Archive | Life

Smile Politely and Agree

Posted on 23 November 2008 by Paul

How does freedom die?

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.

Persepolis
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.

Persepolis
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.

Comments (2)

Fatwa on Pengkid: Jakim clears the air (NST)

Posted on 23 November 2008 by Alex

Reposted from The New Straits Times, 23rd November 2008.

 

EXACTLY one month ago, the National Fatwa Council made a decision against women who dressed like men, denouncing it as haram. This has been met with anger, protest, and mainly, confusion, as to what exactly it is that the fatwa condemns. ANIZA DAMIS speaks to Malaysian Department of Islamic Development (Jakim) director-general Datuk Wan Mohamad Sheikh Abd Aziz to get a clearer picture of the issue.

The fatwa against pengkid as released by the National Fatwa Council on Oct 23:
“Pengkid, that is, women who have the appearance, mannerisms and sexual orientation similar to men is haram in Islam.
“We urge parents and the Muslim community to pay serious attention to this problem. Emphasis should be placed on teaching and guiding young girls especially on the aspects of their clothing, behaviour and appearance so that this problem may be avoided, because it runs counter to their fitrah and Allah’s way.”

(Fitrah: the innate natural sexual inclination that each human is born with, and which does not change. In Islam, if a person is born male, he is masculine and is sexually attracted to women; and if a person is born female, she is feminine and sexually attracted to men.

Q: What is the actual definition of “pengkid”?
A: Pengkid refers to a married woman or maiden whose appearance or image is like that of a man. Although this also includes the dressing of the person and not just the way she behaves, the way of dressing is just one aspect of what makes a pengkid.
A woman may be dressed as a woman, but her behaviour may be like a man, or it might be a combination of this. She might also have a sexual desire for women.
This brings it “hampir” (close) to the practice of lesbianism.

Q: Is it close to, or is it actually lesbianism?
A: We can’t say that all people who are pengkid are lesbians. That wouldn’t be right. That’s why I say it is “hampir”.
Hampir means she doesn’t do that act, but she is heading that way. For instance, Islam forbids people from coming close to zina. That means, not only is the act forbidden, but any act that may lead to the actual act is also forbidden.
I believe there is no religion that allows lesbianism or homosexuality. But anything that can drive or lead towards it should also be stopped. So, this is the culture that we are trying to stop.
Actually, we are trying to save these women (from be coming lesbians).

Q: When you translate this fatwa into English, the word “tomboy” is used instead of “pengkid”. “Tomboy” in English doesn’t have a sexual connotation. So, what do you mean by “dressing like a man”?
A: This is what we mean by “fitrah”.
A safe way is to teach children, whether male or female, from an early age to follow their respective fitrah.
If we allow this budaya practice (of pengkid) to continue to develop, it will become an tradition, and then a norm. When it becomes a norm, then people will think no longer think of it as a wrong. This is something we do not want to happen.
That’s why we want to go back to the fitrah. If you follow your fitrah, the chances of you being safe are higher, compared with if we were to completely give freedom until you could not differentiate between feminine characteristics and male characteristics.

Q: Unlike in other Muslim countries where a fatwa is an advisory, in Malaysia it is law. Do you really want to make this fatwa law?
A: In Malaysia, not all fatwas become law. It only becomes law when it is gazetted. And not all fatwas in Malaysia are gazetted.

Q: So, this fatwa has not been gazetted?
A: This is only at the national muzakarah stage. Most fatwas are not gazetted.
Usually, we look at what the subject is. If it is a fatwa that involves aqidah (Islamic doctrine), it is gazetted. This is because it requires follow-up action by the authorities, especially with deviationist teachings, or extremist or militant movements, as these involve issues of security and will need legal action.
But not all fatwas are gazetted. In fact, not all fatwas have to be gazetted.

Q: But in this case?
A: The gazetting of this fatwa is up to the discretion of the State. We prefer to look at it as an issue of social ill that we can overcome through dakwah (propagation of Islam through words and action) and education.
There are already provisions in the law for cases that have gone to the point of sexual crimes – such as being an active lesbian.
This decision was only just recently made. The process of making a fatwa is quite unique. The national fatwa council is a council that is appointed by the Council of Rulers. It’s members are the muftis of all States and five experts who are recognised by Jakim and appointed by the Council of Rulers.
If it is a national issue, we will discuss it and then standardise the fatwa at the national level. But for it to be an official fatwa depends on the religious authorities in the respective states.

Q: So, are there any states that want to gazette this fatwa?
A: You’ll have to ask the respective state religious authorities.
But in our opinion, this is a social ill, whereby there are many other ways in which to address it (other than legal). Like using wisdom and harmony.

