Hairun Nizam said Abdul Hadi was the ‘best person’ to lead the nation. — Picture by Saw Siow Feng

This is the weakness of PAS. Religion is not amenable to argument based on logic!

The administration of a country cannot be left in the hands of people who cannot make decisions based on reason and logic. Now, earlier some leaders said that one should not say any thing that is unnecessary that may harm the party from winning the next GE. This PAS conference is not even over, and now this?
Anwar has a much better credential and reputation than Hadi Awang, not just in Malaysia, but outside the SEA region. Anwar has the ability to united the 3 main components parties of PR than PAS. I am sure Hadi Awang is also a very capable person, but many voters/supporters, especially from DAP and PKR would agree with me on this.

The followers of the three religions that originated in the Middle East have been fighting ever since their religions existed. For thousands of years, religion has not been able to make peace. How can religion ensure good government? PAS has shot itself in the mouth. It is simply this type of rhetoric that derails any aspiration to over throw the corrupted BN regime. Instead of focusing on winning the general election a single ‘rotten apple” from the Ulama wing spoiled the basket of apples. HAIRUN NIZAM SPOILED THE PARTY. I hope Tok Hadi is wise enough not to be caught into this vicious game. Anwar is the ICON of the opposition and it is him that the BN regime is afraid of. So such grand standing will hurt the opposition’s chance to capture PUTRA JAYA. PAS should also remember that it was UMNO that kicked it out from BN and it took decades for it to reinvent and re-establish itself as a genuine opposition that is acceptable the plural Malaysia. I hope common sense will prevail among the PAS delegates at its muktamar
Just as other delegates has cautioned against making sensationalist remarks and statements, here’s another that’s trying to do the opposite. To win this election, we are gonna need the votes of those sitting on the fences, those undecideds. Scaring them with the prospect of an Islamic state is never the right answer.
How many times do we have to put this to rest ? Malaysia is a secular state, with Islam being the state’s official religion. That is enshrined in the Constitution and will never, EVER change. We certainly don’t need such distraction now. Keep harping on this issue, and PKR will only win the elections in their dreams and BN will continue with their corrupt ways.
PKR,PAS and DAP, this is probably the best time for you to win the election. There are so many things and news that you can use to whip the people’s emotions now; Lynas, the church’s land grab in Pahang, NFC scandal, PKNZ scandal, the submarine scandals, etc. Do not allow a small glitch as this to side-track your opportunity. Make a statement and stand united.

No, dear Hairun, the religious beliefs of a person is the last thing you want to consider in selecting a PM!Perhaps so but the damage has been done! So who said Pakatan had GE13 in the bag? Who said Pakatan was as united as a flight of flying geese? Did not someone see that for at least the last two years that PAS’s Ulama wing, which an Islamic fundamentalist rightwing group, has been uppingbthe ante for wanting to be top dog in the Pakatan coalition? If Pakatan leadership cannot manage the power-plays six months out from the next poll, it will severely erode its chances of winning the coming election. Knowing who will be theOpposition PM-in-waiting should have been ironed out and cemented a long time ago. And you can bet Umno-BN will exploit this weakness in Pakatan’s leadership to the hilt. Umno smells blood. Pakatan must quickly resolve the designate PM matter once and for all, and quickly. In my view, compared to Anwar Ibrahim, Hadi Awang would not make a good PM. I liken him to Abdullah Badawi, who I thoughtbwas useless and hopeless and a waste of precious space and time. Anwar would be a better PM, and certainly better than Najib Razak. But he would only be PM for one term.

Just a unintelligent statement. And since its a pas gathering what else can the audience do than appear to support its leader. Did we expect them to boo the speaker? Was he just bodekking or talking big b4 a microphine? Does saudi arabia appoint its foremost religious authority to be head of country? Even if one is the foremost religious authority how do we know one is intelligent enough to run a govt? With all due respect to Hadi he has only been the chief minister of a state and though I am not an Anwar fan he has been head of a few federal ministries and the deputy pm so based on experience who qualifies more? Its precisely because of such tribal thinking that the country has regressed so much.

