Who the fuckisPerkasa’S Irwan Fahmi Ideris? ” Malay Muslims are not private properties of Perkasa”

By Clara Chooi
April 06, 2012

“So I hope that all Muslims in this country will stay true to their religion and stay away from Bersih 3.0 because it is led by someone who is not only a traitor to the country but also to Muslims,”

Perkasa Youth has warned Muslims against attending Bersih’s rally for free and fair elections on April 28 as The wing’s chief, Irwan Fahmi Ideris, told The Malaysian Insider “again” showing clear disrespect to the country’s Muslims by staging this latest protest.He vowed to “do whatever it takes to fight“I will fight to whatever extent… I am going to fight her. I do not care. I am not a politician, I have nothing to lose,” he said when contacted yesterday.

When pointed out, however, that national Malay literary icon Datuk A. Samad Said was also among Bersih’s top leaders, Irwan said the septuagenarian likely had specific issues with the government which he was unhappy about.

“Maybe there was something he could not get and so he does not agree with the government. But it is unfortunate that a person who is supposed to be a nationalist is behaving like this… is it patriotic to sit by the side of the road and protest?

“This is not the action of a smart person,” he said.He also alleged that Bersih 3.0 could have been inspired by “foreign powers” with the intention to topple the present administration by demonising the Malays, the Malay Rulers and the Election Commission (EC).

“But I have said from before… if Pakatan Rakyat (PR) is not satisfied, if they insist on claiming that the election is not free and fair, they should dissolve the state assemblies they currently have power over,” he said.

This, said Irwan, was because it was the same election system that saw PR rise to power in five states in Election 2008.

“So I hope that all Muslims in this country will stay true to their religion and stay away from Bersih 3.0 because it is led by someone who is not only a traitor to the country but also to Muslims,”