Q: Is there any proof that if a woman dresses as a man, she will become a lesbian? What is the link between clothes and lesbianism?
A: Perhaps this is something that is different between the Islamic perspective and non-Islamic perspective.
Our approach is based on a rule of the maxim in Islamic jurisprudence – that we prevent the opportunity for some thing bad to happen. We believe this is a good approach in preventing something bad which is forseeable, based on research and other issues.
This principle is used when determining a fatwa.
Back to the issue of clothes. We have said from the beginning that dressing is not the sole factor (in lesbianism). It is more about behaviour. Don’t forget, a pengkid might be very feminine, but she is a pengkid because of her behaviour and sexual desires.

Q: So, a pengkid has a sexual connotation?
A: Yes. This is what we are worried about. What is meant by pengkid is a person who is inclined to be attracted to someone of the same sex. It starts with the clothes and the behaviour.
What we are most worried about is that this person might go to the extreme level. That is why we feel it is safer for each person to strive to follow or abide by his or her fitrah.
A woman would be more damai (at peace) if she had a man as a companion.

Q: At the same time, we can’t go out with a man who is not our muhrim, right?
A: True. But that (relationship) can be legalised through marriage. That is a different issue.
Women can be friends with women, and men can be friends with men. That is encouraged.
That’s why in the hadith: Two people (of the same sex) that love each other, meet and part only because of Allah.
What this means is, these two people are true friends whose friendship is guided through morals.
There is nothing that says women cannot love and respect each other. This is allowed in religion. What is forbidden is the extreme act. They don’t approach each other as a woman friend, but as a male companion. This is the problem.

Q: The problem is, when it comes to the level of society, the understanding of this fatwa might be different. For instance, at the moment, a lot of men’s clothes have become unisex for women. So, for instance, on the days where I am going to a particularly rough place, I might wear a shirt and pants, and I might not wear earrings or bright lipstick. If someone sees me at that time, what would be the conclusion that person might have on my sexual preference?
A: That is a different issue. We are currently talking about normal conditions. If we talk about situations like you mentioned, then that’s the same as a male policeman going undercover as a woman.

Q: The niat (intention) of the fatwa is one thing, but its application is another. What is going to happen if someone who has heard of this fatwa starts harrassing a woman whom he feels is dressed or behaving like a man?
A: Let’s forget about the possibility of harassment by men.

Q: We can’t.
A: Alright. But what if the woman who behaves like a man attracts the attention of other women. Doesn’t that also present a threat of harassment?

Q: If that’s the rationale, then I’m better off dressed as a man. For, if I were to dress as a man, I would be harassed by fewer women than I would be by men, were I to be dressed as a woman.
A: (laughs) Actually, the danger to you would then be that you would be harassed by men, and there would be a new harasser (women).
But a pengkid is not just about dressing. Dressing is just one of the factors. A woman might have a husband, wears a baju kurung and tudung. But if her behaviour and desire is towards other women, this is where the woman starts to neglect her husband or even leaves him for her woman companion.

Q: And if the woman leaves her husband for another man?
A: That is another issue.
What we are discussing right now is the destruction of the family institution, which would affect the children.
And, it might even come to a point sometime in the future, where it could affect the grandchildren. Because these days, as Joan Collins says, even grandmothers are well turned out.

Q: Surely grandmothers are allowed to dress up.
A: Yes, but think of the effects on the grandchildren (if the grandmother is a lesbian). This threat is not impossible. It might happen to young grandmothers, who might have an interest in other women.
So, don’t think that pengkids are just a danger to maidens. It is also a threat to (married) women. Whether she is a maiden, a married woman, or even a grandmother, she can be exposed to this problem.
Dressing is just one factor.

Q: What is in our hearts is not visible, whereas clothes is something people can see, and that is the thing upon which people can take action. What we are afraid of is the harassment and victimisation of women, whom you say you are trying to save. Your fatwa can have negative repercussions.
A: What would happen if we didn’t give any advice or reminders to save our people? If we allow this problem to continue and expand, our eastern culture will be no different from the western culture. Where would our religious values go?
We consider the fatwa as an advice to parents. Parents love their children. So, this opinion (fatwa) is to save the next generation. At the same time, we have to remember that a fatwa also saves culture.

Q: I want to look at the application. What is are the characteristics or traits or elements that are considered feminine? What is the dresscode for women?
A: The dresscode for Muslim women is based on ensuring her safety, honour and femininity. So, the issue of the shape of dress, colour and so on is not an important issue.
In Islam, the important keyword is aurat (parts of the body which must be covered). In the context of a woman, she must not only be fully covered (except for the face and hands), but her clothes must not show the shape of her body.
For instance, people always say Muslim women cannot wear jeans. But who says they can’t? In reality, Muslim women can wear jeans in public, but it has to be complemented by other things so that the shape of her body will not be revealed.
But when she goes into her own house with her family members, the jeans doesn’t become a problem.

Q: The problem with the possible interpretations of this fatwa is that it may go back to the days when women were oppressed. It might even, to an extreme degree, lead people to say that women should not be engineers.
A: Does Islam forbid women from being engineers?

