Banner Advertiser

Saturday, August 29, 2009

[mukto-mona] FW: Merkel warns Iran :Why al wester states talk in same vein--Asia Post editorial dated 29.8.09



 

 

-----

 

 

 

Merkel warns Iran  :Why All  Western States Talk in Same vein

 

 

BBC has reported that Iran could face new sanctions if it does not show a willingness to negotiate on its nuclear programme, the German chancellor has said.  Merkel was speaking after talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Berlin. She also called on Israel to freeze its settlement construction for the sake of progress in peace talks. In London on Wednesday, Mr Netanyahu suggested Israel was close to an agreement on settlements. During his visit to Germany, the Israeli prime minister has also been given original blueprints of the Nazi death camp at Auschwitz.

 

 

The plans, which date from 1941-2, were found in a Berlin flat last year and include technical drawings for a gas chamber and crematorium - a symbol of the difficult history which connects Germany with the Jewish state created after the Nazi Holocaust. "If there is no positive answer by September we will have to consider further measures," said Mrs Merkel. Speaking at a press conference after their talks, Mr Netanyahu called for "crippling sanctions" against Iran to stop its disputed nuclear programme. "It is possible to put real pressure, real economic pressure, on this regime if the major powers of the world unite," he said.

 

On the settlement issue, Mrs Merkel said a freeze in construction would push forward the Israeli-Palestinian peace process."Progress on the issue of settlements - a freeze on settlements - is an important building block and a prerequisite for a restart of the Middle East peace process," said Mrs Merkel. Chancellor Merkel has shown herself a staunch supporter of Israel and received a standing ovation in parliament last year when she pledged that her country would stand by Israel's side against any threat. But, says the BBC's Steve Rosenberg in Berlin, she is ready to criticize when she sees fit.

 

We do not understand why western nations and leaders mostly speak in same vein about Iran and Israel.Chancel0or did not raise the issue of Israeli nukes at all but threatened Iran with actions in line with other western nations.Israel is a horribly bad state, never gave any importance to solving Palestinian state issue. Why freeze on settlements, why not their dismantling? This is clear violation of international law, even US or Britain did not make such settlements in their occupied territories in their colonial period. Why they should not go back to pre-1967 border, why so much negotiation is needed for that. In each issue in Palestinian question, we find Israel and the West responsible for failure to solve this issue.There is no point in pleasing Israel by warning Iran of sanctions. We know West has no ear to hear all these. But we know in the end Israel can not get its illegal demands.

.

 

 

.

.

 

 

 



__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Terrorist godfather of Kushtia



Terrorist godfather of Kushtia
 
 
 Headline news image
 
 
 

start: 0000-00-00 end: 0000-00-00

__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] 71 River Ghats : BALists got all



71 River Ghats : BALists got all
 
 
 
 



__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] A step backward from digital Bangladesh:Electronic passport option dropped



A step backward from digital Bangladesh:Electronic passport option dropped
 
 
Government's goal of issuing secure passports by the ICAO mandated deadline of April 2010, is in disarray due to frequent changes in plans. According to reliable sources, the government after several failed attempts now plan to finally float the tender by early next month leaving just enough time to meet the deadline for the TK 283 crore project.(The New Nation)

After in principle deciding to go with electronic passports for a brief period, the officials at the Department of Immigration and Passport (DIP) under the Ministry of Home Affairs have finally concluded to go with Machine Readable Passports for now.

Representatives of top international security printing and passport manufacturing companies such a Bundes Druckerei GmBH, Gemalto, Garsu Pasaulis, Oberkur, Canadian Bank Note, Kiet and Iris are showing interest in the project. Several of the players have formally presented to the DIP and discussed technological options.

Few months back the Department of Immigration and Passport changed the core team responsible for the passport project. The government as part of this reshuffle abandoned prior plans of using a foreign consulting firm to help define requirements and conduct evaluation and execution of the project. Members of the armed forces were brought in to form a new team. Brigadier General Refayet Ullah as part of this change became the new project director to head the initiative.

Today the latest and greatest in passport technology involves embedded RFID chips that contain biometric information which are an integral part of e-passports. Such e-passports provide the highest level of security and protection against counterfeiting.

Machine readable passports on the other hand relies on bar coding to store security information. The government has decided to enhance the standard MRP with Polycarbonate Data Page providing additional level of security. While MRPs are about 20 percent cheaper according to experts in the field, these cannot match the level of security provided by e-passports.

The MRP which was introduced in the 80s is an aging technology gradually being phased out by e-passports in various parts of the world. Neighboring Nepal is planning to go with e-passports. Their tender document is expected to be released within few weeks. India has already introduced e-passports for diplomats and government officials.