It appears the religious wing is intent on allowing the rakyat to continue suffering under the UMNO/BN govt!

Can you just work together with the other parties and win the elections first before shooting your mouth off? Since when has good administrative ability been guaranteed by religious beliefs?

Instead of doing that, the religious wing is just helping UMNO Baru!

Pathetic! And the reason why life is not going to improve for the rakyat, regardless of who wins the elections.

If it is not the greedy power hungry scoundrels of UMNO Baru, it will be the power hungry and self righteous nuts of PAS!

Those who call Anwar an anarchist miss the point. Anarchists aim to destroy democracy . They break the law. They subvert institutions . Anwar does none of these. We may disagree with some of his methods — i do — but not with his intent. And it is important to separate method from intent.The intent is clearly right: expose the corrupt , improve governance, unmask collusive politics, and undermine the nexus between businessmen and politicians. All these objectives are noble and necessary. Malaysia has for too long been a democracy of, by, and for the few rather than the many. This culture of privilege has corroded governance and created two nations: those who have it all and those who have very little.

In the middle of these two extremes is the small but growing aspirational middle class which forms the core support group ofAnwar large enough to give him many seats in Parliament But it will give him enough clout to be a disruptive influence.
As a politician,has a clearer vision than he and his team have done so far. Their manifesto contain incisive ideas on economic reforms, counter-terrorism , foreign policy, the environment, defence, energy and agriculture. It must also state the team’s agenda on reforming our institutions, including giving the MACC autonomy and the EC statutory powers to conduct a monthly public audit of political party funding and expenditure.

Anwar to play a serious, long-term role in Malaysia’s evolving democracy, he will shift from the politics of agitation to the politics of reform.
Interference in religious matters of Muslims The intelligence agencies with special reference to IB (Intelligence Bureau), alleged that innocent Muslims are being targetted at the behest of Rashtriya Swyamsevak Sangh, (RSS), in pursuance of the saffron agenda.UMNO working with mindset of RSS and Pass is trap along the way Umno and Pas leaders  are not Islamists. Anyone …Read more UMNO WORKING WITH MINDSET OF RSS AND PAS IS TRAPPED ALONG THE WAY

The media usually salivates and greedily laps up stories of “Islam oppressed me, but now I’m liberated! Let’s celebrate!” by women who choose to give up religion. Which is what made the Open Page article, “Under the veil, we are free souls!”(April 22, 2012) by Jumana Haseen Rahim, a pleasant surprise. While the Taslima Nasreens of the world hog the limelight with their views and definitions of freedom, it is rare that Muslim women, with conflicting views on women’s liberation, are given a chance to voice their thoughts. However, while Jumana’s article speaks out against labelling women in hijab (veil), it does not explain why many Muslim women feel so passionately about the hijab.

As an educated woman in her early twenties who chooses to wear her religious convictions on her sleeve by practising hijab, I have been subjected to animosity, and worse — pity, from feminists and those who cannot fathom the reasons behind my choice. While I can attribute hurtful, anti-Muslim slurs to narrow-mindedness and bigotry, the assumption made by the educated, so-called forward-thinkers, that we are all oppressed girls whose lifestyles are dictated by the men in their lives, is both frustrating and demeaning.

Hijab is more than just a religious obligation. People need to realise that, in its own right, it symbolises liberty. It gives women the freedom to show male strangers only the parts of the body that they wish them to see. Yes, the simple salwar kameez and kurti do come under the category of ‘modest’ clothing. But if men want to objectify women, hijab just makes things harder for them. I would even go so far as to call it the ultimate feminist statement. A Muslim woman’s definition of empowerment is being judged by her personality alone, leaving her looks to be appreciated only by those who matter. To those who refer to the burkha as a “medieval garb,” I ask: Why is it that a nun wearing a similar robe is looked upon with respect, while a woman in a burkha is labelled as ‘backward’?

Jumana’s article has received a mixed response. While many agree that it all comes down to personal choice, others raise the valid point that many Muslim girls are compelled to wear burkhas. Having been born into an educated, open-minded family which has kept me aware of my rights as a woman, it is especially painful to hear stories of Muslim girls being forced into burkhas, being deprived of their rights and being made to conform to norms set by misguided men. But can anyone name ONE religion in which patriarchy hasn’t reared its ugly head?