Q: No, it doesn’t. But what is the practice?
A: A practice may be a tradition, not religious teaching. We are talking about religious teaching.
We are in Malaysia, not Bangladesh where they mix-up their cultural practices with their religious practices.
Over here, we are talking about what is taught by religion.

Q: That is because you are a thinking person. You cannot assume that everyone in society is going to think like that.
A: That’s why we issued the fatwa with an explanation, so that people would understand that this is a religious requirement. It is not a restriction that has nothing to do with religion.
Also, don’t forget that religion is actually very flexible. A lot of traditional practices can be accepted into religious practice. The principle of Islamic jurisprudence is that an adat tradition) can be accepted as hukum (decision). But that depends on what kind of adat. Certainly, not an adat that oppresses women, for that is not in keeping with the demands of religion. It is Islam that freed women.

Q: But, unless they studied the history of Islam, not a lot of people realise how much Islam liberated women. Especially now, if an outsider looks at Islam, it seems as if Islam oppresses women. This is because of what is practised, which may not be the same as Islam teaches.
A: I think a lot of people think a dresscode is restrictive. If you wear certain clothes, does it mean you cannot be a careerwoman, a professional who is successful in her field? No. This proves that religion does not oppress women. What restricts you is not your clothes.
People use the Islamic dresscode as an excuse to say that Islam oppresses women.

Q: Be realistic. Malay culture is very patriarchal and very male-oriented. A fatwa that starts out with good intentions could be deviated and used as a tool for something else. For instance, if you were the creator of something as potent as nuclear energy, surely you would want to think of a way to ensure that it is not used for the would want to think it is not used for the wrong reasons. If a state gazettes this fatwa, how is it going to be enforced? For instance, not every Muslim woman wears a tudung. So, in order to enforce the fatwa, you have to first verify that a woman is a Muslim. Does that mean that an enforcement officer will stop the woman, ask to see her identification card (IC), look to see whether she is Muslim, and then if yes, proceed to look her up and down to assess her dressing? Most enforcement officers are men – so, isn’t this going to be a problem?
A: That is deviating the issue from the real issue. The real issue we are concerned about is when a married woman is attracted to a woman. Or when a young girl who is growing up and her social process is not in keeping with her fitrah. In the long run, this won’t be good for her. Men need women, and women need men. This is what we are trying to protect.
If we did not remind people that this is a deviant trend, are we willing to see how the next generation is going to look like?
This fatwa is intended to bring about good. Even though it is advice and guidance for Muslims, it is actually suited to the universal values of other religions.
Does Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Taoism, or Buddhism allow lesbianism?

Q: Do you consider homosexuality to be a ‘contagious disease’?
A: If we look at Eastern Europe and some states in the United States, there is a move to legalise these things there, from pressure groups or international organisations. But this is a social movement. We are looking at the issue from a religious perspective.
NGOs in Malaysia’s who held demonstrations protesting this fatwa were largely non-Muslim – the people behind the demonstrations. That’s why I want to ask: In their religions, is lesbianism allowed?

Q: Maybe you are mistaken in thinking that they are objecting to your stand against homosexuality. Perhaps they are objecting to your restricting women’s rights to choose their own clothes.
A: If that is true, then that means they don’t understand the real issue.
The issue of pengkid is not just clothes. We have stated clearly that among the characteristics of a pengkid is the dressing. What we are discussing now is pengkid.

Q: Let’s look at khalwat (close proximity) raids. When enforcement officers suspect khalwat is taking place, they knock on the door in the middle of the night. The occupants of the residential unit, who are not up to any mischief, are sleeping. They are all chaste girls and there are no men hiding in the unit. But the enforcement officers barge in and start taking photos of these girls in their sleepclothes. These sleepclothes are not of the same standard of decency that a woman would wear if she were receiving guests in the daytime. But these enforcement officers take their photos in this state of undress. Isn’t this an offence? Whereas, the initial intention of the rule is different. But because the rule is there, it can be misused by an enforcement officer who has different objectives. This is the concern.
A: I think we’ve gone into a different topic. I don’t think we’re talking about pengkid anymore.

Q: This is about the repercussions of a fatwa. The niat might be good, but the application might be wrong. If we are realistic, we will admit that not all things that start with good intentions will end in goodness.
A: But we have to differentiate between principle and enforcement.
The principle of a certain law has to exist. It doesn’t mean that just because we are worried the enforcement will be wrongly applied, we don’t establish any laws.
For instance, we have the Penal Code. But there are people who misuse the Penal Code. We know that the police have been known to do this.

Q: But the police have their Standard Operating Procedures.
A: The Jabatan Agama (religious department) also has an SOP, but not a lot of people know that.
Just because one or two people masquerade as police, or there are some unethical policemen and do not observe legal procedures, does this mean we shouldn’t have these laws? What would happen to society?
We are talking about principles. We have to be clear on what is right and what is wrong. We have to do this either through codifying laws, or through a fatwa that gives guidance.

