reasons above, find the fatwa problematic. I hope the media will properly reflect this in their future reports.

Published in TheNutGraph on 17th November 2008

by Shanon Shah

JANGAN cabar fatwa. Itulah arahan yang dikeluarkan oleh Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, tanggal 10 Nov 2008. Menurut laporan Utusan Malaysia, arahan tersebut dikhususkan kepada pertubuhan bukan kerajaan (NGO) bukan Islam, Katagender dan Food-not-Bombs, yang berdemonstrasi membantah keputusan Majlis Fatwa Kebangsaan tentang pengharaman pengkid 23 Okt lalu.

Malah Ketua Polis Negara, Tan Sri Musa Hassan, juga memberi amaran yang sama kepada “NGO bukan Islam” berkenaan pada 13 Nov. Pulak dah!

Laporan mutakhir untuk Zahid dan Musa — Katagender bukannya satu “NGO bukan Islam”. Ia merupakan satu kolektif pelbagai kaum dan agama, termasuk lelaki dan wanita Islam. Dan bantahan terhadap fatwa ini bukan hanya timbul di kalangan orang bukan Islam. Ramai juga orang Islam yang mempersoalnya. Artikel saya sebelum ini juga merujuk kepada isu ini.

Tapi menurut Zahid lagi, tidak wajar untuk sesiapa “mempertikaikan sesuatu hukum berasaskan logik akal semata-mata untuk kepentingan liberalisme bagi kelompok tertentu.”

Ini bukan satu pendapat yang baru, atau pendirian yang khusus kepada Zahid. Kira-kira tiga tahun yang lalu, presiden Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia atau Abim, Yusri Mohamad, menggunakan hujah yang sama apabila beberapa kumpulan wanita membantah Rang Undang-Undang Keluarga Islam (Wilayah Persekutuan) (Pindaan) 2005.

Menurut laporan Utusan Malaysia, 12 Jan 2006, Yusri berkata, “[P]eruntukan yang ada dalam [Rang Undang-Undang Keluarga Islam] itu tidak seharusnya dibahas atau diperkatakan mengikut akal fikiran manusia kerana ia berasaskan hukum syarak.”

Presiden Abim Yusri Mohamad Katanya lagi, “Kita juga perlu ingat tidak semua orang boleh bercakap mengenai hukum syarak kerana ia berasaskan Al-Quran dan hadis.”

Masa saya Tingkatan Dua, ustaz saya juga pernah berpesan supaya jangan mempersoal hukum agama. Nanti jadi gila, katanya. Jadi saya pun berhenti mempersoal apa sahaja tentang agama Islam, sebab saya takut nanti saya jadi gila.

Namun, saya terus terbaca dan terdengar perkara-perkara berbau diskriminasi terhadap wanita, bukan Islam, dan golongan gay, lesbian dan mak nyah — tetapi bertopengkan “hukum” atau “fatwa”. Inilah yang membuatkan saya hampir-hampir gila, bukannya soalan yang saya ada tentang firman Allah.

Menurut perintah

Tetapi, adakah perintah yang dikeluarkan oleh Zahid itu tepat? Benarkah di dalam Islam, orang Islam mahupun bukan Islam tidak boleh menggunakan akal dan logik untuk menilai sesuatu hukum?

Saya bukannya seorang ulama, tetapi saya merupakan seorang Muslim yang selalu mendapat ilham daripada kitab suci Al-Quran.

Allah berfirman dalam Surah Al-Jaathiyah, Ayat 5: “Dan [pada] pertukaran malam dan siang silih berganti, dan juga [pada] rezeki yang diturunkan oleh Allah dari langit, lalu Ia hidupkan dengannya tumbuh-tumbuhan di bumi sesudah matinya, serta [pada] peredaran angin, [semuanya itu mengandungi] tanda-tanda [yang membuktikan keesaan Allah, kekuasaanNya, kebijaksanaanNya, serta keluasan rahmatNya] bagi kaum yang mahu menggunakan akal fikiran.”

Bagi saya, jelas sekali Islam mementingkan penggunaan akal fikiran untuk menilai dunia dan kewujudan alam.

Tetapi besar kemungkinan pendirian saya akan diserang kerana saya tidak mempunyai tauliah sebagai seorang ulama. Jadi saya ambil satu contoh dari sejarah perkembangan Islam pada awal abad ke-20, yang diceritakan dengan lebih terperinci dalam Islam: A Short Introduction, oleh Abdulkader Tayob.