It is now confirmed — the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) on electoral reform report is a scam to hoodwink Malaysians into thinking that the Barisan Nasional (BN) government is finally restoring democratic election to the country.
While nothing concrete has been achieved to ensure the cleansing of the phantom-infested electoral roll and elimination of rampant corruption and abuse of power that has become the trademark of Malaysian elections, the main stream media has painted the town red with false propaganda that the PSC report is a reform agenda that will make any democracy proud.
Just look at The Star newspaper of April 4. The entire front page was splashed with goodies from the PSC, headlined “Hooray for voters”. Some of the prominently displayed items are: “Allowing citizens to vote by post or at Malaysian missions”, “Creating a caretaker government after the dissolution”, “Continuous cleaning of the electoral roll”, “EC to have its own budget and be answerable to Parliament”, “EC to be restructured to enforce election laws”, “Provide allocations to political parties and candidates based on the number of seats and number of votes obtained”, and “Have a balanced delineation election constituencies”.
Wah! Isn’t it wonderful? From now on, Malaysians can finally raise their heads to claim that they have a practising democracy!
But, rejoice not! This PSC report is not a bearer of fruits, but a messenger of false hopes.
The PSC report’s 22 recommendations are only a series of expressions of hopes that the Election Commission (EC) will do this or that. Knowing the deeply political partisanship of EC and its unashamedly pro-BN stance to resist reforms, what hope is there anything meaningful will be done to alleviate the nightmare of Malaysians of another dirty election ahead — by all counts, the worst?
There was not a word in the report on the numerous cases of frauds uncovered in the electoral roll or on the blatant open bribery and abuse of power that has gone from bad to worse from one by-election to another since the 2008 election.
Without acknowledging and probing into the existing flaws, how can there be any remedy?
There was no concrete measure proposed or firm commitment made by any quarter in the BN regime that the serious flaws that have made a mockery of our election will be rectified before the next election.
In fact, the hypocritical participation of the EC in the PSC reform effort is glaringly demonstrated through the continuing cheating in the electoral roll that was going on out right during the working sessions of the PSC. This was exposed during the press conference of Bersih 2.0 announcing its impending mass demonstration on April 28.
In the press conference on April 4, two academicians with authoritative research on Malaysian elections revealed numerous cases of on-going frauds in the electoral roll.
Wong Chin Huat demonstrated four methods adopted by fraudsters to “clone” voters through variation of one or more of personal data like names, old and new identity card numbers, addresses and dates of birth; while Ong Kian Ming revealed irregularities in the postal voter roll that showed double registration and unqualified postal voters among the security personnel. These instances were described as only the “tip of an iceberg”.
From numerous previous revelations, it is now an established fact that our electoral roll is heavily infested with “phantom voters” — either through manipulation of the electoral roll or through illegal granting of citizenship to foreigners (which is particularly rampant in Sabah as proven in court).
It is therefore imperative and of the utmost urgency that an independent body be commissioned to comprehensively audit both the electoral roll and the register of citizenship at the citizenship registry to flush out these “phantoms”. But there was nothing in the PSC report to even remotely suggest that this cleansing process will proceed forthwith.
It is ironical that the PSC, which is dominated by BN, instead of scrapping the notorious postal voting system as strongly demanded by reformists, has further expanded its scope. This postal voting is a discredited system that has been profusely abused to give consistently more than 90 per cent electoral support to the ruling BN. Originally meant for soldiers and the police, it will now be extended to cover media workers and EC personnel, the latter, according to reports, has alarmingly increased from 140,000 to 240,000 in number. This decision by the PSC, which is quickly acted upon by the EC to gazette the new postal voters, will no doubt add a major illegitimate advantage to BN in the coming polls.
Another major injustice that has rendered our election meaningless is BN’s stranglehold on the mass media (save the Internet) which, while serving BN’s parochial political interests in ordinary times, is turned into full blast propaganda machines in election time to falsely glorify BN while running down or blacking out news of its opponents. Electoral democracy being a game of perception, the existence of such a grotesquely lop-sided information dissemination system makes a total mockery of our democracy, not to mention putting BN’s opponents in grave disadvantage.
In recognition of reformists’ earnest request for free and fair media coverage, the PSC has, however, only given its lip service. In recommendation No. 9, PSC merely says it has “taken note” of the Information Ministry’s “readiness” to grant fair media access to all parties and candidates in the polls. The PSC further “recommends” that the EC takes note of Article 115(2) of the Federal Constitution which stipulates that other authorities shall on request assist the EC to discharge its duty as may be practicable.
If fair reporting is a serious undertaking by BN, why didn’t the ministry give a solemn pledge to honour this “readiness” instead of only the EC “taking note”?
Will this “note” taken by the EC lead to fair media coverage? Knowing the disposition of the EC and BN, your guess is as good as mine.
It should be apparent by now that no real reform will come while BN is in power, for any reform — particularly electoral reform — would mean the reduction of the illegitimate advantage enjoyed by them in the contest of political power. And the present fake reform as exemplified by the setting up of this PSC was only a grudging concession thought of by PM Najib to recover some of the electoral support lost during the ill-advised crackdown on the Bersih 2.0 rally on July 9, 2011.
From that point of view, Bersih 2.0’s prompt call for another mass rally is a wise move. For only in the convincing show of strength could BN see the necessity to make some reforms, however disinclined it may feel towards them.

Taxidriver’s REVIEW: Plurality and diversity of Melayu Islam

The basis of an equitable democracy is that the various communities — ethnic and relegious — get representation in the political decision making process. In a non-equitable democracy like Malaysia where intimidation and influence peddling on the basis of religious and ethnic origin often happens and is compounded by the fact that there are over a dozen major linguistic and ethnic communities, a multiplicity of race and over half a dozen relegious communities, it is difficult to build an equitable, enlightened and secular democracy Year after year the Muslim voters remained the vote banks of otherwise secular parties and remained afraid of demanding equitable development for their community. But starting in 2012 the Muslim voters voted for PR rise to power in five states in Election 2008. a pattern of strategic voting. In each state depending on the situation, they decided which party was likely to give them equitable treatment and voted for it. Other than MCA that is a self- pronounced anti-Muslim party they are willing to look at all parties.

Major parties like UMNO that claim to be secular and equitable need to rethink their basic operating methods. They need to turn much more honest and sensitive to the critical needs of Muslims, not just propaganda or playing communal promises. It will be their actual record on ground not grandiose promises from scions of big political families.