Q: Is it not possible, when issuing a fatwa like this, to add a proviso that says that the people who can guide or advise these women are only the parents and husband, and everyone else cannot disturb these women? Because if you really want to guide these women, then at least it would limit it to the people who are really involved in these women’s lives, rather than strangers who would just harrass.
A: That would not be practical or realistic at all. And it runs counter to the spirit of dakwah.
It is true that the parents, immediate family, and husband or wife have a right and responsibility to advise and protect their family members. A husband has the responsibility to protect his family. A wife has the right to advise her husband and family. But this does not mean that other people in society do not have the right in religion to correct a certain situation. In other contexts, we have such a thing as social responsibility. We cannot say, in the instance of hooliganism, that only the parents or elder siblings should admonish the child.
When it is something that can bring about ill, the person closest to the offender has a greater right and responsibility to take reparative action, but other people also have a role to play. That is the difference between seeing things from the perspective of dakwah and the western perspective of human rights.

Q: As we have seen from history, everytime society says it wants to protect women, in the end, it is the women who become victims.
A: I would like to challenge international research agencies to do a study on where women are safest.
Actually, it is women who live in a community that practises Islam that are safest. Because they are protected.
We can prove this with research. And don’t take isolated cases. Isolated cases exist everywhere.

Q: As a journalist, I go to all sorts of places in Kuala Lumpur and Malaysia. And, 99.99 per cent of the people who harass me are Malay men.
A: That’s why I said, “people who practise Islam”. Islam meaning protecting women. Those who harassed you were Malay men, but not Muslims who practise the teachings of Islam. We are talking about the teachings of Islam, not Malay culture.

Q: But laws are not for the good people, they are for the bad people. Good people, even if there are no laws, would still be good people.
A: If we had no laws, a social system that could guide and advise us, or religious teachings or fatwas, do you think this world would be peaceful?

Q: Yes.
A: What I mean is, our lives would be more secure and harmonious if there were laws and a social system that protected us. In the context of Islam, laws are Shariah (a way of life).

Q: If this fatwa is to stop homosexuality…
A: Lesbians. It’s to stop lesbianism.

Q: Why didn’t you come out with a fatwa reminding everyone that homosexuality – male or female – is wrong, and homosexuals should be advised about this. Why did you focus only on lesbians?
A: Everyone understands homosexuality and lesbianism. In the context of religion, this is a deviant practice.
But we are focusing on pengkids right now because it is a new trend that some people in society feel is not wrong. They see it as only a trend. If you only look at clothes, it might be seen as only a fashion trend.
This is what worries us.
As far as leabianism, homosexuality and zina (illicit sex) are concerned, there’s no need for a fatwa, because the rules are already clear on this. I think everyone already understands this. And all the provisions exist in law.
A fatwa focuses on new things where society is uncertain of its rightness or wrongness.
As a result of Jakim’s study, we concluded that this is a trend that our society seems unclear on, and even Muslims think it’s a normal thing. And this is something we are concerned about, because it can influence our children.

Q: You don’t think it’s a problem when, instead of casting your gaze downwards (from looking at people from the opposite sex), you are looking at the way a woman is dressed and assessing whether her clothes are too tight or too manly?
A: Actually, we don’t have to stare; it possible to see with just one glance. (laughs) Staring at a woman is a separate sin.

Q: Isn’t it that in Islam what is important is what is inside – your substance – instead of what you are wearing? Your niat is the most important, isn’t it?
A: That’s incorrect. Your interpretation is wrong.
Yes, it’s true that there is a hadith which says that our actions are judged based on our niat, and there is another hadith that says that Allah looks at our hearts. That’s because iman (faith) rests in the heart; and the Allah’s acceptance of our actions is based on our niat. That is the way Allah judges us.
But, in life, we are also bound to the principle that humans judge based on what humans can see. What is hidden can only be judged by Allah.
For instance, even if I cover all my aurat perfectly, like today when I am wearing the baju Melayu, but if I have an evil heart, even though I am dressed like a true Malay, or true Arab, or true Indian, I would still be a sinner because of my evil heart. That is one way Allah judges you, according to what is in your heart.
But Allah also judges you on your actions. In this context, there are things that are forbidden and things that are encouraged.
In dressing, for instance, the question of intention is one thing.
If I were to dress in such a way that exposed my aurat, even though my intentions are good, it is still an offence. The same as if I am properly dressed but have bad intentions. I have still done wrong.
You are judged on what is in your heart and how you translate that intention in your actions.

Q: Is it possible that there is a misunderstanding that a woman who dresses as a man will become a lesbian?
A: It looks as if we are only discussing clothes today.

Q: This is the thing that has created uproar in the month since the fatwa was announced.
A: But in the fatwa council’s discussion about pengkid, we spent less than five minutes talking about dressing.
If you look at our explanation on the issue, you’ll see that “pakaian” (clothing) is only mentioned a couple of times.

Q: But that paper is not issued to everyone. That is why this misunderstanding could have occurred. I myself looked all over the Jakim website for it.
A: We haven’t had a chance yet to explain the fatwa.