Pada masa itu, komuniti Islam di India sedang dilanda kekeliruan tentang peranan teknologi dalam amal ibadat. Sekitar masa ini, alat pembesar suara mula digunakan dalam pelbagai konteks di serata dunia. Masyarakat Islam di India tidak tahu sama ada alat pembesar suara boleh digunakan dalam konteks sembahyang berjemaah.

Dalam sembahyang berjemaah di masjid, imam akan berdiri di hadapan dan menerajui semua bacaan dan gerakan yang akan dituruti oleh jemaah yang lain. Apabila bilangan jemaah terlalu besar, saf di belakang mungkin tidak dapat melihat atau mendengar imam. Jadi, beberapa orang mukabbir akan menyelangi saf-saf pada jarak tertentu dan mengeluarkan laungan yang menjadi panduan kepada jemaah lain untuk mengikut pergerakan imam.

Tetapi pada tahun 1963, satu fatwa yang penting diterbitkan oleh Mufti Muhammad Shafie dari madrasah Darul Uloom, Deoband. Darul Uloom diasaskan pada tahun 1867, dan mempelopori ajaran mazhab Hanafi. Ia merupakan salah satu institusi dakwah Islam yang paling terkemuka di dunia. Malah, saya terbaca dalam majalah Off the Edge edisi November 2008 bahawa Mursyidul Am PAS sendiri, Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat, telah melanjutkan pelajarannya di Deoband pada tahun 1950an.

Tapi kita berbincang tentang Mufti Shafie, bukan Nik Aziz. Shafie telah mengeluarkan satu fatwa yang mengharamkan penggunaan alat pembesar suara dalam solat berjemaah. Ini bukan calang-calang fatwa. Impaknya pun amat serius kerana walaupun golongan Islam merupakan minoriti di India, populasinya tetap gergasi jika dibandingkan dengan negara-negara lain.

Namun, beberapa tahun selepas itu, alat pembesar suara mula digunakan secara berleluasa untuk solat jemaah dalam masjid-masjid di Mekah dan Madinah, tanpa sebarang pengharaman oleh ulama Arab Saudi. Jadi, Mufti Shafie terpaksalah mengkaji semula fatwanya, dan akhirnya menterbalikkan pengharamannya terhadap penggunaan alat pembesar suara.

Kepentingan umum

Jadi, bagi sayalah sekurang-kurangnya, sesuatu fatwa itu penting untuk mencapai kesinambungan dalam penghayatan agama Islam. Akan tetapi, fatwa boleh berubah mengikut keadaan dan keperluan semasa. Malah, fatwa boleh dicabar dalam konteks tertentu. Dalam sejarah Islam, para alim ulama sering mengeluarkan pendapat tentang hukum-hakam, tetapi mereka amatlah merendah diri dalam hal ini.

Imam Shafie sendiri pernah berkata, “Pendapat saya adalah betul, namun kemungkinan bahawa saya salah tetap wujud.” Dan pemikirannya telah menjadi asas kepada mazhab Shafie yang tersebar ke Asia Tenggara.

Ketika pemerintahan Abbasid, khalifah Mansur pernah cuba mempamerkan Muwatta oleh imam Malik di Kaabah, sebagai panduan kepada rakyat di seluruh empayar Islam. Malik tidak membenarkan Mansur berbuat demikian, dengan hujah bahawa umat Islam di kawasan yang berlainan mungkin mempunyai pandangan dan tafsirannya sendiri. Kata Malik, “Kepelbagaian pendapat itu adalah rezeki Allah kepada ummah.”

Jadi, adakah perintah supaya orang awam tidak mencabar fatwa mengambilkira realiti sejarah tamadun Islam seperti ini? Zahid berkata bahawa pihaknya bersedia untuk menjelaskan fatwa pengharaman pengkid tersebut kepada pihak NGO. Malah, Zahid berkata bahawa Wilayah Persekutuan akan cuba mewartakan fatwa tersebut secepat mungkin.

Jika fatwa tersebut diwartakan, ia akan membawa kuasa undang-undang — mana-mana wanita yang dianggap memaparkan ciri-ciri pengkid akan dilihat sebagai penjenayah. Adakah ini dianggap sebagai contoh hikmah dan kebijaksanaan yang dibawa oleh Islam?

Saya sendiri bukannya mempersoalkan fatwa ini sekarang. Tetapi saya ingin tahu bagaimanakah pewartaan dan pelaksanaan fatwa ini akan menjamin keadilan dan kesaksamaan terhadap rakyat Malaysia?

Benar, kita tidak patut mempersendakan atau memperlekehkan mana-mana ajaran agama di Malaysia yang majmuk ini. Tetapi, bila sesuatu fatwa itu digunakan untuk membentuk dasar awam yang memberi kesan mendalam kepada kepentingan umum, kita semua berhak untuk melontarkan pendapat masing-masing secara terbuka.

