Taken from Time:

Oh, those crazy Hollywood liberals—show ‘em an opportunity to school the nation on civic duty, and they never fail to jump. While this tendency can sometimes lean towards the sanctimonious, not so this farcical Funny or Die skit, in which composer Marc Shaiman wrangled a glittering cast of comedians to weigh in on the controversial California ballot initiative passed last month.

As you might expect, “Prop 8 — The Musical” is Shaiman’s attempt to pick apart the anti-gay marriage lobby’s logic. Lending support to the cause are Jack Black, John C. Reilly, Maya Rudolph, Craig Robinson, Neil Patrick Harris and Allison Janney (who, in a cheeky nod to Mormons’ support of the ballot initiative, is listed in the title credits as “Prop 8 Leader’s #1 Wife”). Despite the collection of comedic chops on stage, the spoof isn’t trying to be funny. Well, OK, it is — but the larger point it intends to hammer home is that not all Biblical doctrine is eminently reasonable (avid West Wing watchers will recall one or two of these lines from a famous Jed Bartlet smackdown). And though the video isn’t a full barrel of laughs, it’s packed with its share of wit, with both Black (as a laid-back, rotund Jesus) and Harris turning in pretty good solos. (See the Top 10 Plays and Musicals.)

Shaiman, whose songwriting credits include showstoppers from South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut, called his troupe the “Sacramento Community College Players” because of outrage that the city’s California Musical Theater director had given money to a pro-Prop 8 campaign. In an interview with the New York Times, he calls the video a “viral picket sign.” Though he concedes he executed the idea “six weeks later than he shoulda,” he nailed the viral aspect. In just a few days, it’s racked up more than 2 million views.

lllllllllllll

A few days ago, while spreading such a story, they went back to the very essence of their tabloid style news reporting. Not only are they purposely sensationalizing an issue that could apply to all walks of society, they regressed to utter journalistic idiocy, and showed a total lack of professionalism in reporting, as they covered a story on transgenders with drugged coffee drinks. The Malaysian English daily, The Star, also picks up on Harian Metro’s sore thumb.

There are serious problems with this article here. In Harian Metro, transgenders were inaccurately called “golongan homosexual”, which means the homosexual community. Then, The Star calls all of them “transvestites”, which is entirely wrong at its context in describing transgenders who are actually transsexuals. The English daily then uses male pronouns instead of female ones, blatantly misrepresenting the transsexual female community as males. This displays total ignorance to the major differences between sexual orientation and sexual identity, that has already been established by major psychiatric establishments all around the world.

They then proceeded to paint transgender females as drugged coffee addicts that work overtime to sleep with men, in an attempt to demonize transsexuals as sex-crazed. And the purposeful use of the phrase “pakar sakit tuan” or men’s health expert, underlines their intent of exploiting a transsexual female’s male biology, and duly insults the knowledge of many medical professionals and doctors that work to correct the sexual identity of a transsexual. The grave mash-up of gender and sex in this article is appalling.

The title given by The Star for the Harian Metro article, ‘Kopi reggae’ keeps transvestites up and going”, discriminately paints all transgenders to be involved in this drugged coffee scandal. One should ask, what is the purpose of printing something this negative on a segment on society, one which many may not even be involved in prostitution or drugs?

The Star and Harian Metro should not have resorted to creating new stereotypes on an already painfully misunderstood community, and educate themselves on what Harry Benjamin Syndrome, transgenderism and transsexualism is all about. In this age, it is already a proven scientific fact that gender exists between the brains and not between the thighs. It should come as no surprise with Harian Metro’s reputation as a laymen’s paper, but The Star should be wary of their countless presentation of biased junk articles, to maintain their name as an authoritative source of news. In the end, we duly ask for both dailies would refrain from prejudicial practices, and be sincere in presenting their stories.

Tilted found this piece on Cake Eating Fool. With permission of the author, we’re reproducing it below.

Homophobia Must End By Mohamad Taufiq Morshidi

The current discrimination towards the gay community around most parts of the world is a disgusting and hateful form of intolerance. From the execution of two Iranian gays 8 years ago, to the murders of Lawrence King & Matthew Shepard and the creation of Proposition 8 in the US state of California, I have decided to speak out in defense of the gay community.

I am not gay. I am religious. I’m a Malaysian, and even though I’m a supporter of Barisan Nasional, I’m open minded and liberal. And I have something to say, both in my own defense and of the religious community that I am often thought to share offensive viewpoints with simply because I am a heterosexual, Muslim, Malaysian.

I am suppose to be one of them; I was raised to be one of them. And I have thought much about this issue. I am ashamed! I was taught to respect people who are different than I for whatever reason. I was taught that no one ever has the right to impose a religious belief upon another. That a mosque is meant to guide and teach you, but it can not, under any circumstances, coerce or impose its beliefs upon anyone. Not even my own religion has that right! I was raised to believe that the separation of church and state must never be bridged.

I was taught that the purpose of government was to establish ways for people to live together in peace. To make it possible for a wide variety of people with many different religions, customs, and beliefs to live and work together with respect for each other so that an economy could be established. That the state should never, ever, impose a religious belief unless the security and safety of that society and economy would clearly benefit.

We have here a group of people who have become an established segment of our community. A group of people who have the support of business as well as established religious organizations which support their rights, including the right to marry. Religious institutions which say they support gay marriage and wish to perform such ceremonies. Are we suppose to impose our religious beliefs upon them? If so, I don’t want to hear any snivelling when another religion’s beliefs are imposed upon yours. The separation of church and state must not be circumvented! Not even by vote, but most certainly not by a vote which is based upon religious beliefs which have no clear benefit to the state! Indeed, the state is harmed by this as all it does is cause misery and harm to a large minority segment of its own citizenry. This is the perversion!