Q: But it’s been a month since the fatwa was announced.
A: When we announced the fatwa, we did try and explain it, but during the question and answer session with the Press, what they focused on was the issue of dress. Society has been misled by the media that is biased and prejudiced. This is not fair to the fatwa council.

Q: In one month, there has been no clear explanation of the fatwa. And so, it is not surprising if people are angry, because they do not understand the fatwa. And one month of no explanation is inexcusable.
A: Why is the media only just meeting us after one month? That has to be answered.

Q: I have been trying to see national fatwa council chair man Prof Datuk Shukor Husin for a while now.
A: Well, unfortunately, he’s been rather busy, visiting three countries and only just came back (two weeks ago).
But to completely put the blame on the media would not be right either.
We make only the decision of the fatwa available to the public. But for researchers or academics, they can come for the detailed explanation and get it at any time. In fact, there are so many of these people, that we can sometimes barely attend to them. But even so, we are always very glad when people come to study the fatwas and ask how they are decided.

Q: How is a fatwa decided?
A: At Jakim, the process is based on studies. We prepare a research paper. If the issue concerns Shariah, we bring it to the panel that studies shariah issues, which consists of muftis and academics who are not Jakim staff and who are free to voice their opinions. We also have women.

Q: When deciding on this fatwa, were there any women involved?
A: After undergoing that process, we then bring the matter to the national fatwa council committee. We also have women in this committee, but not many people know this.
But the issue is not whether the fatwa was brought out by men or women. What is important is that research is done in a comprehensive manner. If a person is an expert, we invite that person to contribute.

Q: If a matter involves women, women should at least be consulted. Because Puan Najibah (the Jakim public relations officer) and I,for instance, both know that even if we were to dress up as men, we wouldn’t be attracted to women. If I were to dress you up in a baju kurung, do you think you might be attracted to Ustaz Zakaria (his special officer)?
A: (laughs) Oh dear, this is starting to feel like a court room.
Don’t forget, even though we might not be attracted to people from the same sex, they might be attracted to us.

Q: Well then, you shouldn’t dress like a man, otherwise I might be attracted to you…
A: Well, that would be in keeping with our fitrah. If women liked men, and men liked women, that is fitrah, and it can be legalised through the institution of marriage.

Q: What would happen if you dressed as a man, and a gay man was attracted to you?
A: That would be a different sort of crime.
That’s why I keep repeating, it’s not all about the clothes.
A man could seem extremely masculine, but in reality he is gay. What is at fault is not his clothes, but his homosexual behaviour.

Q: Surely you can see how, from a fatwa that had a good niat, in just one month it could be interpreted in so many different ways. That is the nature of mankind, to misinterpret things. And we haven’t even got to the enforcement stage yet.
A: We aren’t talking about enforcement yet. If the matter gets to an extreme level where, if we do nothing, the homosexual and lesbian culture becomes widespread, we might have to have enforcement. We are trying to save society.

Q: Let’s say if I were to dress like my photographer just now, and I get harassed by people because of this fatwa. What is my right? I’m not talking about enforcement by law, but enforcement by society.
A: If we talk about enforcement, it’s only the legal authorities, who have been given enforcement powers. People who have not been given enforcement powers are breaking the law if they try to do the enforcing. There are provisions to deal with those kinds of people.

Q: Is anyone going to be given the powers to enforce this fatwa if it is gazetted?
A: We already have religious department enforcers. In any case, at this moment, we have in the law what is called musahaqah. That is, when a woman has sexual relations with another woman.
(The penalty for this offence is a fine of not more than RM5,000 or imprisonment of not more than three years, or whipping of not more than six lashes, or a combination of any of these).
So far, there hasn’t been a case yet, but surely we’re not going to wait for this problem to arise before we do anything. We hope it won’t ever happen, but whatever that might lead to crime must be stopped. The same with any crime. If you study criminology, in any criminal system, if something can lead to a crime, there will be laws in place that will prevent this.

Q: But in the criminal system, a person is only penalised when he has committed the offence and is proven to have committed the offence.
A: That is another matter.
But if it is an act that may lead to a criminal act, in any criminal system, whether in the east or the west, there will be a system that will obstruct it.
For example, you need a licence to own a firearm. If you don’t have a licence, you can be penalised. This is to prevent a crime from happening.

Q: Can clothes be a weapon that can lead to a crime? The reason I keep coming back to this issue is because it is part of the wording in the fatwa. And, it is actually quite possible that people will forget the initial intention of the fatwa was to curb lesbianism, and focus solely on harassing women who seem to be dressed like men.
A: I think we have become stuck in a western values trap that makes the dresscode an excuse to denigrate our religion and values.

Q: But it is not westerners who are going be the main cause of the problem. It will be easterners like us.
A: I meant in the way we think. We are thinking about fiqh and unhealthy practices, and we have fallen into this trap. We have to look at it from the right perspective. We should prioritise the implied meaning of the fatwa.