---

Shanon Shah yakin bahawa rakyat Malaysia yang berbilang agama dan kaum semakin mampu menangani perbezaan pendapat secara matang.

At the date of this writing, the fatwa has not finalized by the Malaysian National Fatwa Council (NFC) yet. However, the fact NFC is planning on issuing such a fatwa is worrisome.

Should anyone have the power to legally and socially define tomboy mannerism? If the council and the policing body have the right to persecute someone based on arbitrary definition of mannerism, what is to prevent them from turning every deep-tenored, pants-wearing, bald-headed women or every limping, french-accented, foul-body odored, six-fingered men into criminals? Bottomline is attempting to criminalize individual mannerism leaves much room for abuse. Two possible abuses can stem from empowering the National Fatwa Council to monitor and control one’s behavior and possibly perpetuating Machiavellian biases towards women.

First of all, this fatwa implies that the council will be capable of defining masculine and feminine behavior. Are Malaysians not concerned that this fatwa is going to set the precedence allowing the council and its policy body the power to criminalize behavior and regulate individual mannerism according to their biases? Who is to prevent them from regulating how one speaks, how one sleeps or what color one’s car should be in the future? There is an interesting pattern of fatwa issuance lately - the 2005 fatwa against taking part in SMS contests, the 2007 fatwa against supernatural exhibitions, the 2008 potential fatwa against yoga to name a few. The Big Brother trend may soon evade every aspect of one’s life.

The other issue is the Machiavellian impact this fatwa can have. A simple example is that the National Fatwa Council could theoretically deem argumentative, aggressive and competitive behavior as masculine in nature. Given the scenario of a wife arguing with the husband, or a women aggressively pursuing a promotion at work or a talented female student needing training resources, what is to prevent a deranged husband from reporting a wife for masculine behavior after a heated argument, old-boy networked males from denying female peers promotions or budget-short schools from prohibiting female students from competition or sporting events and using the fatwa as an excuse. Hope for a fair and just trial is just that - hope.

Another point to surface is that tomboy mannerism and sexual orientation is not mutually exclusive. Just as a woman who is masculine in appearance is not necessarily a lesbian, a feminine woman is not necessarily heterosexual. Mannerism may reflect one’s sexual orientation but it is not the only defining characteristic of one’s sexuality. Attempting to prevent boyish mannerism in women to curb homosexuality is not a very efficient way to address the situation. This fatwa will only alienate straight Muslim women who do not fit into NFC’s standards of femininity, reaffirm the social bias against transgendered Muslims and offend the sensibility of most people.

One can argue that issuing a fatwa against tomboy mannerism goes against the teachings of Islam. Gender variations exist and are legally acknowledged in advanced nations and religion including Islam.

Specifically, Islamic scholars have long acknowledged at least two other gender variations: ‘Khunsa’ (intersexed) and ‘Mukhannathuns’ (transgendered)”

Further example of gender variation is contained in an interpretation this Quranic verse which offers a reference to sexual orientation and gender:
42:49 “To Allah belongs the dominion over the heavens and the earth. It creates what It wills. It prepares for whom It wills females, and It prepares for whom It wills males.
42:50 “Or It marries together the males and the females, and It makes those whom It wills to be ineffectual. Indeed It is the Knowing, the Powerful.”
Arabic: “Lillahi mulku us-samaawaati wal’ardhi. Yakhluqu ma yashaa’u. Yahabu liman yashaa’u inaathan wa yahabu liman yashaa’u adh-dhukura. Aw yuzawwijuhum dhukraanan wa inaathan; wa yaj’alu man yashaa’u ‘aqeeman: innahu ‘Aleemun Qadeerun.”

Scholars have interpret “It marries together the males and females” as the third gender – intersexed or transgendered. Other scholars have interpreted “It makes those whom It wills to be ineffectual” to encompass barren men and women or individuals who have no desire for the opposite gender.

One hopes that fellow Malaysians are able to see the risk and impact of such a fatwa.

I recently wrote this somewhere else (http://thenakedwriter.blogspot.com/). Also included are comments which I thought were pertinent to the issue.

____________________

Fatwa against Tomboys: Action and Reaction

A few weeks ago, the National Fatwa Council of Malaysia released a religious decree against women dressing like men, whatever those two identities - women and men - mean. A group of women from various NGOs decided to take to the streets to protest against this fatwa.