The government's decision to go with MRP as an interim step towards full fledged e-passport implementation exposes itself to several major risks. First, within few years just like current implementation requirement by ICAO for MRPs, Bangladesh may be forced to reissue e-passports in the near future when it becomes mandatory by other countries. And second, since MRPs can be counterfeited the entire investment in the passport project may end up being wasted if foreign countries lack confidence.

According to a leading security printing company official, "Since the government has already decided to go with MRP, it should at the least ensure that a migration path exists to allow seamless transition to e- passports in the near future."

Over 5.5 million Bangladeshis were working abroad until April 2009.

Remittance from Bangladeshi workers abroad is the second largest source of foreign exchange in the country. Even yesterday's papers speaks about 29 Bangladeshi's in Bangkok being detained due to lack of proper travel documents. According to a representative of foreign manpower company in Bangladesh, secure passports will definitely reduce harassment cases of Bangladeshi workers traveling abroad.

http://nation.ittefaq.com/issues/2009/08/30/news0985.htm



__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

Re: [ALOCHONA] AL move to end caretaker system gains momentum



In bangladesh everything comes to an end suddenly.
That's our culture. Democracy, decency and smooth transfer of power are  foreign concept.
 
 

--- On Thu, 8/27/09, Enam Haque <enam28@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Enam Haque <enam28@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [ALOCHONA] AL move to end caretaker system gains momentum
To: alochona@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, August 27, 2009, 12:24 AM



In Bangladesh, it is simply impossible to transfer power under the political government - whether it is BAL or BNP. We need to continue with the caretaker system for long. BAL failed the test in the Upazilla election under the current EC.
 


--- On Tue, 8/25/09, Sajjad Hossain <shossain456@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Sajjad Hossain <shossain456@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [ALOCHONA] AL move to end caretaker system gains momentum
To: alochona@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, August 25, 2009, 9:17 PM

 
The timing of writing a piece in favour of abolishing the Caretaker System by Afsan Chowdhury is particularly interesting.
He is nothing but the "hired Bhudhijibi" of the Awami Camp. He just re-iterated his Masters voice.
 
Now, 'democracy is for the fully grown adults." Insteresting! Since 1996 to 2007, according to Ms Majid our politicians were children.
As soon as with the help of pro-Awami Election Commission, when Awami League ascended to the Throne, now they have become adult including 59 years Sheikh Hasina and 64 years Begum Zia. I did not know that in Bangladesh someone needs to wait that long to be an adult.
 
Free and fair election. Yes, can be organized but not by the Election Commission under Dr Huda which scored a world record of 87% vote casting in a national election; in many cases with 110% vote casting.
SH
Toronto


From: Farida Majid <farida_majid@ hotmail.com>
To: Alochona Alochona <alochona@yahoogroup s.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 3:50:47 PM
Subject: RE: [ALOCHONA] AL move to end caretaker system gains momentum

 
   The childish reasoning of this person is to be noted with inyerest.  Children need caretaking, since they know not how to act responsibly. Democracy is for fully grown adults.
 
      . . . . Simply put, Bangladeshi parties don't have the political maturity, intent or will to have free and fair elections when in power. The Election Commission can do a much better job and by strengthening the commission much can be improved and even moved towards a system where the caretaker government will not be required. .....

                            Afsan Chowdhury got it right.
 
            farida majid

To: alochona@yahoogroup s.com
From: shossain456@ yahoo.com
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 13:04:28 -0700
Subject: Re: [ALOCHONA] AL move to end caretaker system gains momentum

 
If next time BNP comes to power due to touch of some miracle, you would see Awami League on the street again to re-introduce the Caretaker Government System. Same "Budhijibis" will turn their arguments 180 degrees around.

SH
Toronto


From: Ezajur Rahman <ezajur.rahman@ q8.com>
To: alochona@yahoogroup s.com
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 5:43:42 AM
Subject: [ALOCHONA] AL move to end caretaker system gains momentum

 

AL move to end caretaker system gains momentum
The system of non-party supervision of elections is a product of our political parties and their immaturity and absolute inability to come to power through fair and public participatory methods. The situation could be worth changing if the situation had improved but, remarkable as it may seem, our political parties have remained as unable to be part of a democratic process as they were two decades back
in 1990, writes Afsan Chowdhury