If Muslims continue to play such strategic electoral politics as they have demonstrated in the last three years, they have nothing to fear from Perkasa. They can force UMNO to change its basic thinking and policies or get reduced to a fringe party that they used to be.


Jamil Khir says he knows porn when he sees it, but pornography, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. And if that beholder has a dirty little mind and an unhealthy obsession with sex, then a flash of the ankle or a glimpse of stockings will certainly be shocking. Everything becomes a phallic symbol and an invitation to sexual arousal.
The religious affairs minister is trying to set a universal standard on pornography. In a push to ban sexually explicit material, he says, women should be required to wear skirts that fall below the knee. Interesting. It seems our minister finds women’s knees to be pornographic. Well, at least now we know he gets turned on by looking at them. I personally consider knees to be the least attractive part of the body — they’re odd-looking and knobbly, and if you’ve had an active childhood, they’re full of scars, bumps and other unsightly marks.

I am a young man in love,In an old man’s body.In love with an ageing woman,

Who is a young girl inside.To find spring in autumn,And blossoming as leaves fall,Ripens fruit in my life That summer never bore.I see you run to me As desperately as I need you,The grey hairs no hindrance To the young girl shining through.

The statistics are truly staggering. According to compiled numbers from respected news and research organizations, every second $3,075.64 is being spent on pornography. Every second 28,258 internet users are viewing pornography. In that same second 372 internet users are typing adult search terms into search engines. Every 39 minutes a new pornographic video is being created in the U.S.

It’s big business. The pornography industry has larger revenues than Microsoft, Google, Amazon, eBay, Yahoo, Apple and Netflix combined. 2006 Worldwide Pornography Revenues ballooned to $97.06 billion. 2006 & 2005 U.S. Pornography Industry Revenue Statistics, 2006 Top Adult Search Requests, 2006 Search Engine Request Trends are some of the other statistics revealed here

Today, there are around 4.2 million websites that contain porn. (That’s roughly 12% of the entire internet!) Yet, less than half of US states currently mandate sex and HIV education. Kids are clearly being exposed to sexual content, but in a space devoid of healthy scientific dialogue. So this week, I’d like to take some time to focus on how we communicate about sexuality.

What is the most effective way to learn about sexuality? What is the most appropriate age to discuss sexual issues with children? Does abstinence only education work? How effective is state mandated sex education? And what effect does sexual communication really have on a relationship?

I think science has shied away from studying human sexual interaction in general because of its taboo and ostensibly immeasurable nature. But it’s because of scientific curiosity that many things have been learned about the human sexual experience.

For example, do you know what’s actually occurring during vaginal lubrication? Well, when both men and women are sexually excited, blood is shunted to their genitals. Females have a large capillary bed behind their vaginal walls that is semi-permeable to blood, allowing the clear portion of that blood to flow through. Hence, “getting wet.” Without scientific inquiry, I sincerely doubt anyone would have figured that one out. And now, it’s going to be all you think about the next time you have sex. Sorry!

We are apes. We are animals. We are made of the same organic molecules as all life. We metabolize. We procreate. We die. But we are also human beings. We have language and culture. We self-reflect and ponder the future. We have medicine. We use advanced tools, like televisions, smart phones, and computers.

We also have sex.

We are apes. We are animals. We are made of the same organic molecules as all life. We metabolize. We procreate. We die. But we are also human beings. We have language and culture. We self-reflect and ponder the future. We have medicine. We use advanced tools, like televisions, smart phones, and computers.

We also have sex.

We have a lot of sex. In human culture, sex is so much more than a means of reproduction. Sex is emotional. Sex is communicative. Sex is fun. And when it comes down to it, for most of us, sex just feels good. We have sex for pleasure significantly more often than we have sex for reproductive purposes. Is this one of those things that makes us uniquely human?