Rightly so. Before we can even disagree with the fatwa on trying to control the way women dress, the decree begs the question: what is it to dress like a man? To wear pants? Baggy t-shirts? Shirts without a female cut?

How much man-ness in clothing do we need to have to be considered tom-boys?

Under the syariah law of Malaysia, it is a crime to cross-dress from any one gender to another. Again, how much dressing is cross-dressing? Cosmetics on men? Flat shoes on women?

Unfortunately, the protests against this fatwa (accessed here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufgJWGmax-A - check out the comments below the video) uses alienating and dissenting language. The tone is condescending: “Short hair, who cares. Stupid fatwa everywhere.”

There are many problems with this chant: 1. it assumes that the fatwa is stupid. I agree that the fatwa is naive and archaic, but not stupid. Even if it is, calling it only 2. alienates the people we want to convince otherwise.

The main audience of the fatwa isn’t the people who are tomboys or who disagree with the fatwa. It is for those who came up with the fatwa, who support the fatwa, and who think women should not be dressing up as men. What a protest must do for its target audience, then, is engage these parties into seeing the issue with more open-mindedness, to arouse dialogue, and to initiate understanding. Engagement, not alienation.

Calling the fatwa stupid only alienates the parties who disagree with us and turns them away from any further discussion and contemplation. It confirms their suspicion of us as a group of people partaking in the many vices gender-variant members of the community are always accused of.

Short hair, who cares. Rights restricted everywhere?

Or as a friend tells me of a chant she once heard in Illinois: 2, 4, 6, 8 - How d’you know your daughter’s straight?

Why assume?

The Fatwa Council may have reasons behind their decisions - rather than to resist conviction, can we perhaps convince them otherwise?

COMMENTS:

1. I agree that the “Stupid fatwa everywhere” argument is overly simplistic, but it is often the case in political movements that you have to scream to be heard. While these protests probably are, as you rightly pointed out, not the most effective way to enact change, we cannot dismiss their value completely; after all, does it not bring awareness to the issue? Does it not inspire others, who may disagree with their tactics but still care about the same issues, to try to address the problem their own way?

This goes back to the issue of whether it is better to work from the inside or the outside. (Yay Wgs!) Working WITH the council probably will have more direct institutional influence, but if you are not in a position conducive to being listened to, then taking to the streets is not a bad way to start the conversation.

2. You are right when you say that the Fatwa Council have their reasons behind the Fatwa.Fatwas are not simply made,however,it involves deep discussions and debates among Muslim Scholars based on the Quran,the Prophet’s sayings,and also the context of our society.The fact that the fatwa might seem shallow to certain parties is due to the fact that the reasons are not communicated to the public.

My number 2 point is that these fatwas are laws that only govern muslims and are not imposed on those outside the religion.As much as a citizen of a country is required to abide the laws within his/her country,one who declares himself/herself a muslim is also required to abide the laws of Islam.I must also clarify that the fatwa of cross dressing is also imposed on muslim men.

3. Firstly, I want to address point no. 2. The issue of debate and protest over the fatwa isn’t about non-muslims fearing that we can’t do what we want to do. It’s the issue of protecting certain sectors of society who are unfairly repressed without being understood enough. Just as much as you claim that there are reasons behind the fatwa, there are also reasons behind people’s decision to dress up in certain ways. Why should one truth be greater than the other?

A rereading of the Quran and the Sunnah, as is done by Asma Barlas and Kecia Ali, shows us that the interpretation of Islam today, and the decisions made based on them, is constricted to very few people, from very limited backgrounds. Women, for one, are usually excluded although this did not use to be the case. (cf Aisyah, Fatimah, Hafsa).

I question the defense of certain fatwas on the basis that they are decided upon by highly religious and scholarly men, and then not explaining why the decision has been made that way. What happened to Ijtihad and Ijma? Why are fatwas being decreed without any evidence of critical reasoning and consensus?

Forget about San Francisco. Forget about Sydney. Forget about Amsterdam.

Hang on to your tanktops, sequins and feather boas, boys! Seems like the gayest place in town these days is our very own fabulous little island of Penang. How else can you account for the nigh impossible number of gay parties being raided over there? Even caught a few boys with their pants down this very weekend making the headlines.

Seems like in a recent raid of a fitness center-cum-sauna, glowing pearl necklaces were found adorning quite a number of the patrons, presumably caught in the act. A concerned samaritan ( the twat! ) tipped overzealous vice cops off that the space had been used for clandestine trysts - and boy were they right! Not only did they manage to round up 70 unfortunate patrons - including British and Chinese nationals - the boys in blue also found gay magazines, tubes of lube, boxes of condoms and pornographic movies.