Courtesy New Age 24/8/09


AWAMI League leaders of the middle variety as well as a few of the top ones – or should we say ex-top ones – have recently started to deride the caretaker government system which has been in place for almost two decades. It is stated to have been an experiment that has lived out its purpose and time, and is ready to be discarded.
   The Awami League has, of course, said that it is not a decision and that the issue should be debated and even the Election Commission should be part of the debate but the intentions are clear – it does not want the caretaker government system anymore.
   The caretaker government system was introduced as an interim measure in 1990 after the fall of Ershad following the mass movement. The movement had been on for nearly a decade against the somewhat feeble regime of Ershad because the two contenting parties – the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and the Awami League – were so antagonistic to each other that they never even managed to get together to fight their common enemy jointly, allowing Ershad to go on for so long.
   Once Ershad had fallen, there was no succession and so the concept of 'neutral caretaker government' under Justice Shahabuddin Ahmed, then the chief justice of the Supreme Court, took over, a concept born out of necessity. It was supposed to be an interim, short-term arrangement in view of the complete lack of trust of the political parties in each other at that time. The arrangement worked the first time but trust in each other never increased. The arrangement was incorporated into the constitution in 1996.
   The arrangement was never popular but everyone accepted it because it was convenient for the two warring parties during an election. The neutral tag of the caretaker government soon disappeared as the interim members of the government were largely split between representatives of both the parties but it swayed and rolled on till in 2006-7 when it faced its worst crisis when the BNP abused the mechanism to an absurd level. Its very transparent manipulation attempt exposed the fact that even this system could itself cause a crisis. That such action by politicians can hurt the system so badly that political options can disappear from the table leaving only violence behind. The inevitable result was the military-backed civilian takeover and the rest is well known. The Awami League had even then expressed unhappiness and now is doing so again. Why the sudden acceleration of dislike of the system which has brought them to power through the 2008 elections is not well understood. Meanwhile, the BNP has already expressed opposition to the idea as expected.
   The system of non-party supervision of elections is a unique system in the world and product of our political parties and their immaturity and absolute inability to come to power through fair and public participatory methods. The situation could be worth changing if the situation had improved but, remarkable as it may seem, our political parties have remained as unable to be part of a democratic process as they were two decades back in 1990. The reason which had led to the birth of the neutral caretaker government system remains as valid as it was then. So what has changed since then that the Awami League is keen to replace it with a party-in-power- based election is not understood?
   Speculation one – the Awami League wants to do a BNP in future, that is just as the BNP distorted the system to try to stay on in power in 2006 by manipulating the mechanism. It couldn't face the idea of handing over power after only a term and it was very unsure that it could win on a popular ticket. It was a desperate move that backfired on them.
   The Awami League till now has been having a very bad time since elections and its performance is not winning vote points. Many of the problems it faces have grown over the years under both party regimes and by ignoring such issue they have now become huge and perhaps unmanageable. If the Awami League can't handle them, unpopularity is inevitable and that may translate into an electoral disaster the next time. The party may not want to risk a free and fair election under the present system. Hence, it wants to do away with it and reduce risk unlike the BNP which wanted to keep the system but manipulate it.
   Speculation two – the Awami League believes that the time is right for making a move that will further push the BNP into a corner. The BNP doesn't resemble a winner's party anymore and the tag of corruption and support to terrorist elements is a major burden for the BNP. It does have a degree of dependence on these elements for its political clout but, as the regional concern for extremist violence grows, the Awami League may find itself as a facilitator of clamping down on such forces. The Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, the BNP's main ally, is basically a Pakistan-based party of its ancestors, and its brothers in Pakistan aren't doing too well as all extremists get lumped together there as 'enemies' as the fight against the Taliban expands. These parties while varying in their extremism are all ideologically anti-Indian and if that is an ideology, then it will soon become involved in regional politics, if not terrorism. Should the security scenario become more dangerous, there may be a nod to the Awami League to at act tough against such elements and both the BNP and Jamaat may be at the receiving end of the AL stick with regional and global support behind it. So if the Awami League emerges as the only goods on the political shelf the neutral caretaker government system will lose relevance.
   Speculation three – the Awami League knows that the BNP is weakened and after the war crimes trials which will be held most probably even if in a diminished manner, both the BNP and Jamaat will be on the back foot and the Awami League will be able to push through a series of changes suiting its politics. If the BNP can be shown to have consorted too closely with Jamaat, which is certain to be linked with war crimes, if not tried as such, the Awami League will hope to cut down the level of street opposition and push its new plan. The time may be right according to them.
   These may well be what the Awami League is thinking and it doesn't matter if they are speculation or not but the fact of the matter is, the Awami League is on the move to cut down a system which, given our political performance, should stay much longer. The people of Bangladesh have shown that they have political maturity but the BNP's action during its last regime and the Awami League's action since coming to power in its last incarnation can hardly make anyone think that Bangladesh has reached a state of political stability under which fair elections will be or can be held.
   Of course there are two factors that can make or unmake the argument. One is the function of the Election Commission and the other is the role of the army.
   It can be argued that the caretaker government is not necessary as the Election Commission is strengthened enough. This is a key question but there have been doubts about the level of power the commission enjoys and if those powers actually allow it to supervise the entire electoral process and the conducting of related business. The tirade of the BNP politician Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury against the commission after it declared him guilty of misinforming it about his educational qualifications the people and his refusal to resign followed by threats are indicators that the commission is still far short of the powers that would give it the kind of clout needed to ensure a free and fair election even when a party is in power.
   Apart from that, given the history of our politics, there is little evidence that the government will make the Election Commission so strong and independent that it can call the shots in an election no matter who rules the roost. Since our political parties have, in fact, systematically weakened the judiciary and the political institutions, it would take an unrealistic optimist to think that our parties will make any institution stronger than the party in power. In that case, we would not need the caretaker government but right now the Election Commission is nowhere near empowered to make a difference that will see an unpopular government thrown out by the voters even if in power.
   Right now the most organised and strengthened institution in the country is the army and it is their tilt to a proper election managed by the Election Commission saw the results that we have now. It's no secret that the ex-army chief General Moeen's actions in this regard hurt the BNP which is why the plethora of cases and condemnations of this man by BNP leaders. However, still now, it's the military guarantee that ensures civilian rule. That will be so in the future unless some major incident occurs or any new factor is introduced. Is the Awami League hoping that the military will also support this move to end caretaker government thinking that the army has gone pro-Awami League?
   The army wears olive uniforms and not the black coat of the Awami League and its support to the Awami League was strategic given in the best interest of self-preservation. If the AL decision to end the caretaker government system makes it unpopular, a generator of instability and again returns the kind of situation which forced the army to act as protector of the state and the army itself, the Awami League may find a friend missing, the friend that matters.
   The decision to try to shift away from an established system that has provided and can provide stability, if both parties decide to respect it, is a matter of great concern. It seems that the Awami League has decided to do so and is now making dry runs but there is no evidence to suggest that it can be carried off because the BNP will certainly oppose it on the streets and the situation is not so strong for the Awami League that it can override them.
   Simply put, Bangladeshi parties don't have the political maturity, intent or will to have free and fair elections when in power. The Election Commission can do a much better job and by strengthening the commission much can be improved and even moved towards a system where the caretaker government will not be required. But, to decide that, a system which is designed to protect the people from the political parties and their antagonism shouldn't be done away with simply because it looks a good time to act in a way that will ensure the favourite fantasy of Bangladeshi parties – endless rule.

