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.”)

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.

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.

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.

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. Nik 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? At 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

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.

“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.

Pictures from the San Jose March against 8

“We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home”	Love the captions: “Str8 against H8″, “HE created Adam & StEve” etc.
Her gay son was killed in 9/11 but she had nothing but a message of love and peace	Crowd listened attentively to the speakers

Courtesy of Bernama:

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 13 (Bernama) — Inspector- General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan today warned certain non-Muslim non-government organisations (NGOs) to stop challenging the National Fatwa Council’s ruling that tomboyism is “haram”.

He said such action could affect national security and trigger retaliation among Muslims.

“I’m warning them and will take stern action as it involves national security,” he told reporters after delivering a keynote address at a seminar on Empowering Justice in Syariah Courts at the International Islamic University Malaysia, here today.

Musa said the recent street demonstration organised by non-Muslims’ NGOs on the ruling was uncalled for as it could trigger fights.

“This proves that they have no respect for other religion because the fatwa was issued for Muslims. Why do they have to be the one to demonstrate?” he said.

Last week, two non-Muslims NGOs — Katagender and Food-not-Bombs — staged a protest against the National Fatwa Council’s ruling that tomboyism, where a girl behaves or dresses in boyish manner, is forbidden in Islam.

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.

Homosexual flasher killed: Were sentences appropriate?       November 2008 <accessed www.fridae.com> Alex Au Do the sentences ranging from 18 months in a reformative training centre to 4 ½ years’ jail and eight strokes of the cane – and charges of causing grievous hurt – commensurate with the severity of the offence?

Singapore, like most countries in Asia, is not known for any pattern of gay-bashing. It thus caused a stir when the 23 November 2007 death of Suhaimi Sulong came to light. Six young men went on trial last month over the case.      The details of the incident do not make it a classic case of gay bashing. The perpetrators did not go out of their way to seek out a gay individual for beating up. There was a precipitating factor – Suhaimi, 37, had exposed himself to Ahmad Nur Helmy, 20, in the toilet – but the question that should be asked was whether the response of Ahmad and his five friends was proportionate to Suhaimi’s first move. This, even considering that Suhaimi had earlier approached Ho Ching Boon, 17, and Lai Chee Kuen, 17, “making lewd comments and offering sexual services”, according to the Straits Times. Suhaimi probably did not know that Ho and Lai were friends of Ahmad. The very fact that the six were put on trial showed that the prosecution did not think that killing Ahmad was proportionate. However, what caught many people’s eyes, and not only people from the gay community because I received a number of emails from straight friends drawing my attention to the case, was the fact that the charges had been downgraded from manslaughter to causing grievous hurt even before the trial began. “Bias!” some people said. Well, maybe, or maybe not. It’s worth taking a closer look at the details. The difference between manslaughter and causing grievous hurt Manslaughter – or “culpable homicide not amounting to murder” in Singapore’s legalese – has two grades: (a) If the act had been done “with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death,” the sentence would be up to life imprisonment, with a fine and caning. (b) If the act had been done “with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death,” then the maximum sentence is 10 years, with fine and caning. The reduced charge – voluntarily causing grievous hurt – also carries a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment, with fine and caning. You could therefore say that the prosecutor did not give very much away. What actually happened that early morning outside the Brown Sugar Pub in Orchard Towers? From various press reports, Ho and Lai walked away when Suhaimi propositioned them. But when Suhaimi propositioned and exposed himself to Ahmad in the toilet, Ahmad summoned his friends to chase and beat the older man. They punched and kicked him in the head repeatedly, stopping only when a taxi-driver intervened. While there is no evidence that the group intended to kill Suhaimi, when you kick someone in the head, won’t the average person know that it can cause death? Given that reasonable foreknowledge, wasn’t the original charge - manslaughter (b) - correct? Why was the prosecutor persuaded to reduce the charge? Did he come to the view that Suhaimi’s initial acts were provocative enough to lessen the responsibility of the six for the outcome? We don’t know, because none of the press reports addressed this question. Gay people are very sensitive to this possibility. There have been many cases in the past, in other countries, where courts have agreed with defence counsels that when one man makes a suggestive approach to another, the emotional response is understandably severe, and this, to a large extent, excuses the violent reaction that have often resulted in the death of the homosexual victim. This is known as the “homosexual panic defence”. Some Singaporeans thought that similar considerations swayed the prosecutor in this case. I don’t think we know enough to come to that conclusion. In any case, as pointed out above, the maximum penalties are the same. Yet it can be argued that especially because the penalties are the same, the act of reducing the charge sends the wrong signal. It makes the attack on Suhaimi a little less heinous than it actually was, calling it “hurt” rather than “manslaughter”. This, I think, is a valid criticism. The sentences All six accused pleaded guilty when they appeared in court in early October. Sentencing took place a few weeks later. For reasons not clear from press reports, the judge concluded that of the six persons confronting Suhaimi, three persons were less responsible than the others. They were sent to a reformative training centre, where they would be “confined for between 18 months and three years and put through a tough regimen of foot drills, counselling, education and vocational training,” said the Straits Times. The two 17-year-olds, Ho and Lai, were among them. So was Muhammad Ridhwan, 20. Perhaps their being under 21 had something to do with the judge’s decision, but it should also be noted that Ahmad was also 20, and he was not included in this batch. A good question would be what good reformative training might do. There seems to be a lot of emphasis on discipline (”foot drills”) and obeying orders. But the problem with homophobia is that in the minds of gay-bashers, they are not breaking orders. If anything, they feel justified in their violence, because they see themselves as enforcers of a moral code. They see their victim as the one breaking rules. Hence, teaching teenagers to obey rules in effect does nothing to address the roots of homophobic violence. Hopefully, the counselling component of reformative training would address this problem, but I honestly doubt it, for two reasons: firstly, the state does even not even see anti-gay prejudice as a problem, and secondly, due to the relative rarity of such cases, there is probably no program in the prison service touching on this subject. I am not optimistic that the months spent by these three youths in reformative training will do any good. As for the other three, two were sentenced to four years’ jail and six strokes of the cane. Ahmad, whom the judge said played a “key role”, was given 4 ½ years’ jail and eight strokes of the cane. Is that appropriate? I’d say, more or less. The sentences were about half the maximum allowed by law. Some may bay for more blood or longer jail terms. After all, a man died, they might say. But personally, I am wary of making this place an even more punitive society than we already are.