Blimey. Quite the party! Imagine the chagrin of the partygoers.

Does that shock me? No. After years of work in the gritty city - seeing the best and worst life has to offer, I’m pretty much unshockable these days. Hell I wasn’t exactly a saint before. And you guys know I’m far from prudish.

What puts me in a rage isn’t the fact that they were having a wild gay sex gala without sending me an invitation. Well, that does put me off a little - I know it’s been a while since I was out there but hey, they could have sent an invite

The line-up!
What actually drives me up the wall as usual is the sanctimonious morality police. Blame it on good old Section 377. Seriously, morality should not be governed by the law when it comes to affairs held behind closed doors between consenting adults. Not saying that we should all simultaneously hold mass roman orgies in public places but let’s just place this in context.

They’re all consenting adults. If an innocent underaged waif were to be present, I’d agree to lock the paedophilic lot up and toss away the key. But since they’re all grown men of sound mind, I don’t really give a damn what goes on behind closed curtains. What’s wrong a bit of slap and tickle? They could pretend to be furry forest creatures and indulge in humpy bunny sex for all I care.

They’re in a semi-private area. Sure, if they were out canoodling in public parks and recreational areas behind bushes and trees, they should be duly drawn and quartered. After all it’s the risk ( and the the thrill! ) that they take. But it’s in a closed private sauna dammit. I don’t recall them having an open invite.

And they aren’t making a nuisance of themselves! If the guys were yelling lewd obscenities and spanking the daylights out of each other till the wee hours of the morning, I’d certainly sound an alarm. Hell, even if they were a married heterosexual couple of 80 making loud whoopee all night long, I’d alert the police for the insane ruckus as well. But they weren’t.

So for god’s sakes, let them have their fun.

At least judging by the incriminating items found at the site, they practise commendable safe sex.

Look, I know in the general view amongst the more conservative Muslims and many non-Muslims ( especially those following Judaeo-Christian doctrines ), homosexuality is not vastly accepted. Far too liberal a view for them I’m sure. Though I never can quite understand how two guys in love can actually lead to a dramatic decline in society morals.

Fair enough though, to each his own. I don’t need your acceptance but that doesn’t mean I’d want to have your puritanical values and cultural norms shoved down my throat as well. Even less do I need a self-righteous Big Brother to come knocking on my door checking on my unnatural sexual practices. Here the question is how do you use the law ( based on prudish colonial statutes written in the Victorian era, I’m sure ) not to intrude on people’s privacy and their own private choices?

What next? Stoning adulterers? Strangling unwed mothers? Drowning pagan witches?

With such blatant discrimination ( and the infamous Section 377 forever hanging over our heads ), is it any wonder that young gay boys are driven to end their lives?

According to The Star (24 October 2008), the National Fatwa Council has a fatwa issued against tomboyism -

KOTA BARU: The National Fatwa Council has ruled that tomboyism, where a girl behaves or dresses in a boyish manner, is forbidden in Islam.

Its chairman Datuk Dr Abdul Shukor Husin said the decision was prompted by recent developments as there had been cases of young women inclined to behave like men and indulging in homosexuality.

Parents must stop their children from indulging in disruptive activities that are against Islamic teachings, he told reporters here yesterday. - Bernama

According to The Associated Press:

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia (AP) — Malaysia’s main body of Islamic clerics has issued an edict banning tomboys in the Muslim-majority country, ruling that girls who act like boys violate the tenets of Islam, an official said Friday.

The National Fatwa Council forbade the practice of girls behaving or dressing like boys during a meeting Thursday in northern Malaysia, said Harussani Idris Zakaria, the mufti of northern Perak state, who attended the gathering.

Harussani said an increasing number of Malaysian girls behave like tomboys, and that some of them engage in homosexuality. Homosexuality is not explicitly banned in Malaysia, but it is effectively illegal under a law that prohibits sex acts “against the order of nature.”

Harussani said the council’s ruling was not legally binding because it has not been passed into law, but that tomboys should be banned because their actions are immoral.

“It doesn’t matter if it’s a law or not. When it’s wrong, it’s wrong. It is a sin,” Harussani told The Associated Press. “Tomboy (behavior) is forbidden in Islam.”

Under the edict, girls are forbidden to sport short hair and dress, walk and act like boys, Harussani said. Boys should also not act like girls, he said.

“They must respect God. God created them as boys, they must behave like boys. God created them as girls, they must act like girls,” he said.

Council chairman Abdul Shukor Husin said the ruling was prompted by recent cases of young women behaving like men and indulging in homosexuality, according to the national news agency Bernama. He did not elaborate.