Well, here’s where things get complicated. How do we know what feels good to an animal? It’s not like they can tell us. Perhaps all animals have sex for pleasure. Perhaps we are all hard-wired to experience pleasurable feelings during the act of sex for the very purpose of procreation. I sincerely doubt that most animals are aware of the fact that sex leads to offspring. They probably do it because it feels good. Science has done a pretty good job of exploring and explaining precisely how sex feels so good to us. But answering the question of why it feels so good is seems to be a matter of conjecture. Granted, if it didn’t feel good, we might not do it. And if we didn’t do it, there wouldn’t be any of us here to have this discussion.

One indication that animals enjoy sexual activity is the act of masturbation. We’ve all seen our dogs do it. Male dogs will pretty much hump anything they can wrap their legs around. Masturbation in horses is also quite common. There’s even a seminal (no pun intended) paper on squirrel masturbation. In fact, a lot of animals go solo. Birds, walruses, sheep, turtles, elephants, bears, and many more species have been observed engaging in autoeroticism. Porcupines have even been witnessed to fashion vibrators out of sticks. Interestingly, although all of these animals have been documented to play with themselves, it is exceedingly rare that they actually get off. That is, masturbation to the point of orgasm/ejaculation appears to be a fluke outside of the human species (except maybe in squirrels).

What makes us so different that our masturbatory experiences are “goal-oriented” when other animals’ are not? And why is our masturbation frequency significantly higher than that of other species? Jesse Bering hypothesizes that it is because humans have the unique ability to form mental representations of erotic material. It may be the case that what sets us apart is our ability to write, produce, edit, and even star in our own mental porn.

I know that masturbation may not be considered sex, per se. You’ve probably heard the rumors that dolphins are the only other mammals that have sexual intercourse for pleasure. It appears as though this is almost true, depending again on how one defines sex for pleasure. Dolphins have been observed to have sex during all stages of the female menstrual cycle, not just ovulation. But, as they have been apt to do lately, our favorite ape relatives, the bonobos, have to be included in this conversation. Bonobos get it on year round as well. As far as I know, no other animal species has been documented to engage in full-on intercourse even when females aren’t in heat. So in a way, when our thoughts and behaviors are dominated by non-stop, year-round sexual urges, we aren’t really acting on animalistic impulses. We are doing something that is almost uniquely human. If we were to actually “do it like they do on the Discovery channel,” we’d only be getting it on a few days each month. So the next time I hear somebody quote the Nine Inch Nails song Closer, I’ll remember that I’d rather do it like a human, thank you very much.

Rights and freedom versus haqq and ‘adl

What constitutes a right? As a language belonging to the family of Islamic languages, the Malay term for ‘right’, hak, is adopted from the Arabic haqq, which stands for both reality and truth. Its opposite is batil, which means non-reality or falsity [1]. Therefore, what is good is not simply a property of statements or propositions, but has ontological significance in that it refers to that which has real and true existence, whilst that which is bad is considered illusory, ephemeral and unreal. Indeed, Al-Haqq (The Truth) is one of the 99 Beautiful Names of God as the one who is the antithesis of falsehood, as things may become evident by their opposites [2].

The distinction between truth and falsehood, right and wrong, good and bad had be laid down by Him and communicated to mankind through Revelation (Qur’an) and His Messengers. For instance, the quality of mercy is praiseworthy, thus enjoined upon all mankind, not merely because of its practical utility as a social convention, but ultimately because “He (Allah) has decreed upon Himself mercy” [Qur’an, 6:12]. Therefore, in order for something to qualify as a person’s right, it must be real and true, and it follows that homosexuality (as treatable psychological state) and deviant sexual practices cannot be regarded as ‘rights’ because they are not in conformity with one’s real and true nature.

Islam conceives freedom as ikhtiyar, which derives from the word khayr, meaning ‘good’, implying true freedom is choosing the good instead of the bad, the better over the worse or the best between two alternatives. A person who is presented with a choice between what is good and what is bad and proceeds to choose the bad is not exercising real freedom. In truth, the person is trapped within his own ignorance, thus unable to make the right choice in choosing for the better, and in doing so, has committed a grave injustice to his or her own self and others.

