Categories
Humor Pop culture

[2163] Of reality show looking for the one Muslim

Jakim, a Malaysian federal institution responsible for Islamic affairs, together with RTM, state-owned public television and radio broadcaster, are getting creative by producing a reality TV program aimed at “unearthing talent among children in various aspects of Islam“:

The progamme, which be will both entertaining and educational, was aimed at unearthing talent among children in various aspects of Islam, he told a press conference a the Federal Territory Mosque in Jalan Duta here Tuesday.

[…]

“What’s special about this reality show compared to others is that the participants will be evaluated by professional judges 100 per cent,”said Ibrahim. [RTM Produces Reality Programme Based On Islam. Bernama. February 9 2010]

Wow. Professional judges.

More:

Twenty children between the ages of nine and 14 who met the criteria required for the programme had been selected to participate in the show, he said, adding that only six of them would be able to make it to the final. [RTM Produces Reality Programme Based On Islam. Bernama. February 9 2010]

Would the child winner be certified as a true Muslim?

How about the losers?

Imagine the judges saying, “you’re fired”.

I know, I know, I should watch the show first before passing judgment but I just cannot help taking potshot at it. It is too easy.

Categories
Liberty Politics & government Society

[2149] Of there are Malay alternatives to the term Allah and tuhan

I have clarified my position regarding the usage of the term Allah by Catholic group and by extension, any term by anybody. This reasoning forms the basis of my position not to oppose Catholic group’s use of the term. Indeed, I consider this line of reasoning as not only the most convincing for me, consistent with my wider libertarian philosophy that I hold, it is the only line of reasoning that informs my decision not to oppose it. This is the libertarian position. The purpose of this entry is to address another position regarding the lack of alternative.

First, there are other reasons that have been bandied elsewhere. Arguably, the argument I have seen the most is based on historical development of the Malay Bible. As it goes, certain domination of Christianity — and Sikhs — have been using the term Allah well before the 1980s, when the government first interfered in the issue. Furthermore, the first Bible that used the term Allah to refer to the Christian god was first translated into Malay in the 17th century by a Dutchman as part of Christian evangelization effort in Southeast Asia. Notwithstanding the libertarian position, this argument is acceptable because it appeals to historical accident. Moreover, it demonstrates that the use of the term by Christian, obviously, as not a recent phenomenon. Yet, it fails to kill the suspicion that use of the term Allah is really for proselytizing activities, which is one major problem associated with the whole controversy to start with. This failure what convinces me that this particular rationale as imperfect.

I have no problem with propagation of any religion as long as those religions do not violate liberty but in addressing the issue in Malaysia, the suspicion seriously have to be addressed. To say that there is a law to prevent propagation of other religions among Muslims as an answer to that concern is utterly deficient because — ignoring its anti-liberty rationale — would such law work? Do differentiate the normative and positive aspects.

Despite its failure, I reiterate, the argument based on history may have some sway.

The second argument, which is the purpose of this entry, is the point that there is a lack of alternative to describe the term god. Ignore the fact that terms can be imported from other languages, even the Malay language has alternatives to Allah and tuhan. There are more than two words to describe the idea.

While I set out to disprove the argument that there is no alternative to the word Allah and tuhan in Malay, knowing that there are alternatives, my casual research on the language and terms to describe the idea of god really surprises me even.

Consider the fourth edition of R. O. Winstedt’s An Unabridged English-Malay Dictionary published in 1963. For god, Winstedt listed Allah, tuhan, dewa, dewi, dewata, indera and khalik. These words are detailed by Teuku Iskandar’s Kamus Dewan as published by Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka in 1970. Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka’s Kamus Dwibahasa Bahasa Inggeris-Bahasa Malaysia adds another one and that is betara. This has not even considered other words and phrases like penciptatuan and dato’ which can be made to mean the same as god within specific context.

There are also older words like Hyang or Sang Yang that are rarely used but remains Malay nonetheless.

I personally have never encountered the word khalik and betara but that shows how, even for a native speaker of Malay, the full breadth of the language is larger, as it should typically be, than everyday popular vocabulary bank. In this sense, arguing that there is no alternative is an act of sheer arrogance of one’s pool of knowledge. Arrogance can be justified but when it is based on ignorance, then humility must take its place.

Thus, this renders the argument of no alternative to naught. In fact, I consider such argument as a point in ignorance, if not outright dishonesty.

This requires highlight in political terms. Even I as a person who is generally dismissive of religions and its activities and as a libertarian who actually does not oppose the use of the term Allah by Catholic Church in Malaysia am distrustful of the motive behind the employment of the rationale. Consider what would conservative Malay Muslims would think? The label conservative Malay Muslims is rather misleading. A lot of not-so conservative Malay Muslims feel distressed about the issue. I can divorce the flaw of the ”˜no alternative’ argument from my overall position but the less libertarian Malays would not do so and would use it instead to strengthen their illberal opposition.