 


Kuwait Petroleum International Limited
P.O.Box:1819 Safat 13019 Kuwait. Tel.:(+965) 22332800 - Fax: (+965) 22332776
Registered in England, Registration Number 1734259. VAT Registration Number: GB 606 1853 52
Registered Office: Duke's Court, Duke Street, Woking, Surrey GU21 5BH United Kingdom.
A wholly owned Subsidiary Company of Kuwait Petroleum Corporation, Kuwait

The information in this email and any attachment are confidential and may also be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, please inform the sender and delete this message and any attachment from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy this message or use it for any purpose or disclose the contents to any other person.





Windows Live: Make it easier for your friends to see what you're up to on Facebook. Find out more.


start: 0000-00-00 end: 0000-00-00



__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[mukto-mona] Re-Reading Islam: Zainah Anwar and the Quest for An Islamic Theology of Gender Justice



Re-Reading Islam: Zainah Anwar and the Quest for An Islamic Theology of Gender Justice

By Yoginder Sikand

 

Zainah Anwar is one of Malaysia's most well-known public intellectuals. She is the founder of 'Sisters in Islam', a leading Muslim feminist organization, of which she was till recently the executive director. She has served as a member of the Human Rights Organisation of Malaysia, and is one of the most vocal activists in the civil rights movement in the country.

Anwar's writings on Islam, mainly in the form of articles for the Malaysian press, reflect her longstanding involvement in the struggle for civil rights in her country, including, and especially, for women and non-Muslims. A major concern in her writings (as also her political involvement) is to critique conservative, and what she sees as reactionary, interpretations of Islam that impinge on the human rights, particularly of Muslim women and non-Muslims. In their place, she seeks to articulate alternate Islamic understandings that, in her view, reflect and champion what she sees as a fundamental principle of Islam: justice. Her point of departure in her critique of what she sees as unjust interpretations of traditional Islamic jurisprudence and theology and in her struggle to articulate alternate interpretations is the issue of justice.