On the other hand, human rights as espoused by the West is a product of their collective guilt over past mistreatment and cannot be considered as wholly real and true because they resulted from philosophical speculation instead of being based on Revelation. The secular Western conception of freedom has failed to address the indignation of man which later results in him being delegated as mere animal thus enabling, to use Freud’s term, “rationalization” of any moral breakdown. Even random (but rare) occurrences of homosexual activities engaged by animals observed in the wild or within controlled environment were used to “rationalize” and justify homosexuality in human beings. Despite the nobility of his spirit and purpose of creation as determined by God, the secular man has chosen to place himself as the lowest of beasts by going against the very purpose for which he was created.

Enjoining the Good and Forbidding the Bad

The author quoted Clause 43 of the Medinah Charter at the beginning of his article, which he writes as “Anyone who is wronged must be helped.”

Firstly, the source of reference for this quote was not mentioned, leaving its original meaning and context cloaked in obscurity, which prevents a proper evaluation of its significance. However, in a paper titled “The Medina Document” written by Ali Bulac, a Muslim intellectual from Turkey [2], Clause 43 reads as “Neither the Quraish nor those assisting them shall receive protection” and the previous clause (i.e. Clause 42) declares that “All cases of murder and fighting that occur among the people designated in this document shall be taken to God and His Messenger Muhammad. God is with those who best obey this document.”

The obvious difference in the wordings between the version quoted by Fuad Rahmat at the beginning of his article with the version of the same clause contained in the paper by Ali Bulac is highly crucial because it impinges upon the accurate meaning of the clause and signals the appropriateness of invoking it as a supporting argument support in contemporary discussions. Indeed, if the wording and superficial meaning of the clause have been distorted in such a crude manner, then is there any hope that one can recover and grasp the actual meaning of the clause? Furthermore, if the quotation of the clause is problematic even at the surface level, then what guarantee do we have that Fuad Rahmat had accurately understood the clause and conveyed to us its actual meaning, especially when absolutely no attempt was made to elucidate the context of the clause?

In short, both the content and the context of the clause he quoted at the beginning of his article are seriously compromised, which casts doubt on its validity in relation to the issue concerning sexual discrimination and religion, specifically on the reaction of the government authorities against the organizers of the event Seksualiti Merdeka and on the relationship between Islam and LGBT in general.

Secondly, the author did not specify under how, in the light of the discussion over Seksualiti Merdeka, homosexuals practicing deviant forms of sex can be counted as people who are wronged. As deviant sexual practices in its various forms (liwat, zina, etc.) are considered criminal offences under the Shari’ah, one does not see a person who is committing such acts as a victim, but rather as a perpetrator of a crime. Therefore, to assert that sexual deviants should be seen as ‘victims’ when in fact they are fully responsible for their own doing and in control over their choices in life is truly a blatant manipulation of the clause mysteriously culled from the Medinah Charter.

The linguistic deception is even more striking were one to realize that these acts are committed consensually and not under duress or the influence of intoxicants. Indeed, the sheer illogicality of placing a ‘wrongdoer’ in the same category as a ‘victim’ reflects the confusion that is productive of moral relativism.

The only way to help a person who has committed or going to commit a wrong is by preventing him in the first place. This is alluded to in a Hadith wherein the Holy Prophet said:

“Aid your (Muslim) brother when he is unjust, or when suffering from injustice.” He was asked, “What about when he is unjust, how can I aid him?” He said, “You prevent or forbid him from committing injustice, for this constitutes giving aid to him.” [Sahih Bukhari].

The understood maxim in Shari’ah is “prevention is better than cure” and that punishments are as much aimed as deterrence and educating the mass as it is corrective for the offender. Therefore it is incumbent upon Muslims who wish to help their fellow brothers and sisters who are afflicted with the problems of homosexuality to do so by first counseling them against wrongdoing, restraining one’s sexual thoughts and desires and as a final resort, physically preventing them from committing such acts.

It is quite clear that the Medinan Charter as cited by the author refers to “anyone who is wronged must be helped” not “any who has wronged [himself, herself or others] must be helped”. By taking and twisting clause so that it means a criminal must be helped by publicizing his freedom to practice homosexuality is against both the spirit and letter of the law.