Using the ”˜no alternative’ argument will just give more fuel to the opposition fire. Not only it defeats effort at bridge building, it helps to popularly defeat libertarian position on the matter.

So, my advice is, do not use the argument that there is no alternative. It is simply not true. Just stick to the historical accident and libertarian arguments.

Categories
Conflict & disaster Liberty Society

[2146] Of the state must act against trangression

And so it has come to this. Amid the tension between those who support — or at least do not oppose — and those who oppose the use of the term Allah by the Catholic Church in Malaysia, a church was torched by arsonists, as the initial reports go.[1] I fear that this might not be the worst. In times like this, in the interest of protection of freedom, the rule of law is paramount.

It is in times like this that those who do not understand the rule of law, the limits of a person and the rights of others must face the full consequences of their transgression.

Rightful prosecution to the fullest extent of the law is not only justified, it is a must as to serve an important lesson to all. The snowball must be stopped dead in its track, if it is a snowball. Cautionary principle demands an action, regardless whether a snowball effect is in motion or not. Prudence must prevail in this matter.

The lesson is this: no matter how badly one detests the other, use of force is never an action for the first mover. It is not an option not just because there was no actual threat directed against the perpetrators, but also because physical threat on the perpetrators is not imminent.

One’s freedom is only up to the expression of that detestation and not an inch more. If one uses force to act on that detestation, as with the case with the burning of the church in Kuala Lumpur, then one must be prepared for a proper exaction of compensation by the state on oneself.

The door of legitimate state retaliation against the actual perpetrators of crime has now been opened. This is only on behalf of the victims. It is so as a matter of protection of rights, specifically right to property. And clearly, other rights too, such as right to life, if the transgressive momentum builds up. Attacks like this can easily be a life threatening case.

It is clear that the state cannot fail to carry out its responsibility. If the state fails to carry out this, it may open up the dangerous path of vigilantism.

Pray tell, even if that vigilantism were justified  — in fact, sadly, it is in the case of failure  — enough individuals would realize how far down the spiral would go to refrain from doing so.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — KUALA LUMPUR (Reuters) – A church in the Malaysian capital of Kuala Lumpur was firebombed early on Friday, gutting the first storey of the building in a residential area, amid a row over the use of the word “Allah” for the Christian God.

“It is confirmed that Desa Melawati church was burnt, at about 12.25 am in the morning. There were no fatalities. We are investigating the incident and suspect foul play,” said Kuala Lumpur Chief Police Officer Mohammad Sabtu Osman.

 

A court ruling last week allowing Catholic newpaper The Herald to use “Allah” for the Christian God has been appealed by the government of the mainly Muslim nation of 28 million people.

The issue has threatened relations between the majority Malay Muslim population and the minority ethnic Chinese and Indian populations who practise a range of religions including Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism. [Malaysia Court Rules Catholic Paper Can Print ”˜Allah’. Niluksi Koswanage. David Chance. Louise Ireland. Reuters. January 8 2010]

Categories
Liberty Society

[2144] Of libertarian position on the Allah controversy

I have nothing clever to say with respect to the controversy involving the usage of the term Allah by Christians in Malaysia (specifically, Catholic Christians I suppose) and objection raised by considerable number of Muslims there.[1] What I have to say is just some plain old consequences arising from my libertarian position. I think I have somewhat clarified my position while trying to explain, what I think is why some more conservative Muslims in Malaysia object to the use of the term Allah by Christians in Malaysia.

In any case, I am going to explain my position.

From the principle of freedom, specifically religious freedom and more broadly, freedom of expression, there is no reason for me to be alarmed by the recent court decision to allow Christians to use the term Allah to refer to their god in Malaysia. For any group to claim exclusive right over an idea that cannot be, in a sense, privatized or perhaps — however ridiculous this may sound — trademarked, is problematic. I cannot quite find the right words to describe it but clearly, no individual liberty has been transgressed by this action taken by Christians. Meanwhile, to prevent Christians from doing so will violate their liberty, and therefore should be untenable for libertarians.

Furthermore, based on the concept of secularism, which I consider as an essential aspect of the libertarian concept of the state, the state should have no role in this at all. So, to me, the court decision is only right. If the court had ruled otherwise, it would call for government intervention in form of religious control in the society.

Not only that, that government intervention will expand the frontier of the state into private life of a person. Just imagine the kind of mechanism required to enforce a ruling that insists the term Allah belongs exclusively to Muslims and no one else in Malaysia. Well, actually, you do not have to imagine it. It is already in place.

