1. The Malaysian Insider（http://www.themalaysianinsider.com）
Why bully a pastor? — Shanker, 1 January 2012
JAN 1 — So, the latest act by Ibrahim Ali and his band of Perkasa men is to lodge a police report against Reverend Dr Eu Hong Seng for raising concerns revolving Article 153 of the Federal Constitution. The way these Perkasa boys reacted makes one wonder, if the mentioning of Article 153 by any non-Malay is like committing a deadly sin.
Then again, could we have expected anything less from the Member of Parliament for Pasir Mas? On that account, and true to his nature, he didn’t disappoint — neither us nor his taskmasters.
Our prime minister has only recently stated his intent to transform Malaysia to be the best democracy in the world; and yet — despite 54 years after Merdeka - we are instead left to rue individuals such as Ibrahim Ali, who take pleasure in being paragons of fear mongering, when pertinent issues surrounding Article 153 are highlighted. If national unity vis a vis nation-building is one of our goals, and the construction of Bangsa Malaysia is part of Vision 2020, then why should we cower from confronting stumbling blocks that stand in our way?
I attended the CFM Christmas hi-tea gathering, and I heard Reverend Eu’s speech, and amongst the things he mentioned in his speech was that, “in order to move forward as a nation, we must be willing to address impediments to our progress”. Surely, that is a wise call for mature and temperate heads to come together and discuss our way forward.
Reverend Eu further explained that the interpretation and more serious debates concerning Article 153 should be attended to by our parliamentarians. He also made it clear that ordinary Malaysians have no problem with the rights of the Malays and the Sultans as stipulated in our Constitution.
Where he did call a spade, a spade, was in pointing out what many people unfortunately experience, at ‘ground level’, and that is in the context of the implementation of Article 153, where unfairness of treatment rears its ugly head. It was on this otherwise valid remark that Ibrahim Ali and Perkasa pounced upon.
I would like to ask Ibrahim, at which point did Reverend Eu question Article 153, as the former purports that he did? Where was the “irresponsible provocation”? Should one deem it as irresponsible provocation, when another rightfully highlights weaknesses that permeate the system?
In fact, wouldn’t silence in the course of inequity, constitute a graver act of irresponsibility? It is within this context that Reverend Eu spoke of the precarious predicament of ‘shifting rights’ — a burdensome shadow under which many Malaysians have lived by and endured, hoping that their space wouldn’t erode any further. Sadly, more often than not, that has not been the case.
I stand in agreement therefore with Reverend Eu, that in the context of the implementation of Article 153 — yes, we do feel bullied. This is not a minority opinion, for many agree with Reverend Eu’s forthright observation.
This includes constitutional expert Prof Abdul Aziz Bari, who opined that Reverend Eu has not uttered anything seditious. Couple that with the support shown by MCA’s Young Professional Bureau Chairman Datuk Chua Tee Yong, as reported by The Star on 31.12.2011, and it appears that Ibrahim and Perkasa are the ones who are isolated in their warped and immature outlook.
As Aziz Bari reportedly told them, “grow up”.
At a time when winds of change are blowing across our nation, where ordinary but brave men and women are rising to the fore, the likes of Ibrahim are instead bent on stunting progress by injecting a cocktail of fear and suspicion into our national psyche.
Yet, this is precisely what Reverend Eu pointed out in his speech - that we live today in an environment where, “elected representatives can threaten the people and get away with it”. Perhaps Ibrahim forgot that infamous statement: — “people should not be afraid of their governments; governments should be afraid of their people”?
Ibrahim’s actions in calling for Reverend Eu to be charged for sedition, is but ample proof of such bullying. Has he ran “out of stock” of people to bully, that he must end 2011, by conspiring to bully a pastor? Surely, this is a new low even for Perkasa!
Unlike Ibrahim’s assertion, I believe Reverend Eu has no politician motivation. What I do believe is that, he is guided by a value system which is grounded in the Bible. In the gospel of Matthew chapter 23 verse 23, Jesus states that justice and mercy are significant elements of the law of God.
It would therefore ill behoove Reverend Eu, and all other Malaysians, if we go about our lives ignoring the call for social justice, especially when we live in a season where there is a dire need for it in our country.
* Shanker reads The Malaysian Insider.
・This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The Malaysian Insider does not endorse the view unless specified.
2. The Star Online （http://thestar.com.my）
An Islamic revolution, 1 January 2012
by SHAHANAAZ HABIB（shaz@thestar.com.my）
As Islamic conservatism gains ground in the country, progressive think tank the Islamic Renaissance Front aims to open up space for a more diverse discourse.
IT is a bit startling, and even a little unnerving, to open an English translation of the Quran and find the words “For People Who Think” on the first page.
But it is exciting because it actually makes people sit up, pause and think.