We are not told how LGBTQs, simply because of their sexual orientations and gender identities, are discriminated and persecuted against. The organizers of Seksualiti Merdeka or even the writer from the so-called Islamic Renaissance Front (IRF) have not offered us any data or factual evidence to support claims of discrimination or persecution.

Prying into other people’s privacy is not prescribed under the Shari’ah, nor was there any government or religious body set up in order to investigate what are inside their thoughts.

Even so, what society can tolerate much less accept a person’s claim to a right to commit crime to be publicized in the name of freedom? If convicting a person who has committed homosexual relations amounts to discriminating and persecuting, should we then be expected not to ‘discriminate’ or ‘persecute’ robbers, murderers and rapists, come what may?

Thirdly, the author asserted that the organizers and supporters of Seksualiti Merdeka aim only to “celebrating the human rights of people of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities” and not to promote homosexuality and hedonistic lifestyle.

We may ask, if it is truly meant to create awareness for this group to be treated as human beings, why bother using the name Seksualiti Merdeka, which naturally invites probing inquiries, if not outright accusations in the first place?

Again, it is not within the purview of Muslims to investigate the sexual orientations of people, albeit Christian Spanish Inquisition-style, so why the need promote the interest of this particular group at all? Those who organize and support such an event need to come up clean and not continue this doublespeak.

The self-proclaimed experts on Islam that brazenly offer their opinions online with regards to issues of apostasy and homosexuality in Islam should be firmly reminded that Islam demands that the harmful effects of deviant acts and crimes be minimized and contained, and not be shamelessly publicized for all to see. This is clearly indicated in the following Hadith:

“He who covers a Muslim (his mistakes and shortcomings), Allah will cover him in this world and the Hereafter; Allah will be in the servant’s need, as long as the servant is in his (believing) brother’s need.” [Sahih Muslim]

It is clear that despite the denial of the organizers, the actual spelled intention is the publicizing of homosexuality as a way of life.  It is on the agenda of Seksualiti Merdeka to seek into de-criminalizing homosexuality as opposed to the Shari’ah. By using ‘neutral’-sounding names they are preparing the society by ‘de-sensitizing’ gradually so that it will accept homosexuality as a norm and not a form of evil as it is.

Giving platform for the LGBTQ community to voice out their deviant sexual preferences will only open door to more vices which are detrimental to the morals of the society and destroy families. Also, this act will constitute spreading sin among Muslims and reducing us to a race of donkeys copulating freely by the roadside. Allah has given stern warning to those who advocate immorality and that they will be chastised severely in the following verse:

“Indeed, those who like that immorality (fahishah) should be spread (or publicized) among those who have believed, will have a painful punishment in this world and the Hereafter. And Allah knows and you do not know.” [Qur’an, 24:19]

Bearing that in mind, how can an intellectual group applying the Islamic label to its name to openly advocate, in addition to freedom of apostasy among Muslims, the freedom for LGBTQ community to propagate their sexually deviant views in public sphere baring sensitivities and concerns of the majority, act in direct opposition to the above Divine injunction?

“You are the Best of Peoples raised up for (the benefit of) men; you enjoin what is right and forbid the wrong and believe in Allah;” [Qur’an, 3:110]

We must realize that as stated in the verse, in order for “the Best of Peoples” to emerge, the pre-conditions of enjoining good and forbidding evil must be fulfilled beforehand. Such is the purpose for conception of amar ma’ruf nahi munkar which aims for the emergence of “the Best of Peoples”.

“Whoever amongst you sees anything objectionable, let him change it with his hand, if he is not able, then with his tongue, and if he is not even able to do so, then with his heart, and the latter is the weakest form of faith.” [Sahih Muslim]

In light of such commandments, the decision to ban Seksualiti Merdeka fell well within the responsibilities of the authorities, therefore ought to be commended and not condemned – especially given the lamentable failure of groups such as IRF to carry out such responsibilities as instructed by Allah S.W.T. in the Qur’an.