Lastly, this conflict paints both Christianity and Islam in Malaysia in a bad light: those Christians who insist in using the term Allah when there are other alternatives and conservative Muslims for their schizophrenic attitude. It is true that the Christian insistence does not violate liberty but hey, a lot of things a lot of people say and do do not violate liberty either. Whether all those things are the smart things to do or say is another matter altogether, even within libertarian constraint.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — Dec. 31 (Bloomberg) — Malaysia’s High Court ruled that a government ban on non-Muslim publications using the word ”Allah” is unconstitutional, settling a dispute that stoked questions about religious freedom in the country.

The Herald, a weekly publication of the Catholic Church of Malaysia, filed for a judicial review after it was temporarily ordered to stop publishing for two weeks in December 2007 after using the word, which means ”God,” in its Malay-language section. [Malaysia Court Rules Catholic Paper Can Print ”˜Allah’. Manirajan Ramasamy. Ranjeetha Pakiam. Bloomberg. December 31 2009]

Categories
Society

[2120] Of future Swiss minarets, or lack of it

There are several countries that, in my mind, symbolize tolerance and openness to different cultures. The Netherlands was one of them, until the rise of right-wing politics best represented by Geert Wilders as its public persona. Switzerland was probably one of few that belonged to this class. The reputation of Swiss humanitarianism further enhanced that image. Such generalization is mostly likely naive, especially after the successful referendum to specifically ban the building of minarets in that little Alps country.

I was aware of the movement to ban it much, much earlier but somehow I considered it as a fringe group’s initiative that was likely to fail. What I did not know, or bother to find out was that the Swiss People’s Party (SVP), the one pushing the initiative, is a major party even if it does not dominate Swiss politics. It is in fact, the largest party in that country.[0] I have clearly underestimated influence of right-wing politics there.

The hostility to minarets is worrying not primarily because it is backed by coercion and really, an attempt at subjective measurement and imposition of taste, which is the classical response from libertarians. Behind the hostility is really incapability to tolerate religious differences and downright racism. A high-ranking SVP official said, “This was a vote against minarets as symbols of Islamic power.”[0a]

Granted, Muslims can practice their religion without the minarets. What matters in all religions should be sincere belief, however irrational such belief may be. Minarets, everything physical and if I may add, religious laws imposed by state as demanded by conservative Muslims, are just ostentatious showing of piety.

That however is not the issue. The issue is the drive behind the ban, which is xenophobia directed against Muslims.[0b] As rightfully pointed out by the Times, the yes vote “played on fears of militant Islam… There are some 350,000 Muslims in Switzerland, or 4 per cent of the population. Most bear as much similarity to the theocratic fanatics of al-Qaeda and the Taleban as Archbishop Rowan Williams does to the snakehandling sects of Appalachia.[1]

It sends the message that Muslims are increasingly facing restriction in ways that they could practice their belief peacefully without causing actual discomfort to others. It sends a message of prejudice. The SVP’s black sheep poster sends an even stronger message of intolerance that really fueled the move to ban minarets.

It is a gross generalization to say the Swiss society is becoming intolerant in black and white terms, given that only 58% of voters voted yes. There is a sizable — very large — minority that is probably liberal enough to oppose the move. The federal government itself does not favor passing the motion. Moreover, turnout was in the low 50s. Unfortunately, 58% of yes out of total turnout is sufficient to sanction the state to ban it. More instructively perhaps, out of 22 out of 26 cantons — the highest administrative division in Switzerland — voted yes.[3]

There are more nuance to that fear that probably attracts centrist voters to the wrong side of the divide. Unlike in Malaysia where the accusation that foreigners commit disproportionately more crime than local which is not supported by statistics, statistics in Switzerland may actually indicate that Muslim immigrants disproportionately commit crime compared to Swiss. But the operative word is immigrants rather than Muslims. Yet, even that does not tell the whole story.

Like Indian students in Australia who seem to disproportionately become victims of crime probably because they live in unsafe neighborhood due to financial constraint (as well as a myriad of other factors),[4] financial constraint is probably the reason why these immigrants had to resort to crime. I am not absolving criminals but that issues of financial constraint which push groups to the societal margin has to be addressed. There are suggestions that this is a result of strict citizenship requirement.[5]

That problem of financial constraint should not be solved through means advocated by economic left, no. Immigrants would ripe disproportionate benefits while contributing very little. That is a recipe for other disaster. Rather, citizenship processes need to be liberalized and integration made easier. Without citizenship, these immigrants will find it hard to support themselves respectfully and contribute to betterment of Swiss society and beyond.

