Categories
Conflict & disaster Photography Society

[1853] Of it has no religion

This was the Wall Street Journal Asia in the week of the attack on Mumbai.

Some rights reserved. By Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams

Not that I fully agree with it but I thought it sufficiently captures that there are oppositions among Muslims against the use of terror, contrary to accusation that terror happens because the moderates do not voice their opposition out. One form of the accusations, sadly, came from Friedman the other day:

On Feb. 6, 2006, three Pakistanis died in Peshawar and Lahore during violent street protests against Danish cartoons that had satirized the Prophet Muhammad. More such mass protests followed weeks later. When Pakistanis and other Muslims are willing to take to the streets, even suffer death, to protest an insulting cartoon published in Denmark, is it fair to ask: Who in the Muslim world, who in Pakistan, is ready to take to the streets to protest the mass murders of real people, not cartoon characters, right next door in Mumbai? [Calling All Pakistanis. Thomas Friedman. December 2 2008]

I deeply disagree with Friedman.

I disagree here not to defend Pakistanis or Muslims but rather, the logic used. It paints as if there is passive support among moderate Muslims of terrorism. As if, moderate Muslims need to employ the childishness of those whom violently protested the Danish cartoon to express their disagreement to the use of terror.

Categories
Liberty

[1527] Of Islamic headscarf as a symbol of liberty

Three cheers for liberty:

Two major parties in Turkey say they will submit a joint plan to parliament to ease a ban on the Islamic headscarf in universities.

The Islamist-rooted governing AK Party and the nationalist MHP say it is an issue of human rights and freedoms. [Turkish MPs plan headscarf reform. BBC News. January 29 2008]

I dare say that Islamic headscarf (or the burqa) is becoming a symbol of liberty in Turkey, the Netherlands and Europe at large. It has to be noted that it is so because of restriction imposed on it. Circumstances made it so. At other places where headscarf or burqa is a mandatory attire, it is a symbol of oppression instead.

The headscarf itself has no inherent value.

Categories
Society

[1480] Of god, God, allah, Allah, tuhan and Tuhan

By extension of free speech, I am quite indifferent to the usage of the noun “Allah” by Christian groups[1] and I frown at threats issued by the government partial to conservative Muslims to the Christian groups to desist from using the noun “Allah” in local Christian literature. This issue is not new and has been popping now and then. Yet, it has not been resolved and I think it is because the local Christians do not completely comprehend the typical conservative Muslim Malaysians’ objection to the usage of the noun “Allah” by Christian groups. I believe a review of basic grammar would significantly clear the air surrounding this issue and explain why there is a conflict in the first place.

Language may not be my forte but at least I know enough of the differences between proper and common nouns. In my humble opinion, at the center of the controversy is an unstated confusion or assumption over Malay proper and common nouns regarding god.

Before I move on, I would like readers to give special attention to capitalization. I use it to differentiate between proper and common nouns. Now that that is clear, let us move on at a measured pace.

In Arabic, at least as I understand it, “allah” comes in form of proper or common noun, depending on usage. Because of the noun ability to become a common noun in Arabic, everybody could use the noun “allah” to refer to any kind of god.

In Malay however, “Allah” is a proper noun with specific reference to Islamic God and not a common noun. The Malay noun ”Allah” enjoys a sense of exclusiveness; it refers to the Islamic god as it has been, to the best of my knowledge, until recently.

At the same time, the Arabic noun “allah” is not quite similar to the Malay noun “Allah“. This is a crucial point, at least, again, from what I understand through the reaction of conservative Muslims, or those that sympathize with that groups. The noun underwent an evolution during its importation from the Arabic to the Malay language centuries ago; it lost its ability to become a common noun in Malay during the process. That however does not mean the Malay language does not have a word to describe whatever the Arabic noun “allah” tries to describe. The Malay language has the noun “tuhan“; its usage is exactly similar to the Arabic noun “allah” within the context we are interested in. “Tuhan” unambiguously means god in both proper and common forms.

From conservative Muslims’ point of view, the Christian groups in Malaysia might be mistranslating the word “God” into “Allah” instead of “Tuhan“, by accident or on purpose. In fact, I may even sympathize with the Muslim groups since I am in the opinion that there is a confusion between the Arabic noun “allah” and Malay noun “Allah“.

In Indonesian, such translation may be acceptable but it has to be noted that Malay and Indonesian languages have gone through different paths from a common origin. Whatever true in the Indonesian language is not necessarily true in the Malay language spoken in Malaysia, and vice versa.

On the surface, this situation is silly and I really do not know why I care to make clarification on behalf of religious believers to another. Well, maybe, probably because it is annoying to see how both types of individuals — both Christians and Muslims — that care to raise their voices on the matter refuse to least comprehend what the conflict is all about before jumping into the fight, indulging in polemics rather than understanding. This tendency is affecting other people that simply wish to watch the days pass by peacefully without shouting matches and flying vases.

Underneath these layers of nouns, however is not something so superficial.