The niqab (face-covering) raises questions about its being not just a threat to security, but also the cause for a woman’s identity to ‘fade away’. A woman who wears the veil is obligated to reveal her identity whenever security demands it — in airports, in banks and in court, and she is fully aware of that.

As for the danger of her losing her identity, it must be understood that the face-veil is worn only when she steps out of her home. It is not worn in front of other women, as well as close male relatives. If only male strangers lose out on the chance of seeing a woman’s face, I fail to comprehend how that constitutes the loss of her identity.

Crimes against Muslim women cannot be attributed to Islam as a religion. Islam was the first to give women the right to own property, to divorce and to remarry (rights that were won by women of other religions only after fighting for them). In order to prevent girl babies being associated with burden, Muslim women are the ones who can ask dowries of their husbands. Islam doesn’t oppress women. Men oppress women. The reasons behind the exploitation of women in all religions and communities are the same: women being kept in the dark about their rights, and patriarchal, skewed interpretations of the religious text.

(The writer’s email ID is

I agree with Nazia Jassim that (The Hindu. In fact, it is Islam which liberated women from the brutality of patriarchal society and the shackles of cruel customs that had usurped their basic and fundamental rights of living. It is Islam which provided them several rights — right of inheritance, right to own property, right to education, right to trade and business, right of selection of the husband by free will and right of remarriage in case of his demise and right of divorce.
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.
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?

Bans on full-face veils in France and Belgium and a failure by other European countries to stop employers from enforcing informal dress codes means Muslim women are being denied jobs and education, Amnesty International said on Tuesday.
In a wide-ranging report highlighting examples of discrimination against Muslims across Europe, Amnesty said governments were pandering to prejudices by stopping Muslim women from wearing full-face veils and urged France and Belgium to repeal their own bans on such veils.”Muslim women are being denied jobs and girls prevented from attending regular classes just because they wear traditional forms of dress,” said Amnesty researcher Marco Perolini.
“Rather than countering these prejudices, political parties and public officials are all too often pandering to them in their quest for votes,” he added.The human rights group said countries like Belgium, France, Switzerland and the Netherlands were also failing to prevent employers enforcing informal policies that banned religious dress – such as headscarves worn by many Muslim women – on the grounds of preserving neutrality, promoting a corporate image or pleasing customers.

Pupils in these countries and others had also been barred from wearing religious and cultural dress, it said.

“Women should be able to wear whatever they prefer … States have focused so much in recent years (on) the wearing of full-face veils as if this practice were the most widespread and compelling form of inequality that women have to face,” the report said.Amnesty called on the European Union to ensure European legislation banning discrimination by employers on the grounds of religion or belief was properly implemented across its 27 member states.

It also urged European leaders to avoid introducing bans on the wearing of religious or cultural dress at schools and universities.France banned clothing that covers the face in April 2011 and Belgium followed suit in July of the same year, while similar legislation has been proposed in the Netherlands, Italy and some Spanish regions.
Citing individual witnesses, Amnesty said France’s introduction of the ban had increased hostility against Muslim women wearing the niqab, a veil across the face that only reveals the eyes. It said the ban was the wrong approach to address concerns that some Muslim women were being coerced to wear such clothing against their will because of cultural or family pressures.
Governments should not try to impose restrictions on full face veils for security reasons or just because a section of the public found it objectionable, it added.It cited cases in which employers had refused to hire women who declined to remove their headgear.One Dutch Muslim woman told Amnesty how a travel agency in Antwerp said it could not employ her if she insisted on wearing a headscarf. “We cannot hire you for front-office positions, we do not want to lose clients,” she was told.In the same report, Amnesty also urged Switzerland, which uses referendums to decide some legislation, to annul votes that were discriminatory after the country barred the construction of new minarets following a referendum in 2009.
“There is a groundswell of opinion in many European countries that Islam is alright and Muslims are OK so long as they are not too visible. This attitude is generating human rights violations and needs to be challenged,” Perolini said.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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