And of course, it is easier to lump good citizens and as well as good immigrants who are Muslims with Muslim immigrants who actually commit crime. That is the nature of generalization. It is easy to do.

But even if that issue is solved, I doubt SVP and all right-wingers there would be happy. A racist would only use issue such as that only as a proxy of his or her ultimate goal.

But all that is in Switzerland. What does it matter to Malaysia?

Our own xenophobic racists have one more example to refer to, saying, “they did it, why can we not do the same?”

That is not constructive.

There also a question of identity in Switzerland which immigration will affect in a big way. This not really a question of racism and it is a legitimate concern. However, the world is changing and the best way is to adapt.[6]

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[0] — The proposal had been put forward by the Swiss People’s Party, (SVP), the largest party in parliament, which says minarets are a sign of Islamisation.[Swiss voters back ban on minarets. BBC. November 29 2009]

[0a] — But Martin Baltisser, the SVP’s general secretary, told the BBC: “This was a vote against minarets as symbols of Islamic power.” [Swiss voters back ban on minarets. BBC. November 29 2009]

[0b] — Supporters of a ban claimed that allowing minarets would represent the growth of an ideology and a legal system – Sharia law – which are incompatible with Swiss democracy. [Swiss voters back ban on minarets. BBC. November 29 2009]

[1] — The referendum held yesterday is different from these. Instead of seeking to balance the conflicting claims and allegiances that characterise modern democracy, it targets one group for discriminatory treatment. The ”yes” campaign played on fears of militant Islam. Its posters depicted a woman clad in a burka, alongside a forest of minarets that resembled missiles.

There are only four minarets in the whole country, and none is used to call the faithful to prayer. There are some 350,000 Muslims in Switzerland, or 4 per cent of the population. Most bear as much similarity to the theocratic fanatics of al-Qaeda and the Taleban as Archbishop Rowan Williams does to the snakehandling sects of Appalachia. Many come from the Balkans, where a Muslim population recently suffered ferocious persecution under the genocidal designs of Slobodan Milosevic. [Intolerance of Islam. Times. November 30 2009]

[2] — The nationalist Swiss People’s Party has led several campaigns against foreigners, including a proposal to kick out entire families of foreigners if one of their children breaks a law and a bid to subject citizenship applications to a popular vote.

The party’s controversial posters have shown three white sheep kicking out a black sheep and a swarm of brown hands grabbing Swiss passports from a box.

The current campaign posters showing missile-like minarets atop the national flag and a fully veiled woman have drawn anger of local officials and rights defenders. [Intolerance of Islam. Times. November 30 2009]

[3] — See Minarets controversy in Switzerland at Wikipedia.

[4] — The Senate Committee has criticised the state governments of Victoria and New South Wales for not providing public transport concessions to overseas students. This has been a long standing demand of groups representing Indian and other overseas students. Lack of public transport concessions has also been partly blamed as a reason for attacks on Indian students as they prefer to walk home to save fares. [Attacks on Indian students not racism: Australian Senate report. Economic Times. November 27 2009]

[5] — Over 20% of Switzerland’s population is foreign. Most have been in the country for many years, and around a third of them were born in Switzerland.

Swiss citizenship remains very difficult to come by, and being born in the country does not give the children or even grandchildren of immigrants the right to be Swiss.

Crime figures

The Swiss People’s Party claims that foreigners commit more crimes than the Swiss, and says this justifies deporting them and their families.

In fact, crime statistics are not at all clear, partly because not all Swiss regions count crime in the same way.

A recent study by the Federal Department for Foreigners found that while, at first glance, foreigners appear to be committing more crime than the Swiss, foreigners, especially young men, are also more likely to be charged – whereas young Swiss may be let off with a caution for the same offence.

The study also found that young foreigners living in Switzerland were more likely to be unemployed and living in socially deprived backgrounds, than the Swiss.

But despite the complex nature of the problem, the blunt approach has clearly struck a chord with many voters. [Swiss row over black sheep poster. BBC. September 17 2007]

[6] — To date there are only two mosques in the country with minarets but planners are turning down applications for more, after opinion polls showed almost half the population favours a ban. What is at stake here in Switzerland is not merely a dislike of foreigners or a distrust of Islam but something far more fundamental. It is a clash that goes to the heart of an identity crisis which is there throughout Europe and the US. It is about how we live in a world that has changed radically since the end of the Cold War with the growth of a globalised economy, increased immigration flows, the rise of Islam as an international force and the terrorism of 9/11. Switzerland only illustrates it more graphically than elsewhere. [Switzerland: Europe’s heart of darkness?. The Independent. September 7 2007]