Or, am I just suppose to ignore those people, those companies, those religious institutions? As if they don’t count? I will not be a part of this!

My Form 5 History teacher taught me about separation of church and state. And she taught me that as a citizen, it was my duty as a Muslim to find ways to work with people who are different than I, independent of my religious beliefs (except that I, myself, must live by them) in a manner which is courteous, respectful, and promoted peace. As a citizen of Malaysia, I was to conduct myself in a way that best promoted the welfare of my state and federal government with respect toward all the citizens in it. We were to live our Malaysian beliefs ourselves, but we weren’t suppose to shove those beliefs down another’s throat, nor to coerce anyone into living them, nor to impose those beliefs on anyone! Shame on you!

They also taught me that Allah s.w.t. (God) made me, just the way I am. They told me that God loves me just the way I am. They told me that this was true of every single person in this world, even those who were different than I, even those who didn’t believe in God at all. They told me that God is compassionate, merciful, and that all love comes from God. That He wanted us to do our best to be like Him. To try and do what He would want. To forgive others the way we want Him to forgive us. To not judge others. To love one another.

I don’t see my mosque acting the way they told me to. I know homosexuality is a sin. I know what the Koran says. I’m missing something, clearly. But I have friends who are gay. They are good people and I will not condemn them. That’s between them and God. I believe in a merciful God and I will trust Him to know what He’s doing because He made them, too, just the way they are and I figure that’s how He loves them.

I don’t know why my religion is becoming one of intolerance and hate. Or being represented so. I don’t know why gay people are having to bear this. I just know: I don’t want to be a part of it. And I don’t want people to think that just because I am a heterosexual Muslim, that I support what is being done to our gay community in any way at all. And I beg everyone, please reconsider what you are doing.

To the gay community: I am very ashamed. I am sorry from the bottom of my heart.

Other than Saudi Arabia and the occasional Middle Eastern/Central Asian country, the common denominator of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights 1966 and International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights 1966 is Malaysia’s absence.

Yes, Malaysia is not signed on to the two most important covenants in the history of human rights. Compare this to the fact that Iran, Iraq, and Sudan have signed on to them! I will not make an issue of the efficacy (or lack thereof) of such “binding” covenants, having listed countries like Iran and Sudan that conspicuously breach them, but I will make an issue of the fact that Malaysia isn’t even bothered to sign onto them.

There has been talk about how Malaysians should go about bringing a heightened awareness of diversity to our country. In a country that bleeds and parades diversity, we are certainly very lacking in recognizing the diversity inherent within racial circles. Like class. And sex. And sexuality.

In a country where leaders declare that diversity is a phenomenon of foreign importation, we worry in wonder as to how our futures will flesh themselves out.

Homosexuality? Di-import. Safe Sex? Di-import. Demokrasi? Di-import. Cina dan India? Di-import.

Don’t you think that the zeitgeist of our fundamental Malay supremacists is a revolt against importation?

I love a line from a recent front page interview with the JAKIM Director-General. “But isn’t Islam import juga?”

But that just detracts from the main opinion of my short rant: No, there’s nothing di-import about human rights. There’s nothing di-import about gender-variance. There’s nothing di-import about racial diversity.

Indeed, these elements of divergence and convergence in our cultures are what makes us us. There is a whole fallicious assumption made when we try to prevent foreign imports - as if Malaysia pre-existed its history. The truth is, it didn’t. Malaysia is Malaysia because of its history.

There has been talk but the action is tentative. It is tentative because we do not know where to go. Do we organize a Mardi Gras and have leather clad daddies and drag queens parade the streets in a love for pride? Do we organize rallies lobbying for recognition of sexual and gender diversity? Do we launch nationwide awareness campaigns about hate crimes, safe sex, and sexuality?

Yes!

But also what about getting the government to start signing on to these covenants - as covenant to us, the rakyat - that the government is committed to respecting diversity? That the governent is bound to recognise the civil rights of its people, the cultural and social minorities? That the government - whatver it does - does it without any form of discrimination for any one group of people?

Can we start with respecting and appreciating diversity? Because if we can’t and if we don’t, we won’t be able to continue with respecting same-sex unions, or the preferred gender of a person, or the freedom of professing one’s faith and culture.

Can we please get Malaysia to sign these international covenants?

Please?

Not the way you’d reasonably expect with guns and bombs. Usually it’s stealthily given away bit by bit, inch by inch without barely anyone noticing. And it’s all for our own good.

First they tell us to stop doing supposedly unhealthy practices such as arcane methods of meditation / exercise for fear of corrupting influences. We shrug and agree since it’s for our own good.

Then they censor movie and books to shield us from perfidious degenerate thoughts. We shrug and agree since it’s for our own good.

What kinda inappropriate dressing is this!!
Then they tell us to dress appropriately for our gender to ward away unwanted harassment. We shrug and agree since it’s for our own good.

Then they separate cafes / stores / cinemas according to gender for our own convenience so we don’t feel intimidated. We shrug and agree since it’s for our own good.

Then they tell us to stay home during certain hours of the night to be safe from harm. We shrug and agree since it’s for our own good.

Then they keep us away from schools and universities since unhealthy wicked practices are being spread there to divert us from the true path. We shrug and agree since it’s for our own good.

Then they extend the curfew hours to keep us home. We want to shrug and agree but we know it’s wrong. By then we want to raise a protest but it’s already far too late. The gates are shut. And we are all cabinned, cribbed and confined.

Why are we cabinned, cribbed and confined!!
And it all happens just because we shrug and agree.

So listen to the near-prophetic words of lil Marji in Persepolis. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

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.”)

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.

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.

____________________

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?