Malaysian media have reported on recent incidents of school bullying among girls, which have been caught on film and circulated on the Internet. In one film, some girls are seen beating up another girl in a bathroom.

A well-known Malaysian Muslim actress caused an uproar last year when she shaved her head bald for a film. Harussani and other muftis urged Muslims not to watch the movie, arguing that the actress had violated Islam by making herself look like a man.

“Muallaf,” or “the convert,” is scheduled for release in Singapore next month, but no date has been set for its release in Malaysia.

Muslims make up some 60 percent of Malaysia’s 27 million people, and are subject to Islamic laws and the council’s edicts, even if the rulings have not been enshrined in national or Shariah law.

It was not immediately clear what kind of punishment awaited those who violate the tomboy edict, or “fatwa.” Malays generally follow the council’s “fatwas” out of deference, but violators rarely get into trouble unless the edict is incorporated into national or Shariah law.

From The Associated Press as well:

KUALA LUMPUR (AFP) — One of Malaysia’s highest Islamic bodies has banned females from dressing or behaving like men and engaging in lesbian sex, saying it was forbidden by the religion.

The National Fatwa Council late Thursday issued its ruling following a two-day meeting that discussed recent cases of young women apparently behaving like men and exhibiting homosexual tendencies, state news agency Bernama reported.

Council chairman Abdul Shukor Husin told Bernama many young women admired the way men dress, behave and socialise, violating human nature and denying their femininity.

“It is unacceptable to see women who love the male lifestyle including dressing in the clothes men wear,” Abdul Shukor was quoted as saying.

“(Masculine behaviour) becomes clearer when they start to have sex with someone of the same gender, that is woman and woman,” he said.

“In view of this, the National Fatwa Council which met today have decided and taken the stand that such acts are forbidden and banned,” he said.

Male homosexuality, considered against the order of nature, is illegal in Malaysia but lawyers say female homosexuality is technically permissible as there are no provisions for it under the law.

The Fatwa Council does not have jurisdiction in civil law, but the ruling appears to be an attempt to push female homosexuality towards illegality.

Islam is the official religion of Malaysia, where more than 60 percent of its 27 million people are Muslim Malays who practice a conservative brand of the religion.

A fatwa is religious opinion on Islamic Law issued by a recognised Islamic scholar/organization, in line with relevant legal proofs and based on interpretations of Quranic verses and hadiths. For more information on how fatwas are processed by the National Fatwa Council in Malaysia, please see the e-Fatwa portal.

Tilted World says: We believe that no one, not even the state or any religious institution, has the right to decide how an individual should manage his/her own body and persona, or regulate mutually consensual acts, as long as it does not interfere with the well-being of others. We strongly disagree with the National Fatwa Council’s action to decree an edict to regulate the dressing/mannerisms of our women, and relationships between consenting adults.

Here are a few articles/letters pertaining to this issue:

Fatwa dalam Pembangunan Masyarakat, by Shanon Shah, The Nut Graph (3rd November)

Fatwa on Football? by G.Krishnan, Malaysia Today (30th October)

Tomboys, Yoga…What Next? by Marina Mahathir, (29th October)

Just Live and Let Live, by Hafiz Noor Shams, Malaysia Today (28th October)

Tha National Fatwa Council: “Tomboyism” Not allowed, KLue Blog, (24th October)

Many thanks to The Sun for their permission to republish this article by Jacqueline Ann Surin which was orginally published in The Sun on 7th October 2005 and reprinted in Jacqueline’s book, “Shape Of A Pocket”. Jacqueline is currently working as an editor at The Nut Graph.

THERE is a particular potency about prejudices that are reinforced by the words or actions of those in power. When in 1998, our former premier Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad accused his then deputy Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim of being a homosexual and who, hence, was not fit to be in public office, a group was, almost immediately, set up to combat homosexuality in Malaysia.

The group, called the People’s Voluntary Anti-Homosexual Movement or Pasrah (for its Malay acronym) was set up by former Umno Supreme Council member Datuk Ibrahim Ali. Pasrah called homosexuality a “new threat to the country”, following apparently in the likes of communism, the Aedes mosquito and HIV/AIDS. It was a “serious social illness”, founder chairman Ibrahim declared, that had seeped into all levels of society.

Suddenly, gay men were deemed a threat that needed to be weeded out and dealt with. How homosexuality could threaten the nation was never explained except for the oft-repeated description of sodomy as despicable. Western values were also blamed for the rise in homosexuality.

