It is Islam which elevated women while they were degraded to the status of property and buried alive in the grave at the time of birth. It is Islam which regarded them as a blessing of God and made them equal partners of men in the form of wives and kept the heaven beneath the feet of mothers and commanded them to wear hijaab without covering the face in order to protect their dignity and chastity and commanded men to respect and treat them well. As Prophet Muhammad clearly declared, “the best man among you is he who treats well the female members of his family and a bad man among you is he who misbehaves with the female members of his family.” (Bukhari)
However, the sad part is that a section of Muslims has deprived women of their basic and fundamental rights, including the right to education and the selection of a husband by free will and usurped their liberties and rights which were granted to them by Islam and that too under the pretext of Islamic veil or hijaab. These sections of Muslims first deprived their women of discovering their face under patriarchal, skewed interpretations of the Islamic veil; then usurped their basic rights; they were even prevented from offering prayers. Nowadays, Islam is the only religion on earth with its patriarchal skewed interpretation, which bars its women believers from the mosque. Despite the fact that Prophet Muhammad not only encouraged Muslim women to attend the mosque but also commended Muslim men that “they should not prevent their wives from attending them to mosque for their prayer.” (Bukhari) This type of patriarchal ideology has resulted a distorted version of Islamic teaching of veil of which Nazia Jassim herself became a victim and advocated the veil (for covering the face) to encourage men to enslave women. This precisely made me write this brief clarification
FORMER MALACCA CHIEF MINISTER TAN SRI ABDUL RAHIM TAMBY CHIK STRESSED THAT HE HAD ”NATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY” TO REVEAL WHO WERE INVOLVED IN THE SEX ACT.LIKE
BACK IN 1994, THE THEN CHIEF MINISTER OF MALACCA, ABDUL RAHIM THAMBY CHIK, WAS REPORTED TO HAVE RAPED A 15-YEAR-OLD SCHOOLGIRL (UNDER MALAYSIAN LAW, SEX WITH A MINOR CONSTITUTES STATUTORY RAPE). LIM GUAN ENG, CURRENTLY THE CHIEF MINISTER OF PENANG AND THE THEN MP FOR KOTA MELAKA, SPOKE OUT AGAINST THE RAPE OF A MINOR AFTER THE GIRL’S GRANDMOTHER-CUM-GUARDIAN, WHO WAS ALSO LIM’S CONSTITUENT, TURNED TO HIM FOR HELP.
HOWEVER, FAR FROM DESERVING JUSTICE, BOTH LIM AND THE SCHOOLGIRL RECEIVED THEIR “DUES”. LIM WAS JAILED FOR THREE YEARS FOR SPEAKING UP AGAINST THE RAPE WHILE THE GIRL WAS GIVEN THREE YEARS “PROTECTIVE CUSTODY”. AS FOR RAHIM, BECAUSE OF THE RAPE AND PENDING CORRUPTION CHARGES, HE WAS FORCED TO RESIGN, AFTER A 12-YEAR STINT AS MALACCA’S CHIEF MINISTER.
BUT THE JUDICIARY SAW RAHIM ESCAPE PUNISHMENT FOR A CRIME COMMITTED; THIS CAME ABOUT AFTER THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR WITHDREW THE CHARGE CITING LACK OF EVIDENCE. THE CORRUPTION CHARGES AGAINST RAHIM WERE ALSO DROPPED
Dear Guan Eng,
As you languish in prison, I have had plenty of time to reflect on you and your idealism.
Rightly or wrongly, the Democratic Action Party has long tried to have a ‘MALAYSIAN’ character when the vast majority in the country still perceive it to be essentially a political party for the ethnic Chinese.
I realise that recently people like you have tried hard to attract Malaysians, especially Malays, to make the DAP truly Malaysian, but not too successfully, in my view.
In fact, the face is not included in the veil, as there are a number of Koranic verses and statements of the Prophet which clearly prove that covering the face is not required in Islam. As the Koran says: “Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them, and God is well acquainted with all that they do and say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty, that should not display their beauty except what appear from their beauty.” (S: XXIV: Verse, No: 30, 31).