Justice, Anwar says, is a fundamental and underlying aspect of Islam, and the God of Islam is a just one. 'For me and my group, Sisters in Islam', she writes, 'it is an article of faith that Islam is just and God is just.'[1] Hence, interpretations of Islamic theology and jurisprudence that are unjust, including with respect to Muslim women and non-Muslims, she suggests, are actually a violation of (her reading of) Islam. Being human constructions and not divine, they need to be challenged and critiqued and replaced with interpretations that are in line with the notion of justice, as she understands it.

Using justice as the fundamental criterion in critiquing received notions of Islamic theology and jurisprudence that she finds problematic, Anwar's writings about Islam revolve around numerous themes, three of which this article looks at: the notion of religious authority in Islam; the desirability of the state legislating morality, and the associated issue of the 'Islamic state'; and, ostensibly 'Islamic' laws in place in Malaysia that Anwar argues deny justice and equality to Muslim women.

 

Who Can Speak for Islam?

Central to Anwar's academic and activist involvement with issues related to Islam is her insistence that she, as a Malaysian, a Muslim and a woman, also has the right to speak for and about Islam. This puts her immediately at odds with the conservative ulema, including official Islamic 'authorities', and Islamist ideologues, who presume to possess the sole right to interpret Islam, based on their claimed 'expertise' in Islamic matters.  

Like any other text, religious or other, the Quran, Anwar writes, is open to a multiplicity of interpretations. 'Islam does not speak' on its own, she comments. Rather, it is human beings who, in seeking to interpret Islam, claim to 'speak in God's name'.[2] She further explains, '[T]he product of that human engagement with the divine text is not divine law, but human-constructed law.'[3] This is reflected in the fact of the existence of many schools of Islamic theology as well as in the multiple, often divergent and contradictory, prescriptions and rules in the corpus of traditional fiqh, a result of the ijtihad or personal interpretation of the fuqaha associated with the commonly-accepted fiqh schools. In other words, their theological formulations and their ijtihad were a human product, and, since all human beings, including the classical scholars, are both liable to err and are also shaped by their own social and historical circumstances, fiqh cannot be said to be synonymous with the Divine Will.

In this regard, Anwar argues that certain fiqh rules as well as certain interpretations of the Quran that militate against justice and equality, including for women and non-Muslims, which are in place in many Muslim countries today, including Malaysia, cannot or should not be considered to be beyond criticism, in contrast to what the traditionalist ulema, Islamist ideologues or state authorities might insist.

Taken together, all this means that the traditionalist ulema, the state religious authorities and Islamist ideologues do not have a monopoly over interpreting and defining Islam and the shariah. Anwar questions what might be considered to be the undue restrictions and unnecessarily cumbersome conditions that the traditionalist ulema have laid down for one to be considered to be an authoritative Islamic scholar, possibly to legitimize their own authority. She indicates that since Islamic laws in Malaysia impinge on all the citizens of the country, directly or indirectly, including non-Muslim Malaysians, Islam is too important an issue to be left to the ulema alone to discuss and interpret. As she puts it:

When Islam is used as a source of law and public policy, then everyone has the right to talk about the subject. Public law, public policy must by necessity be opened to public debate, and pass the test of public reason […] Those who do not want anyone but the ulama to speak on Islam must realise that the only way to preserve the religion from public scrutiny is to take it out of the public sphere and keep it private between the believer and God. But when you proclaim that Islam is a way of life, Islam is the solution, Islam has all the answers, you cannot then tell everyone who disagrees with you to shut up because only you will provide the answers. That is tantamount to totalitarian rule.[4]

Since Malaysia is a democracy, Anwar argues, law-making must be a product of a democratic process. Laws cannot be imposed simply because the ulema believe them to be divinely-mandated. In this regard, she asks:

Within the context of a democratic nation state such as Malaysia, can this process of law-making be the sole preserve of the ulama? Within the context of the changing realities of our lives today from the time the classical texts were written, shouldn't the law-making process be conducted in democratic engagement, especially with those who are affected by these laws and policies?[5]

 

The 'Islamic State' and State Regulation of Morality

In recent decades, under pressure from conservative Muslim forces and also as a result of what has been termed the race between the two largest Malay-dominated parties in Malaysia, the UMNO and the PAS, to 'out-Islamise' the other, the Malaysian state has expanded the power and scope of shariah courts in the country and has vastly expanded the religious bureaucracy, with the setting up of numerous well-funded Islamic institutions. Government-sponsored selective and often cosmetic 'Islamisation' is also evident in the growing tendency of the state to seek to control private behaviour and personal morality through the shariah courts, and by passing laws to control and sternly punish 'un-Islamic' behaviour on the part of its Muslim citizens.[6] Anwar speaks of this as reflecting an 'obstinate obsession to regulate Muslims in every aspect of our lives.'[7] Some observers regard this as a sign of a gradual transformation of Malaysia into an officially 'Islamic state'.