It would have been truer to the “Islamic” label of IRF if Fuad Rahmat had advocated the rehabilitation of individuals afflicted with homosexual tendencies rather than clamoring for the freedom of these groups to wantonly and overtly trumpet their sexual orientations and practices.

Have they not also considered how Allah recounts punishment visited upon Prophet Lot’s people for the crimes of homosexuality? How then, in the light of these Divine injunctions, does one act in total opposition and still maintain an Islamic label?

Of inclusivity and tolerance

With regards to the author call for Malaysians and Muslims to learn to be inclusive, two immediate questions come to mind: What does it mean to be inclusive? What are its proper limits? Being inclusive implies making space for something or somebody (in this case, LGBTQ) within a larger grouping (in this case, Malaysian society). What then is the nature of this ‘space’ being demanded upon?

The word ‘inclusive’ is ambiguous for it did not specify what sort of ‘place’ ought to be given to Muslim LGBTQs.

Of course, a person who commit a sin is not automatically considered a kafir i.e. we do not automatically pronounce takfir on somebody who has committed a sin, just like we do not declare a Muslim who drinks or commits adultery a kafir. But that should not be taken to mean that Islam as a religion now condones drinking alcohol and adultery i.e. that drinking and adultery are no longer recognized as sins in Islam, for that implies re-forming (or perverting or distorting) Islam to suit the moral conditions of contemporary society.

It should be noted here that proclaiming takfir upon a sinner and declaring that a sin is no longer a sin are both extreme positions, and it does not bode well for one to swing violently from one extreme position to the other.

The nature of ‘inclusiveness’ that IRF likes to trumpet is not made explicit, although based on the fact that he appears to advocate a deconsecration of values, and to exalt freedom (which is a neutral term) at the expense of justice (which in contrast, is a morally-laden term), one can safely infer that the vision of ‘inclusivity’ that it seeks to promote is founded upon the following presuppositions: the preservation of the paramount right of an individual over and above his duties and responsibilities to others e.g. other people, the state, the world, God.

The exaltation of reason as the ultimate arbiter in moral conduct over and above adherence to religion, traditional wisdom and customs.

The veneration of man’s bodily wants over and above his spiritual needs i.e. man as a pure physical animal as described by modern biology and anthropology.

The assertion that open discussion on homosexuality must be informed begs the question as to what extent morality and ethics should find support from the latest discoveries from the fields of the natural and social sciences, which presupposes that these two fields are ‘neutral’ or ‘value-free’, eternally-unchanging and unaffected by the course of history. But it is inevitable that the interpretations and subsequent directions taken by these two fields are themselves colored by the values, hopes and purpose of the dominant civilization that produces, practices and propagates it i.e. the values, hopes and purpose of the Western civilization.

Granted, not all of their values are in-congruent to ours, but to uncritically accept foreign values without evaluating its suitableness to the requirements of justice and wisdom as projected in the worldview of Islam is just as extreme a position as complete and total rejection of such values.

One may also argue that (i) whatever the West approves of is not always necessarily good for us, (ii) Islam as a religion and civilization is unlike the West, and (iii) even Western society do not as a whole entertain such LGBT demands i.e. they are individuals and groups that express reservation or opposition against such demands.

Indeed, we affirm that the religion of Islam is fundamentally different from other religions as understood and practiced in the West, in that (i) Islam clearly and firmly demarcates between praiseworthy and blameworthy actions in the sight of Allah S.W.T., to which knowing and pious Muslims must actively conform their utterances and actions accordingly, and (ii) Islam reminds its faithful followers to guard their own selves – that includes the intentions in their hearts, the utterances of their tongue and the actions of their physical bodies – and those close to them (i.e. family members, friends, neighbors) against any situation that may incline oneself towards committing blameworthy acts.

It follows therefore that every member of a community must actively ensure that the opportunities for committing blameworthy acts is narrowed and restricted, as opposed to ‘normalizing’ it by making it public or parading it out in the open, for by closing the doors to evil, one tempers justice (‘adl) with mercy (rahmah) so that anyone would have enough time to contemplate repentance and avoid wrongdoing altogether.