Such assertions need to be unpackaged if we don’t want to remain a gullible public that allows those in power to define the way we should treat groups of people within our communities. It would be instructive perhaps to note that historically, homosexuality was acceptable in both Western and Eastern cultures and has not always been socially condemned. Argentinian anthropologist and award-winning writer Alberto Manguel points out in Into the Looking Glass Wood (1998): “In ancient Greece and Rome, no moral distinction was made between homosexual and heterosexual love; in Japan, gay relationships were formally accepted among the samurai; in China, the emperor himself was known to have male lovers. Among the native people of Guatemala, gays are not seen as outsiders.”

Manguel writes that hostility against gays did not become widespread until the mid-12th century. He adds that despite this hostility, “until the nineteenth century the homosexual was not perceived as someone distinct, someone with a personality different from that of the heterosexual, someone who could be persecuted not only for a specific act contra natura but merely for existing”.

It would seem then the anti-gay sentiments that our leaders spout are not particularly grounded in Eastern values, it is very much a product of Western prejudices against those who may be different in their sexual orientation. It is a fact that the clause in the Penal Code that criminalises sodomy is adopted from British laws. And if by the greatest stretch of imagination, sodomy was really despicable and a crime against society, heterosexual couples would be guilty, too.

The problem with prejudices, writes Manguel is that it “traps within its boundaries a heterogenous group of individuals whose single common denominator is determined by the prejudice itself”. Sometimes the prejudice can even be stretched to include those who may share a particular trait with the group being singled out. Some years back, when rumours were being spread about a politician as being a lesbian, a colleague received a phone call from an Umno Youth member who said he had evidence that the politician was a homosexual: “She doesn’t wear any lipstick.” By that definition, that made nearly half of the women in the newsroom lesbians though many were demonstrably heterosexual.

Last month, at a Suhakam conference, Dr Mahathir repeated his allegations about Anwar being gay and how “nobody would be safe” if a homosexual was in power. He also took a swipe at media who were critical of his actions against Anwar, saying that among them were gay people. Manguel notes that the “group created by prejudice comes into existence not by the choice of the individuals forming it, but by the reaction of those outside it.”

I have gay friends but I am not writing this for them because it would be presumptuous to think I could speak for them. I am also not writing this because I am homosexual, as if only gays can understand an injustice when it happens. I write this so that we can ask of ourselves, why the reaction towards homosexuals? Why the prejudice against those who may be different from us? And what does it say about us, the people who label homosexuals as being “despicable” and a “threat” when really, what are heterosexuals to homosexuals, if not different, too?

Haruki Murakami has written 13 books since his debut as an author in 1985.  ‘The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle’, the Yomiuri Literary Prize winner book sealed Murakami’s place among other great Japanese authors such as Yukio Mishima and Kenzaburo Oe or his Franz Kafka award-winning ‘Kafka on the Shore’ are some samples of his works.

In Sputnik Sweetheart, following Sumire’s journey of realizing, agonizing and suffering with her love for Miu, a much older women with a past, rewards the reader with a lesbian-themed twists and paradoxical plots unique to Murakami.  Throw-in an incidental a gay male couple along the Jack Kerouac obsessions and skinny-dipping in the clear waters of a secluded Greek island, the LGBT reader finds an almost irresistible book.

First of all, let’s set the expectations, the lesbian relationship is not the primary focus of the book nor does the book have a satisfyingly tangible ending for any of the potential couples (or for the book for that matter).

However, unlike the typical tease of Banana Yoshimoto’s books where the reader is left wondering if the protaganist and her close female friend are ever going to be lovers, Murakami’s Sumire declares from the onset of her encounter with Miu that she “must be in love with this woman.. no mistake about it. Ice is cold, roses are red. I am in love”.

Through humor, what  Sputnik Sweeheart reader will not want to think of “cucumbers in a fridge on  a summer afternoon” next time he/she feels sexual desire for another person?, and through utter relevant irreverence “Miu’s mind went blank. I’m right here [stuck in a Ferris wheel gondola], looking at my room with binoculars. And in that room is me..”, Sputnik Sweetheart makes the reader realize that the journey the reader undertakes following the plot that brought K, Sumire and Miu together is more important than bringing a K and Sumire or Sumire and Miu relationship into fruition.  Through Murakami’s skilled navigation, the reader cannot help but winch in pity for both Sumire and K in turns.

With the brief preface on Laika, the first dog and living being launched into space by the Russian satellite Sputnik II, Miu’s explanation of the term ‘Sputnik’ to mean ‘Traveling Companion’, the line uttered by Miu, “that we were wonderful traveling companions but in the end no more than lonely lumps of metal in their own orbits”, the reader becomes the a companion detective alongside K in putting the pieces of plot together to determine the moral of the story. Just as Sumire reached to a conclusion at the end, the reader too will realize that relationships are journeys best taken together.