Anwar argues that the state must have no role in seeking to enforce Islamic morality in the private lives of its Muslim citizens. This is one of the main reasons for her opposition to the notion of an 'Islamic state' itself, for forcing its citizens to abide by shariah rules and punish transgressions thereof are seen as one of the principal duties of an 'Islamic state'. Anwar provides several reasons for her opposition to this. Some of these are based on secular grounds, others on 'Islamic' arguments.

Firstly, Anwar points out, in practice, in Malaysia as well as other Muslim countries, such enforcement by state shariah courts targets women more often and more severely than it does men, especially with regard to issues such as 'Islamic' dress, the consumption of intoxicants and mixing with people of the opposite gender.[8] One of the main reasons for this is that ostensibly 'Islamic' laws that seek to regulate and punish what is regarded as un-Islamic behaviour are often drawn not directly from the Quran, but, rather, principally from the corpus of medieval fiqh, a human product that is characterized by biases against women (and non-Muslims).

Secondly, Anwar regards several such laws as a 'violation of human rights', and terms the punishments they prescribe as 'cruel', 'degrading', and 'inhuman'.[9] They also, she adds, clearly violate Malaysia's international commitments, including its acceptance of numerous international treaties on human rights that outlaw discrimination based on gender and religion.[10] Related to this is Anwar's point that such laws go completely against the image of being a 'moderate' and 'progressive' Muslim state—indeed, the 'model' Muslim state—that Malaysia has tried so hard to cultivate.

Thirdly, many of the punishments that shariah courts lay down, which she terms as 'draconian', have no sanction in the Quran, but, rather, are based mainly on the cumulative Muslim jurisprudential tradition of fiqh, which, she argues, violate the letter and the spirit of the Quran in several crucial respects. Such, for instance, is the case with the law against Muslim apostates[11] and the law that prescribes caning for Muslims who consume alcohol.

Fourthly, the very tendency of the state, the traditionalist ulema and Islamist groups to seek to control and regiment people's personal behaviour through fear of punishment reflects what Anwar regards as an understanding of Islam which she considers as quite opposed to her own, which is based on the notion of a loving, kind and compassionate God.[12] As she puts it, such laws and punishments reflect a 'seeming determination of those who rule in the name of Islam to project a misogynist, punitive and vindictive God'. But this, she insists, is far from the Quranic conception of what she terms 'a God of kindness, compassion, beauty and goodness', a God who enjoins 'forgiveness […] and positive personal transformation.'[13] Consequently, Anwar says, some of the harsh laws devised by the ulema regarding women and non-Muslims that are presently enforced by the state and the punishments they prescribe cannot be said to be in accordance with the Islamic spirit of justice and equality or to reflect the concept of a loving, merciful God in Islam. On the contrary, they are a gross violation of these principles. They reflect, she says, 'Islamist supremacist thinking', 'an extremist ideology of hate'[14] and the world-view of those who are 'bent on turning [Malaysia] […] into a theocratic dictatorship[15], which can only fuel the fires of 'Islamophobia' and even lead non-Muslims to greater aversion towards Islam and its adherents, notwithstanding claims to the contrary that stress that Islam is a religion of peace and compassion.[16] In short, such laws, and the vision of Islam underlying them, are, Anwar argues, quite in contrast to her understanding of 'authentic' Islam. Furthermore, they do great disservice to the faith, ironically while claiming to uphold it.

Referring to enormous stress that Islamists, as well as conservative ulema, place on stern punishment, rather than on positive moral reform, through kindness and compassion, as a means to address and control what is regarded un-Islamic behaviour, she writes that this itself constitutes a betrayal of the Quranic spirit:

 

[…] Muslims invoke the name of God, the compassionate and the merciful, numerous times a day as we say our daily prayers, read verses of the Quran, and before we start any action. Alas, all too often, this invocation of God's name has become meaningless and has no relation to how we live our lives and treat others in the name of religion.