Which is really what the Islamic Renaissance Front (IRF) a two-year-old organisation promoting “progressive” and “democratic” Islam is trying to do: to make Muslims think, and think rationally.
The IRF is pleased that the authorities (specifically the censorship committee on religious books chaired by Perak Mufti Tan Sri Harussani Zakaria) have given the thumbs up for the Message of the Quran translated and explained by Muhammad Asad to be published and distributed in Malaysia.
This is the book that proclaims it is “for people who think”.
As IRF's founder and chairman Dr Ahmad Farouk Musa puts it, Asad's translation and commentary is contemporary because it gives a context and meaning to the words of the Quran.
It does make people think, he argues.
“The thrust of Islam is rational. If you believe religion is only about faith, then it would exist only as blind faith without you really knowing why you believe in it.
“And if we say that everything is codified in the Quran then what is the reason for God to give us the faculty of reason, our akal, our wisdom? If there's no place for reason at all,” he asks.
Dr Farouk makes it clear, however, that he is not questioning the rukun iman (pillars of faith) or the rukun Islam (pillars of Islam) which are sacred and fundamental to Muslims.
“We don't question things like prayer, fasting, zakat (tithes) or the Haj. But there are day-to-day activities where there are no strict rules and that is where we require the faculty of reason,” he says.
He believes that God did not lay down strict rules on political aspects because the Quran is timeless, universal and because Islam is relevant today as it was during the Prophet's time and as it should be in the 23rd or 25th century.
Why else, he says, would God in the Quran ask people to reflect upon God's creation, the earth, the sky, sun, moon and the stars.
“If everything is codified, then the Quran would not be valid because time and civilisation changes,” says Dr Farouk, a cardiothoracic surgeon and an academic who admires Muslim leaders like Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Tunisia's new leader Rached Ghannouchi.
The IRF drew inspiration from Islamic reformist thinkers like Tariq Ramadan (grandson of Hassan al Banna who founded the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt), Muhammad Asad, Malik bin Nabi, Muhammad Abduh, Ibn Ashur, Dr Salim Al Awa, among others who have pushed for a study or re-interpretation of the meaning of the Holy Quran and its objectives.
Like them, the IRF believes that people should not just rely on the text interpretation by clerics of yesteryears but to use reason to keep up with changing times.
Crucially, the IRF does not shy away from controversial topics such as the so-called proselytisation of Muslims, freedom of religion, Islamic state, hudud (Islamic criminal law) and even sex change.
All these, they believe, are and should be open for discussion and debate.
“Everytime you question something like hudud they say you can't question such things because this is Islam, this is the word of God. We want to dispel this. We are not questioning the religion or the laws written in the Quran but we are questioning whether we can achieve maqasid (objectives) if we implement the laws and the interpretation. That is okay to question.
“The maqasid, the higher intention of the syariah is to establish justice. But we can see that in countries all over the world where hudud is implemented, the segments of society that are punished are the poor and the women. Is this just?”
IRF's target is to engage the young generation of Muslims undergraduates, postgraduates, working professionals and young adults and empower them with knowledge, understanding and the desire to think things through rationally.
But Dr Farouk doesn't believe in getting them too young because “we don't want to be indoctrinating our ideas into young minds” and “we want to allow them to develop their maturity first”.
Nor does he believe in going for the older generation because “there's no point trying to change their minds because they have kind of made up their minds”.
“We believe in engaging people who can really think, discuss and debate with us from different angles.”
As the IRF is a think tank and an intellectual movement, Dr Farouk says, they want to keep it small. For now, it has 20 to 30 active members.
“We are very selective of our members. We don't want to be a cult or a mass movement like Abim and Jim (Jemaah Islah Malaysia). They are more about getting numbers but we are more into shaping minds.
“We want to be the voice of conscience. We want to keep the numbers small so that it is easier for us to maintain and educate and then perhaps it will grow,” he explains.
Two of the young men on board the IRF are Fuad Rahman who has a masters in politics and social philosophy and Edry Faizal Eddy Yusof, a graduate from the Multimedia University.
Fuad who is a research fellow with the IRF is happy with keeping things cosy and family-like.
“By keeping the numbers small and the network loose, people will be freer to speak their minds and be more comfortable. We have got to start with the base which are professionals and urban.”
But what religious credentials do these people have to speak about Islam?
“I am a Muslim so I have the right to speak about what I believe. Everybody needs to speak up. Different views are important in a democracy. You may think that the conservative voices are the majority but they may not be, they are just the most vocal,” says Edry.
Fuad believes that one does not need to have a turban and a long beard plus Islamic credentials to discuss Islam.
“Islam interacts with other issues with politics, with medicine, with arts, with literature so while you may be trained to memorise the Quran, you may not know the first thing about medicine or political science or philosophy.