Q: If everyone we were dealing with were all good men and women, this wouldn’t be a problem. The problem arises when there are people who do not think logically or rationally.
A: We will deal with that with the values and laws that already exist. If someone infringes on the rights and privacy of another person, I think we are not short on laws to deal with that.

Q: What if someone says, “Oh but the fatwa says I must advise or admonish you,” but the focus of admonishment is something altogether different?
A: Does the fatwa says that all people must be involved in this? The fatwa determines the principle, as a guideline for family members, educators. If we do not create this awareness, I cannot imagine what the character of Muslims or non- Muslims will be like in the future. Will Kuala Lumpur be another Bangkok or Helsinki?
We want our own Malaysian identity. Particularly as Malaysia is a Muslim country. We are admired for our strong faith, and for the moderate approach that we practise. It is a model for the entire 56 OIC (Organisation of the Islamic Conference) member countries.

Q: Is lesbianism or homosexuality a ‘contagious disease’?
A: Do we want to wait for it to be of disaster proportions before we take action?
Looking at the current reaction, it will become a disaster if we don’t do something now.

Q: But if you go to western countries, it doesn’t appear to be something that’s ‘contagious’.
A: Can you prove that it isn’t?

Q: Can you prove that it is?
A: We can prove it. Because it spread to this country. That’s proof that it’s contagious. That’s dangerous.

Q: Did it come here, or was it already here?
A: If each ethnicity practised its traditional culture, the issue of pengkid would not arise. Look at how traditional Malay women dressed, and look at how Indian and Chinese women dress. Looking at just the ethnic elements and not the religious ones, you can tell an Indian woman from an Indian man from the way they are differently dressed according to their tradition. 
Just like Muslims, if we all observed the pure and clean elements of our culture, the issue of pengkid would not arise.

Q: When would you say this problem came to Malaysia?
A: It’s been around quite a while. But it was imported.

Q: Is it bad because it was an import? Islam was imported in to this country, too.
A: That’s true. Something is not bad just because it is an import. What matters is whether it has positive or negative values. If we import nano-technology, for instance, then that is an example of a good import.
For Jakim, which is an Islamic institution, what is not a good import is anything that contradicts the teachings of Islam.
All people of any religion or culture should be worried about this problem, because it can bring about social decline. Why should it be just Islam that has to do this battle? And why are people looking askance at us, whereas we are trying to save all of society?
If people of other religions also obeyed this fatwa, I’m certain it will bring good to Hindus, Buddhists and so on.
We are talking from the perspective of religion. Is what we have outlined from the Islamic perspective not good for Malaysians who are not Muslim?
If we respect this fatwa, will it visit harm on Muslims?
I would like non-Muslims in Malaysia to understand that the teachings of Islam is for the good of all.
People should realise that if the application or enforcement of a law is flawed, it is the fault of the person who is enforcing, and not the law itself. Because otherwise, does this mean we should abolish moral law?
When people question why should there be people to decide what we can wear, they are no longer questioning the enforcement of the law anymore, but the law itself.

*********************************************************************

Sexuality has little to do with dressing

By: Tan Choe Choe

(source)

 

Photographer Shiraz Yasmin Ali, who is happily married with two children, dons shirts and pants most of the time because it’s convenient and safe.

Photographer Shiraz Yasmin Ali, who is happily married with two children, dons shirts and pants most of the time because it’s convenient and safe.

 

KUALA LUMPUR: Can you tell a person’s sexuality by the way he or she dresses?

Before you attempt to answer that question, let’s look at a picture of Shiraz Yasmin Ali. 
Can you tell whether she is engaging in homosexual behaviour? 
Shiraz, 43, who’s been happily married for 18 years and is a doting mother of two beautiful girls, is a New Straits Times Press photographer.
A big part of her wardrobe is made up of shirts and pants.

“Dressing like this is just more convenient. As a photographer, I sometimes have to climb up to high places or get wedged in tight spots just to get that perfect picture. 
“You can’t wear a skirt and expect it not to get in the way,” she said.
Occasionally, Shiraz feels it necessary, for safety reasons, to reinforce the perception that she’s a boy by pairing her short crop with a cap, especially when she’s driving home late by herself at night.
“A lot of nasty things can happen to a lone woman driver,” she said. 
But Muslim women like Shiraz may soon lose their freedom to dress as the National Fatwa Council has ruled that tomboyish behaviour is forbidden in Islam. 
On Oct 24, council chairman Datuk Dr Abdul Shukor Husin reportedly said the decision was prompted by cases of young women behaving like men and indulging in homosexuality.
But how do you enforce this fatwa on a woman like Shiraz, who may decide to go baju kurung on you anytime of the week? 
Shiraz thinks it is “wrong and unnecessary” for the council to dictate how women should dress or wear their hair. 
Her sentiments are clearly demonstrated in the case of self-confessed lesbians like Portia de Rossi, 35, and Lindsay Lohan, 22.
De Rossi is an actress who is perhaps best known for her role as lawyer Nelle Porter on the famous television series, Ally McBeal.
She also played Lindsay Bluth Funke in the multi-award-winning television sitcom, Arrested Development.
In 2005, this sexy Australian admitted in various interviews that she was a lesbian.
And on Aug 16, she married popular talk-show host and comedienne Ellen DeGeneres. 
Young American actress and singer Lohan is now openly in a relationship with celebrity disc jockey Samantha Ronson, 31.
It is quite apparent that both de Rossi and Lohan do not exhibit any tomboyish behaviour; nor do they dress boyishly.