 

Sixthly, Anwar argues that if the state were to regulate personal behaviour in the name of Islam in order to ensure conformity of Muslims' behaviour with what it regards as the rules of the shariah, it would promote hypocrisy and might even threaten to turn Muslims against Islam itself. The state must not 'extend the long arm of the law to what should be best left to the religious conscience of the individual,' she stresses. The test of true faith, she explains, is that it, and the behaviour that it demands, must come from within, from the heart of the believer, from voluntary and willing submission to the rules of faith, rather than from compulsion by the state and religious authorities. The word 'Islam' itself, she points out, means 'submission' [to God]. It is not submission and conformity to God's laws wrought by an external authority, such as the state or the ulema. Rather, it is something freely chosen and willed by the individual, free from external coercion. Naturally, then, if individuals were forced to display exemplary Islamic behaviour by the state and its agencies against their will, it cannot be said to represent true 'submission' or genuine Islam. Instead, it would but be nothing short of sheer hypocrisy, which is regarded as a heinous crime in the Quran.  Indeed, Anwar points out, such moral policing in the name of enforcing shariah laws has often had precisely the opposite result to that which was intended. Thus, she writes of the effect of such policing in Iran, which is probably the same, in several respects, as in Malaysia:

Despite constant moral policing […] many Iranians say that the state's morality laws have failed to create a more pious, moral and obedient ummah. One university professor said his students were far more promiscuous than they were during the time of the Shah. When simple pleasures in life (such as going out to a movie, a restaurant, having a walk in the park) are all forbidden if the couple is not married, then the natural alternative would be to get together behind closed doors and create one's own entertainment.

Wearing the hijab is compulsory in Iran, and yet […] [y]oung women are defying the rule by pushing their hijab as far back as possible and letting their hair fly out at the back. Twenty-six years of compulsory hijab law, designed to hide the evil temptations of a woman's hair and shape, has created not moral obedience, but defiance. And because the defiance has been so widespread, Tehran's moral police have largely given up enforcing the law.[17]

 

In other words, Anwar suggests, for the state to seek to enforce compliance with Islamic morality through law and by inflicting punishment for non-compliance ultimately defeats its own very purpose. 'The more the religious authorities are bent on regulating our lives in the name of Islam, the more defiant Muslims will become', she warns.[18] Again invoking the Iranian experience, she writes:

Malaysia must learn from Iran. When a government that rules in the name of Islam fails to deliver on the aspirations of the people, then this failure is seen as the failure of Islam. Widespread public criticism and defiance of rules and regulations to regulate the moral behaviour of its citizens and to suppress the thinking of dissenters have given birth to a reformist movement that brought women, young people, academics and religious clerics into the open to challenge the official Islam of the state. An Islamisation process that implements pre-modern conceptions of Islamic law which are so out of touch with the realities of Iranian lives today has led disenchanted Iranians to believe that Islam has no answers to the myriad problems and challenges they face.[19]

 As a believing and practising Muslim, Anwar readily agrees to the proposition that Muslims should abide by the teachings of Islam in their personal lives. But this, she says, must reflect and emerge from deep faith, and not out of compulsion or fear of the law. The role of the state in this regard is, therefore, limited. At most, she suggests, it can devise 'more effective ways to teach Islam' and 'to imbibe Islamic values' so that 'obedience to God comes from a genuine act of faith, belief and submission'.

This does not mean that Anwar is necessarily opposed to any role of Islam in making laws and policies. She does admit the possibility, provided, she says, that the use of shariah rules and principles to make laws must pass 'the test of "civic reason"' and is 'subject to safeguards within the framework of constitutionalism, human rights and citizenship' as well as international law. Advocates of Islamic law and their critics should be able to freely and publicly debate the merits or otherwise of their respective schemes without any fear or hindrance.[20]

 

Islam and Women's Rights

One of Anwar's main concerns, as reflected in the work of 'Sisters in Islam' and in her writings, is to critique misogynist traditions, beliefs, customs and laws in the name of Islam and to develop and articulate a gender-just Islamic theology and jurisprudence. As in her critique of the tendency of the state to intrude into people's lives in the name of enforcing 'Islamic morality', her critique of misogyny and patriarchy in the name of Islam is based fundamentally on her insistence that Islam, if correctly understood, stands for equality and justice, including for women. This leads her to claim, '[T]here is no contradiction between faith and feminism.'[21] 'Women's demands for equality and justice', she insists, 'are rooted in the Islamic tradition'.[22] 'I am proud that as a Malaysian Muslim feminist, I see no contradiction between my religion and my feminism,' she claims.[23] '[T]he problem is not with Islam', she adds, 'but with patriarchal Muslims, who hide behind the sanctity of the divine message to perpetuate men's perceived superiority over women.'[24]

Anwar develops this argument through reference mainly to the Quran, with very limited recourse to the corpus of Hadith and fiqh, whose authenticity is contested by many Muslims themselves. She highlights the fact that man-made, patriarchal fiqh, which developed in a particular social and historical context, which has been wrongly taken to be synonymous with the Divine shariah, is a major cause for attitudes, beliefs and so-called shariah laws that heavily militate against gender justice and which are not in accordance with the Quran's stress on equality and justice for all human beings, including women.[25] It is patriarchal fiqh, she writes, rather than Islam per se, based simply on the Quran, that underlies a slew of ostensibly 'Islamic' laws in place in Malaysia today that are patently unjust and unfair to women, she stresses.[26]