There seems to be an evangelical competition between Christianity and Islam for Malay-speaking non-Christians or non-Muslims. Like it or not, Arabic terms with Islamic connotations have been absorbed into Malay with ease. For Christian preachers, it may be easier for them to use these Arabic terms to convert Malay-speaking non-Christians into Christianity. It is easier to deliver a message in terms familiar to somebody. Muslims preachers however would like to have exclusive use of these words which have been traditionally utilized locally to refer to Islamic ideas. On top of that, there are Muslims would like to keep Islam clearly separated and differentiated from any other religion.

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

[1] — KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia: A Catholic weekly newspaper in Malaysia has been told to drop the use of the word “Allah” in its Malay language section if it wants to renew its publishing permit, a senior government official said Friday.

The Herald, the organ of Malaysia’s Catholic Church, has translated the word God as “Allah” but it is erroneous because Allah refers to the Muslim God, said Che Din Yusoff, a senior official at the Internal Security Ministry’s publications control unit. [Malaysian Catholic weekly told to drop use of ‘Allah’ in order to renew publishing permit. AP via IHT. December 21 2007]

Categories
Kitchen sink Science & technology Society

[1404] Of intentional misinterpretation?

Compare this blog entry:

For those who have been screaming off their heads about the so-called “Islamization” imposition (I call it a resurgence) on the country in the last few decades, they certainly would not be able to deny that because of Islam, Malaysia has seen much scientific progress and currently as it stands, are among the top seven most scientifically productive Islamic nations in the world today, according to this blog post.

Fair use. Copyrights by Physics Today.

Granted that we still have a far way to go where science is concerned and I am not going to just sit back and be satisfied with what we have. But compared to the state the nation was in when secularism was thriving in the late 50s and 60s (also having failed this country time and time again but that is besides the point), the Islamic resurgence has given us the much need scientific progress that we have been striving for. To deny otherwise is to shut out evidence of the research that we see before our very eyes. Its too bad that those who advocate for the secularism project to remain alive are most certainly behind current times. [Malaysia among top scientifically productive Islamic nations. He That Shall Not Be Named. October 6 2007]

…with this article that the previous blog entry eventually refers to:

Religious fundamentalism is always bad news for science. But what explains its meteoric rise in Islam over the past half century? In the mid-1950s all Muslim leaders were secular, and secularism in Islam was growing. What changed? Here the West must accept its share of responsibility for reversing the trend. Iran under Mohammed Mossadeq, Indonesia under Ahmed Sukarno, and Egypt under Gamal Abdel Nasser are examples of secular but nationalist governments that wanted to protect their national wealth. Western imperial greed, however, subverted and overthrew them. At the same time, conservative oil-rich Arab states—such as Saudi Arabia—that exported extreme versions of Islam were US clients. The fundamentalist Hamas organization was helped by Israel in its fight against the secular Palestine Liberation Organization as part of a deliberate Israeli strategy in the 1980s. Perhaps most important, following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, the US Central Intelligence Agency armed the fiercest and most ideologically charged Islamic fighters and brought them from distant Muslim countries into Afghanistan, thus helping to create an extensive globalized jihad network. Today, as secularism continues to retreat, Islamic fundamentalism fills the vacuum. [Science and the Islamic world—The quest for rapprochement. Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy. Physics Today . August 2007]

Why does He That Shall Not Be Named draw different conclusion from the original article and gives the picture as if the article offers the same conclusion as his?

He That Shall Not Be Named should stop and think, and read before he speaks, lest he would make a fool out of himself, which he has so profoundly. Unless, it was his intention to mislead in the first place.

He probably just read the table (and made awful mistake of correlating and then committing the fallacy of correlation is causation) without reading the article.

Categories
Liberty Society

[1379] Of superficiality is inferior to sincerity

I would have almost forgotten that religious police are patrolling the streets of Malaysia, trying to catch those that abstain from fasting during the month of Ramadan, if I had not caught a piece of news report stating so yesterday. In my mind, there is no confusion that the religious police forget that it is sincerity that matters, not coercion.

This is perhaps but a symptom of how for the Muslim society in Malaysia, specifically the religious conservatives, imposition of their moral values on others has become a favorite pastime instead of self-improvement. Several other issues that lead to the same conclusion are apostasy and moral policing.

Concerning cases of religious freedom in particular, religious conservatives are more interested in forcefully preventing a person from choosing his or her religion rather than understanding why the person is leaving Islam. Indeed, when debates on Lina Joy dominated public domain, some religious conservatives as well as other sympathizers leaned on superficial factor as the main issue — procedure — whereas those that see it pass skin deep know full well that it is about freewill; liberty; freedom.

All this portrays Islam in a bad light to outsiders. Thanks to religious conservatives, many outsiders see the religion as stressing on appearance rather than appealing to the heart. I have always in the opinion that religion is about the inner self, the content of a book, not its cover. This is why freewill is so crucial; sincerity and freewill come together. Without freewill, there can be no sincerity; an unfree conscience knows no sincerity. What is the point of having Muslims that are unwilling to be Muslims? What is the point of forcing somebody to do religious biddings? Looking the issues through Islamic tradition, would the supreme being not know what is the truth?

Religious conservatives fail to understand this. For this reason, religious conservatives will always be ridiculed for their preference for the superficial.