‘Confessions of the Mask’ by Yukio Mishima is a must read for the discriminate LGBT reader as well.

At approximately 9pm, the documentary by Poh Si Teng entitled “Pecah Lobang”, was finally aired at the studio within the Annexe Gallery at Central Market, during the Freedom Film Fest last Saturday. Touching mostly on the life and times of Muslim transsexual sex workers at the Chow Kit area, it drawn a crowd of 200 plus people inside. Besides the cast and crew of the documentary, notable attendees include members of the Legal Aids Centre, the PT Foundation crew including trans activist Ms Sulatri Ariffin and a surprise visitor who is a renowned transsexual advocate from Singapore, Ms Leona Lo.

The documentary as we have known, focused on the life of transsexual and sex worker Natasha, and other transsexuals’ turbulent living environment. The failed job hunts, family rejection and society’s ill-treatment of transsexuals was implied within the documentary as been caused by the ban on sex change surgeries in the early 1980’s upon the release of a “fatwa”. It displayed several verses from the Quran that were used to condemn transsexuals, and several profiled cases of transsexual discrimination. It also featured thoughts from several notable personalities including Dr Teh Yik Koon and Ms Sulastri Ariffin.

While the whole documentary was well meant to highlight the plight of the transsexual sex workers of Chow Kit, I felt I was watching somewhat a docu-movie prequel to the movie “Bukak Api”, which also outlined the problems faced by the transsexual sex workers community. “Pecah Lobang” went straight into several strong comments in defense of transsexuals and their lives, to touching overtures of statements that seemed to be asking for empathy from the audience. And it sadly played to stereotypes.

For instance, the continuous notion replayed throughout this documentary (it may be accidental) that transsexuals are prone to sex work, and on the streets even. It takes for granted that there is a community of transsexual sex workers that are not plying their trade on the streets, but as call girls in international escort websites, where the big cash is from the expats and foreign visitors. Also, there was a total lack of healthy transsexual role models shown, which would have placed a balanced positive view on transsexuals.

Also missing, was the lack of clarity on what is a transsexual with a transvestite, both under the umbrella term of transgender, as a segment focused on the recent case of transgenders arrested in Kelantan who were involved at a beauty pageant. I find it very unfortunate that the causes of transsexuality, from the chromosomal, biological and psychological circumstances especially recent research on the neuron count within limbic nucleus of the brain of transsexuals, were never mentioned. Instead the documentary presented viewers with the overused “they are human beings, they do not choose this life” mantra.

As for the reference of the religion of Islam used to create an atmosphere of rejection towards transsexuals, I respectfully disagree to some level. It is the cultural upbringing of the members of society that failed to distinguish gender from sex, along with the media toying with mak nyahs as jokes and comedy, as was seen in TV shows such as “Scenario”. Last month, “Gerak Khas” on RTM depicted transsexuals as sexed-up, campy and ill-mannered, while being a sex workers and also a drug pushers. It is these misrepresentations by the media that causes untrained minds to validate their prejudices.

And it is by these ill-founded dogmas that people resort to use religion as justifications for their bigotry against transsexuals and this not only includes Islam, but also Christianity. “Pecah Lobang” highlights only a fragment of the community; but other transsexuals, those who are well-adjusted in society to those who are struggling not to fall down the sex work trap hole, may feel themselves stigmatized by a public labeling all transsexuals as sex-workers. Perception is a dangerous element; as well intentioned this documentary is, it may infringe the safe space of transsexuals who do not wish for sex work.

During the comments session after the viewing of “Pecah Lobang”, I was disappointed with some of the members of the audience who seemingly questioned Ms Poh Si Teng for doing the movie in the guise of “well-mannered talk”. One question that came to mind was whether she is using the movie in a way of promoting human rights as to making the wrong, right. I would have told the gentleman, there is nothing wrong with simply existing without harming others. These were also other questions Ms Teng seemed to have difficulty in answering, which explains the countless “I do not know”’s she used.

It would note however, with all of this film’s shortcomings, I believe Ms Teng was very courageous to go out on her own way to do this movie. She had said that she is not a filmaker, rather a journalist, so I do admit I am sad that the issue of transsexuals was poorly researched by her. But this could be a good starting point for more openness in talks about transsexuals, and Ms Teng at 24, will learn in time. As a member of the Legal Aids Centre commented, she only scratched the surface of the transsexuality issues. But, this could be a start of more things to come, positive ones hopefully, for our community.