“Religion is always interacting with all other spheres of society. That's why dialogue is important.
“Even though we are not classically trained (in Islam), we know at an instinctive and human level when something doesn't sound right.
“For example if they say women shouldn't be politically active', this runs against our human instinct and we will say wait a minute, why do you say that'. We want to bring discussion back down to earth,” he says.
This is not something alien or new to Islam.
Fuad points out that when Baghdad and Andalusia were the centres of Islamic civilisation, knowledge especially the sciences thrived due to the widespread appreciation that Islam is a religion of rational discourse which encouraged various debates.
“It's just that now we are at a different time where the more conservative elements have taken over and our position looks odd.
“Islam had a Golden Age because we were encouraged to think, explore and question whereas now everything is all taboo.”
He highlights that the first constitution ever written is the Madina Constitution where there is no mention of the hudud while the rights of the Jews are protected.
“It shows that people can come to a consensus in an open rational discourse about what they want in a society. This has been in our practice. We just have to rediscover it,” he adds.
Diversity of thought
If religion is taught and communicated well, says Fuad, people will be able to make the right decisions for themselves and there would be no need for snoop squads and a nanny state.
“Any moral judgment is meaningful only if it is made out upon free will.
“You can't force somebody to be good because then the person isn't really a good person if he is forced to be good. It has to be based on conscience. It is better that a person does something because he thinks it is the right thing to do than because he doesn't want to get caught.
“The choice to do good must come about freely and not coerced.”
Fuad, for one, has a bone to pick with the recent Himpun Rally held to protest against the proselytisation of Muslims.
Nobody can even agree on the number of Muslims who purportedly converted to Christianity, he says.
“One person says it's 260,000, another claims it's 135,000 but the official census says zero'. We can't even diagnose the problem because everybody is busy getting heated up and speaking out of knee-jerk reaction.
“They should just pause and ask themselves what are the facts, what are the problems, what is the solution. Nobody is taking the time to really reflect.”
Dr Farouk takes it a step further. He believes Islam allows a Muslim to leave the faith if they choose to, citing the often quoted verse 2:256 in the Quran that “there is no compulsion in religion”.
Dr Farouk says this verse only makes sense if there is no coercion in matters of faith.
Hence, Dr Farouk opposes any moves for a so-called Faith Crimes Act which he says is contrary to Islam.
Fuad feels that one peculiarity in Malaysia is that the Malay identity and Islamic identity are so closely defined to one another that any perceived affront against Islam is seen as an attack on the race.
He tells of Muslims who are not religious at all but become defensive of the hudud because they see it as an attack against the race.
In other countries, the definition of race and religion is far more elastic, he says, while “in Malaysia you can live your whole life in this country and never meet a non-Muslim Malay”.
That is why the Malay politicians can easily play the Muslim card, he opines, “They know they can get an audience that way. It is hard to have rational discussions when the sensitivities are so high. The easiest way to react is to get angry and that is what you have here.”
One of the ways the IRF discusses issues is through what they call a book dissection.
Here, one of them will present what he or she understands from a particular book of an Islamic scholar and the others will discuss it.
Something a little unusual for Malaysia is that most of IRF's events and discussions on Islam are in English.
Explains Fuad, the authors they discuss like Muhammad Asad, Tariq Ramadan, Malik Nabi and Abdul Wahab Effendi have not been widely translated into Malay.
“So a lot of the thinkers we turn to as resources appeal more to the English speaking crowd because the works are written in English.”
He notes that in comparison the Malay discourse on Islam is dominated by conservative writers who do not necessarily focus on contemporary issues.
This, he says, is because most of the Malaysians who study Islam have had their training and education in very conservative places like Pakistan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia so they are exposed to conservative thoughts and these are the kind of ideas and influence they bring back with them.
“You have people who memorise the Quran but cannot speak about the philosophy of it, the higher intention of it. The challenges in the modern world is so complex that memorising isn't enough,” he adds.
Dr Farouk chips in that those who know Arabic in Malaysia are not inclined to translate the works of Islamic reformist thinkers and seem to lean towards the works of orthodox conservative thinkers such as Saudi cleric Bin Baz.
He feels that due to the Saudis' funding of education, the Salafists movement is becoming very strong in Malaysia and are allegedly infiltrating various sectors.
Edry says they are friends with the Salafists and other Muslim groups too but unity does not mean uniformity.
Next year, the IRF hopes to bring the different groups of Muslims the Salafists, the Shi'ites, the traditionalists and reformists together to share knowledge and for discussions.
“Hopefully, we will be able to build bridges among these different groups.
“We are trying to make them understand that irrespective of the different beliefs, we still have a common ground to hold on (Islam) and a common understanding of what religion is. And that the differences are all political opinion.