Comments (6)

Transgender Day Of Remembrance

Posted on 21 November 2008 by jiahuilee

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.”)

Comments (2)

Tags: ,

Remembering Our Dead: Transgender Day Of Remembrance 2008.

Posted on 20 November 2008 by Yuki Choe

I was trying to get out of the Federal Highway that night. I was definitely not comfortable having over half a dozen motorbikes chasing after me. They were kicking my car as it slowly negotiated a temporary jam. Sensing danger I tried to call the police, but my hand phone fell and in the darkness my left hand frantically tried to find it. One of the riders then removed a helmet and crashed it against my door. I was a helpless tortoise target.

Then as the minor jam clears I saw a path to the expressway. I quickly turned into it. They were not supposed to be at the Federal Highway, they were supposed to be at their motorcycle lanes, I thought. But the police cannot stop these “rempit” menace, but then the police likes calling people like me a menace. I sped to the toll booth, and then enter the expressway. I ran at 170 kilometers an hour. The gang of motorcyclists soon vanished behind me. My car light was smashed. The right side of my car dented and there were scratches.

I was targeted by this group who kept on yelling derogatory names as I entered my car after dinner at an Indian-Muslim restaurant. I ignored them as I rushed in. They came with their bikes after me. I am a transsexual female. They are a transphobic motorbike gang. They have every intention of beating the hell out of me. If I died that night, police would just treat me as “john” doe. There would be no reports unless someone noticed I had gone missing and found my body. I may survive, but with an experience that will haunt me.

But I remember. And I am fortunate to still be alive to remember what happened. And I remember those who did not have this opportunity. Because they are dead. They are victims of hate crime and violence. Many have died, and many deaths go unreported because our lives are just not worth the time. But as we all grow and begin to show our faces to society, along with our lives and dreams, people will surely remember our lives.

And we will remember our dead. Today is the Trangender Day Of Remembrance 2008.

Tilted World, remembers.

Comments (3)

Tags: , ,

Ignorant or Homophobic?

Posted on 20 November 2008 by Sam Nasser

The recent fatwa issues dealing with women and tomboyism has more than caused a tiny ripple in the Malaysian pool of faith, sexuality and liberality. Despite the fatwa affecting no more than the Muslims themselves, many of us have taken an active stance on the Islamic ruling - more so on the feminist side of things, as the fatwa tethered on the borderline of the equality of women’s rights to men, nudging Muslim women who embrace physical exercise, or male fashion to be lopped together into a stereotypical category of lesbianism as a tomboy.

Which of course, completely ignores the fact that male fashion on females has been acceptable by society norms for decades - as well as physical exercise now embraced as a health tradition among people who intend to live a fuller, better life. Never mind that these women want to look good and feel good after weeks of long workouts at the gym, or the fact that some of the girls would like to take up some self-defense skills from a weekly kickboxing class - let’s stereotype them all together as a tomboy with intentions to one day have sex with other females, turning into a lesbian.

A Lesbian Tomboy?

As if it all was too easy for a woman to be swayed into doing the “scissor sister”, just by the activities she takes up! So a good wife is one who spends her time in the kitchen, cooking and cleaning day and night I assume? Womanly attributes you could say, as there’s no place for a woman to be out in the world working (or should I say: wearing the man’s pants), or trying to take up a hobby in sports, and the like? Because at the end of the day, all that she does will justify her beliefs and faith, and it will make her a tomboy and she’ll run off with the nearest lesbian? Really now?

Open up your eyes, Malaysia!

This is all a stereotypical view of how society views the community when it comes to being homosexual or effeminate. In fact, let’s put that away altogether now, and let’s just focus on the matter at hand. What the fatwa is suggesting is that the act of merely performing such rough, physical activities as a woman does not condone very womanly (or feminine if you will) behavior. It’s nearly the same as saying that men should not cook, clean, or do any other job except that of hard toil and labor - the idea that a man is only worth as much as the physical strength and stamina he displays, and a woman only as feminine and domestic as she comes. A really sterotypical look at how Neanderthal we all really can be sometimes in the modern world - the woman has no say, the man holds the reins and all is well (no wonder the feminists are screaming!).