This verse clearly indicates that the face is not required to be covered under the veil, otherwise what is the use of lowering the gaze? Secondly, and importantly, most of the authentic commentators of the Koran of the medieval and modern periods interpreted the portion of the verse “that should not display their beauty except what appear from their beauty” with the face and feet, the most prominent among them are “Tafsir-e-Jalalain,” included in the syllabus of Deoband and “Tafseer-e- Usman” I, written by Shabbir Usmani of Deoband.
This interpretation of the veil is supported by the statement of the Prophet which was narrated by Aisha, his brilliant wife. According to her, “once her sister Asma visited her at the Prophet’s home in transparent clothes from which her body shined. When the Prophet saw her, he turned his face to another side and said: “O Asma, when a lady reaches her adulthood, she should cover her body except face and feet.” (Ibn Majaa)
In short, the face is not required to be covered in the hijaab; it was included in the hijaab under the patriarchal interpretation of the Islamic text in the fourth century preventing women from performing their duties. In fact, the society of the Prophet was a combined society in which men and women were partners in their routine works on the field, on the battlefield, offering prayers together in a mosque, acquiring education and presenting their valuable contribution to education and knowledge. When Islam does not demand from us to cover the face, then why are we so rigid about it?
.PAS Murshidul Am Tuan Guru Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat said despite the tit-for-tat between the Islamic party and DAP’s Karpal Singh over hudud, the cooperation between the two parties has not been affected.“The question of breaking-up does not arise because now we are not facing any problem. The issue is sensationalised to create confusion,” .A united opposition, especially which includes two parties of contrasting ideologies such as DAP and PAS, is UMNO’s greatest fear, according to opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim.
“As long as the friendship among component parties remain strong, UMNO-BN is afraid to announce the date of election,” said Anwar.
The PKR de-facto leader warned that UMNO would be going all out to wreck apart PAS-DAP cooperation by playing up their differences in order to induce conflict.
“UMNO-BN is just waiting for the split in Pakatan Rakyat whether it is between DAP and PAS or PKR, only then they will reorganise their strategy. Issues are being raised to wreck apart DAP and PAS,” he said at his Hari Raya open house in Permatang Pauh.
Anwar advised PR leaders not to succumb to such tactics and said they should instead focus on matters that could strengthen ties between races.
He added that “all issues raised by UMNO-BN will die prematurely” if PR leaders chose not to respond to UMNO’s game.
PAS and DAP have again been exchanging statements over hudud laws following several remarks by DAP chairman Karpal Singh.
“They (fence-sitters) will determine who will win or lose partly because a large number of seats (in the last elections) were won with a small margin of seats, the strong, talented and intelligent women of Iran — are in fact essential to the nation’s growth. post-Revolutionary Iran that when the government tries to show some muscle, it is the women who are targeted first. The saying is based in quite some truth: when times are tough, politically, the morals police take to the streets in greater droves to harass and insult girls and women for their mandatory hejab. This scarf is too bright. This coat is too short. This makeup is unacceptable. And so on.What’s ironic is that under the Islamic Republic, more Iranian women have become educated at institutions of higher learning than they had under the monarchy. Many observers attributed this to the fact that religious families finally acquiesced, in the post Revolutionary Iran, to allowing their daughters to go to university because of segregated university options, required hejab, and a curriculum that mandates religious studies and practice.I still remember the very first public debate I spoke at 33 years ago. The motion – as it was called then – was whether ‘modern civilization was making man more and more uncivilized?’ I must admit, that in those salad years, I hardly understood the full import of what I had been asked to speak on. I remember that amongst the arguments that my teacher insisted that I labour on was one that cited the more visible, ‘negative manifestations’ of our modern-day society: ‘….that with progress today the hemline has continued to climb up the leg, while the neckline has plunged to a most vulgar ebb!’. I do remember delivering this line and most of my arguments otherwise with a great degree of passion and gusto. I also remember coming home with a huge smile on my face. I had played to the galleries and I had beaten the competition hollow.READMOREhttp://themalaybusin