“Nobody has done this here before. I don't know if it will be successful but the important thing is to try.”
・1995-2012 Star Publications (Malaysia) Bhd (Co No 10894-D)
3. Malaysiakini（http://www.malaysiakini.com）
Ministry dares to censure Nanyang, not Utusan, 1 January 2012
It is crystal clear that they only know how to bully the Chinese papers. How about Utusan Malaysia and the other extremists?'
Nanyang reprimand in keeping with PPPA reform
Bob Teoh: Under the Police Act, the police are authorised to use the words ‘Allah' and ‘Muhammad' in its coat of arms which appears in all police stations, uniforms, vehicles and official documents.
This is not restricted to Muslims only. Non-Muslim police personnel also wear the same coat of arms. When a non-Muslim is issued with a police summons, it bears the ‘Allah' and ‘Muhammad' words on the piece of paper too.
So Home Ministry secretary-general Mahmood Adam, tell us where's the threat to public order? You should be happy that Nanyang Siang Pau is trying to explain ‘hudud' to its readers.
Mahmood, please show cause why you should be more careful in issuing newspapers with show-cause letters or you may find yourself out of a job post-GE13.
Cannon: 'Allah' is not the personal name of a deity. The word prefigures Islam and had been used by the ancient peoples in the Middle East to refer to 'God'.
The use of the name has never been a bone of contention among citizens in other Islamic countries. In Indonesia, for instance, the name of Allah is used in the Al-Kitab, the Bible in Bahasa Indonesia.
Only in Malaysia is religion, including ‘Allah', as with almost everything else that Malaysians once used to share in common, politicised by self-seeking and self-serving politicians to divide the people.
The selfishness of our politicians knows no bounds. Malaysians are waiting for the outcome of the Court of Appeal hearing filed by the Home Ministry on the use of the name by Christians in this country.
Anonymous: It is crystal clear that they only know how to bully the Chinese papers. How about Utusan Malaysia and the other extremists?
Cala: By Mahmood's insistence that Nanyang should take the rap for using an inappropriate logo with the word 'Allah' in the two articles concerning hudud law, he is saying the ministry has been kind by not taking a more punitive action on the daily, while at the same time, the signal sent is that the ministry remains the final arbiter of what is deemed right or wrong.
But I am only interested on the consequence arising from his action. By his conduct, Mahmood raises the issue of democracy. Why is the said logo so sensitive? Was there a previous briefing/warning given to the media forewarning them from doing this act?
In the international political economy literature, many researchers are correct to question the compatibility of Islam/Confucianism/Catholics and democracy, and hence economic development. Mahmood's latest act may have ramification on Malaysia's economic growth and development.
Kee Thuan Chye: The Nanyang reprimand has nothing to do with the spirit of reform. This is the same old way the Home Ministry has been doing things. If it doesn't like something a newspaper does, it issues a show-cause letter. It's been doing it for decades.
A few months ago, it issued The Star a show-cause letter for the ‘Ramadan Delights' heading in its non-halal supplement. Same thing!
So what does the action against Nanyang have to do with reforming the PPPA (Printing Presses and Publications Act)? Just because it doesn't resort to suspending the newspaper's licence, it is to be taken as the new spirit?
I burst out laughing when I read what Mahmood said. What rubbish! I've been in the newspaper business for more than 30 years and I know this is the same old, same old.
Mahmood is desperately trying to make the ministry's deed smell good when it actually stinks.
Awg Damit: I'm waiting to see what action Mahmood Adam will take against Utusan's racists articles, particularly their creative lies and the antogonistic speeches by former PM Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Perkasa chief Ibrahim Ali.
Fair And Open: I say ‘Allah' all the time in front of my Malay friends. They don't have a problem with it. Umno is trying to show its ‘ketuanan' character, so this must be the real intention of Mahmood's action.
The Christians in East Malaysia and Indonesia refers to Allah as their God. It just shows how ignorant Mahmood is or how the BN propaganda create racial discord intentionally while stealing the nation's wealth for themselves.
Gen2: Besides the PPPA that needs to be amended, the mentality of the Home Ministry people also needs to be amended. It's only a logo, for Christ's sake!
Manjit Bhatia: Look at the Muslims in the Middle East, who have woken up to Islamic regimes that quash basic human rights in the most violent ways, who stand ready to drag their countries back from the Stone Age into the 21st century with the face of a more moderate, compassionate and liberal Islam.
It's you, Mahmood, and your crock-infested Umno regime, in conjunction with the turd-infested racist Perkasa and others like it who are imbuing Islam in Malaysia with a hugely discredited and immoral radical fundamentalism.
Jedi_Who: Beyond words. With so much stupidity and indignity in the ruling Umno government, can fairness and common decency prevail? I think not.
・The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments.
（End）