Let’s face it: sexuality aside - all I’m trying to say is the way the fatwa is written makes it seem that men and women are easily persuaded to do the “dirty” just by the hobbies they take up and the clothes they wear. Pink, a seemingly gay color - will make men gayer. Trying to watch your waistline by going to the gym and working out is a no-no for the girls because it makes you a dyke. Come on, can you listen to how silly it sounds! It is understandable if the rules clearly forbid homosexuality - but to set a guideline about how a woman should carry or dress herself (especially when it comes to pants, short hair and very seemingly “manly” attributes) in prevention of sexual deviancy: it’s shallow. I don’t know how you would like to classify this idea even: the ignorance of mankind’s evolution or a misunderstanding motivated by homophobia?

Someone please give me the answers to this.

Comments (0)

It’s not about non-Muslims against Muslims!

Posted on 19 November 2008 by jiahuilee

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.

Comments (4)

PAS slams protest over lesbian sex fatwa

Posted on 18 November 2008 by jiahuilee

From malaysiakini.com.

PAS slams protests over lesbian sex fatwa
Nov 18, 08 11:07am
Hardline Islamic party has hit out at criticism of a fatwa or religious ban on lesbian sex, reports said Tuesday, after civil society groups held street protests over the decision.

MCPX

One of Malaysia’s highest Islamic bodies last month banned females from dressing or behaving like men and engaging in lesbian sex, saying it was forbidden by the religion.

pas 2007 muktamar 020607 nik aziz fingerNik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat, spiritual leader of the Islamic party PAS, said such rulings should be respected by all in Malaysia, which is dominated by Muslim Malays but also home to large ethnic Chinese and Indian communities.

“Not only non-Muslims but also Muslims cannot protest against any fatwa,” he was quoted as saying by the state Bernama news agency.

“All fatwa are based on the Quran and Sunnah (traditions of the Prophet Mohammed) and… to protest against them is like going against the teachings of Allah,” he said.

“Who are we to go against Allah’s commands, are we that great?”

Fatwa on yoga next?

tomboy fatwa protest 071108 backdropAt least two non-Muslim civil society groups have held street demonstrations in recent weeks to protest last month’s National Fatwa Council ruling.

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

A top Islamic cleric last month said the Fatwa Council was also planning to ban Muslims from the ancient practice of yoga if they engage in Hindu “religious elements” during the exercise.

Islam is the official religion of Malaysia, and many non-Muslims say they are concerned about growing “Islamisation” of the multicultural nation.

-AFP

Comments (1)

Fatwa Boleh Dicabar

Posted on 18 November 2008 by Gabrielle Chong Yong Wei

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.

Comments (1)

Tags: , , ,

Fight the H8 in Kansas City

Posted on 17 November 2008 by John Ong

 

Voice Comment: (206) 338-ONG-9

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 6 or above) is required to play this audio clip. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Ongline Podcast

:: download file :: listen on iPhone ::

Duration: 26:18 | 24.5 MB | Stereo |

Along with over 300 people, I attended the Kansas City’s own Fight the H8 rally. I chatted with many people and asking them why was it important that they are out there in the cold to be in this rally.

This will be one of the top issues of my life to fight for the right that was taken away from me simply because I’m gay. Yes, this is personal. You won’t stop hearing from me.

Listen to the audio podcast by clicking “play” on the audio player above.

Comments (0)

Nationwide Protest against Prop 8: Boston

Posted on 16 November 2008 by jiahuilee

“We didn’t vote on your marriage.”

Nakedwriter covers the Protest Against Prop 8 from downtown Boston.

Under the dreary skies of a downpour, I trudged along the sidewalks to the meeting place. No one seemed to be around. I wondered if the weather had dampened our spirits. “Even God doesn’t like us,” remarked one of my co-protesters.

And then, almost without warning, a group of semi-soaked individuals, umbrella and poster clad, came marching upon us. “Gay, straight, white, black. Marriage is a civil right!” they chanted. I was engulfed by the crowd, pulled along, and marched closely, chanting:

Gay. Straight. Black. White. Marriage is a civil right!

Supporters we passed cheered and clapped, while drivers honked their support. We made our way, half wet, to the plaza in front of the Boston City Hall. It was quite empty, quite quiet.

It took another half an hour before the crowd swelled. All sorts of people, families, couples, individuals, college students, teachers, mothers, legislators, musicians, artists, bikers, were present with their chants and boards.

“Prop 8 = Hate”

“California. WTF??”

“Liberty and Justice for All.”

“All Families are Equal.”

Speeches soon began. They crowds chanted for equality. Boo-ed at DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). Chanted for change. Boo-ed at the people who mislabel us. Chanted for hope.

A journalist asked us, why were we internationals, unconcerned with the legalities of a foreign America, bothered about showing up. “America is seen as a pioneer. Change is followed elsewhere in USA’s footsteps…” pause “when it pertains the rights of LGBTQ,” someone said. “Because we’re fighting for an international cause: the right to love.”

“Because at home, women are told they can’t dress too manly,” I added.

Comments (4)