In short, there is an objective moral and ethical standard in Islam, as projected by the Qur’an and affirmed by the life of the Holy Prophet P.B.U.H., the recognition and acknowledgement of which is signified by a willing submission to its requirements in every aspect of one’s life, whether through the setting of correct intention, the utterance of good words (“A good word is like a good tree”) or the carrying out of meritorious works.

Therefore, Islam renounces any attempt to marginalize and de-consecrate values by violently uprooting such values from the fertile soil of religion, making it subject to the caprices of society, thus reducing all moral and ethical judgements to the level of mere opinions.

Furthermore, Islam does not recognize – as does Western Christianity – the separation between private and public spheres and the subsequent banishment and confinement of religion exclusively to the private sphere. It rejects the claim that the ‘proper’ place for religion is behind closed doors or locked away in the dark recesses of a believer’s heart and mind, and that it must maintain its silence when entering the public arena or that it must throw off its religious garb and suffer the leveling of its values with other opinions – the good, the bad and the ugly – brewing in the public sphere.

“Do not conform to the ways of this world …”

Fuad Rahmat’s assertion that Seksualiti Merdeka “represents a significant shift from the commonly held attitude among Malaysians that the LGBTQ community should be left to do what they want so long as they do not seek full recognition as active and entitled citizens” is a delusional view.

If these people are already recognized as Malaysians, then they have already been accorded full recognition as its citizens. What other full recognition that they require? Normal people do not require such recognition based on their sexuality, so why should we accord special status to people with abnormal sexual preferences?

In addition, publicizing one’s sexuality in order to gain sympathy is a wrong way to help individuals with problems of homosexuality because it gives them false recognition and leads them even more astray and misguided. The situation is not much dissimilar to giving free syringe and drugs to a drug addict wishfully thinking that his condition will improve. Worse still, if similar advocacy is given to drug addicts to announce publicly their “rights” for a fix or invite others to live wretched lives.  In truth, nobody can be helped in this way because encouraging wrongdoing will not correct the behavior when we recognize it as crime, it simply emboldens them to even worse proportions.

It is also a shame to see that the well-meaning words of a prominent Muslim scholar such as Professor Tariq Ramadan has been twisted in order to lend support to the so-called ‘freedom’ of LGBTQ to voice out their sexual preferences in public, when it is clear that he only meant that such groups should be treated with kindness and generosity just like any other person, and that this should not be taken as condoning such sinful acts.

As for the concern of ex-communication or alienation from society, we have already explained Malaysian society’s silence over the matter until issue of Seksualiti Merdeka erupted is testament that the rights to be treated as human beings are already given and that they are tolerated so long as they do not openly promote dangerous and sinful lifestyles masquerading as human rights.

Nobody is proclaiming takfir on these groups, so to conjure the specter of ex-communication or alienation from society or takfir are simply feeble attempts to over-complicate the issue by surreptitiously positing an extreme position with the intention that people will be fearful of it, thus preventing them from even contemplating such a position. Indeed, if one were to take this position to its final logical outcome, it implies that a harmonious society will be one that does not have any objective moral standards to follow and where every moral judgment is merely a personal and subjective opinion. In short, a society without any law will be the happiest and most harmonious one of all – such imagination!

Indeed, there are many historical instances of societies which manage to be ‘inclusive’ in the true sense of the word (i.e. muhibbah, and not tolerance, which simply means “to endure what is unpleasant”) without having to reject religious moral and ethical standards, such as that of Muslim Spain and Ottoman Turkey, to name a few.

Under the penetrating gaze of a keen observer, the inclusiveness being paraded today is nothing but mere superficiality and not skin deep; it is trumpeted as a matter of political currency having no lasting value because ultimately it is not predicated upon correct and absolute grasp of human nature (fitrah) from which flows the correct and proper recognition and acknowledgement of his rights and duties.

True inclusiveness in Islam is not subject to political whims and fortunes, but founded upon a Qur’anic injunction, which implies that it is a religious duty, to which Muslims will be accounted for on the Day of Judgment, and not merely a way of winning votes on the Day of the General Election. The religious affairs minister

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s