The law, Anwar writes, must reflect current social realities if it is to remain relevant and socially useful and live up to the basic Islamic imperative of justice. In this regard, she opines that much of the corpus of traditional fiqh, including several legal prescriptions that discriminate against women and which have the force of law in Malaysia today, does not resonate with contemporary Malaysian social reality, which is characterized by high levels of women's literacy, general awareness and participation in the workforce. There is, she remarks, an 'utter disconnect between laws and practices that discriminate against women and the realities of women's and men's lives today.'[27] As she puts it, these discriminatory laws, 'seek to preserve a world that no longer exists', and they continue to 'insist on a legal framework where men will always be superior to women' as 'leaders, protectors and providers', even if all this 'flies in the face of reality'. She argues that these laws reflect 'narrow-minded and outdated understandings and interpretations of culture and religion that no longer have bearing to the realities of women and men's lives in the 21st century.' [28] Since these laws do not reflect or correspond to contemporary Malaysian social reality, Anwar argues, they must be changed and replaced by laws that do. If they were to remain in force, they would hamper the progress of Muslim society. Besides, they would lead to gross injustice, ironically in the name of 'Islamic justice', and so would also constitute a gross violation of one of the principal bases of Islam. They would also cease to have practical relevance and meaning for most Muslims themselves.[29]

Islam, Anwar avers, is not the cause for Muslim women's subjugation, although, she stresses, patriarchy in the guise of Islam, or patriarchal, misogynist interpretations of Islam, are a major factor. She appeals to women (and men committed to gender equality, which she sees as a Quranic mandate) to interpret the Quran on their own, freed from the baggage of centuries of male-centric interpretation and juridical thinking of the almost wholly male ulema. In the process, she articulates the need and the possibility of what she regards as a more authentic understanding of the faith, so that, as she puts it, 'Islam can be a source of empowerment, not a source of oppression and discrimination' for women, a 'source of liberation' and 'no longer an obstacle to equality' for them.[30]

This project requires a critical re-reading of the cumulative and historical Muslim theological and jurisprudential tradition. A fundamental starting-point or underlying guiding principle for this re-reading, Anwar says, is the conviction that Islam upholds and stands for justice and equality, including for women. This means that traditional Muslim theological and juridical views that violate this principle are not be regarded as authentically 'Islamic'. In fact, she suggests, they represent a betrayal of the true intention of the Quran and must, therefore, be critiqued precisely on 'Islamic' grounds. Using justice and equality as the basis for this new reading of the Quran would reflect not just the true intention of the text but would also be in conformity with the 'social and political realities' of today's context, where it is now widely recognized that 'there cannot be justice without equality', including for women.[31] In this way, Islam can be made more relevant and meaningful in people's lives today, something which Anwar suggests traditionalist understandings, steeped in patriarchy, cannot any longer do.

Just as the classical jurists were guided by the social and political realities of their age in their understanding of the Quran, Anwar says, Muslims today should seek to approach the text keeping in mind the present context, where gender justice has become an undeniable imperative. On this basis, Anwar argues for Muslim women to study Islam on their own, and, on that basis, to critique what she regards as the patriarchal interpretations of Islam and shariah that the traditional ulema, including state religious authorities, uphold and enforce. In doing so, such women can formulate alternate understandings of Islamic theology and jurisprudence that 'uphold the principles of justice, equality, freedom and dignity in Islam' that are markedly lacking in traditional interpretations, particularly with regard to women and non-Muslims. In this way, Anwar suggests, Muslim women in the 21st century can help in the process of developing more contextually-relevant understandings based on the 'realities and experience of women's lives today', something which is sorely lacking in traditional understandings.[32]

For the continuing relevance of Islam in people's daily lives, Anwar suggests, understandings of the faith must address contemporary demands, concerns and social realities, including transformations in women's roles and statuses, and must not remain static, frozen in the mould developed by the medieval classical scholars. Understandings that reflect the social realities of the times of the classical interpreters, characterized by deep-rooted patriarchy, can no longer be acceptable to many Muslim women. If such understandings, which are reflected in laws that deny Muslim women equality and justice, are not challenged and changed, the very relevance of religion in people's lives, Anwar points out, might well be called into question. Thus she warns:

 

Today's women will not accept that Islam actually promotes injustice and ill- treatment of half the human race. Today's women are challenging the values of patriarchal society, where power and authority reside exclusively with the husband, father, brother to whom the wife, daughter and sister owe obedience. For too long, men have defined for us what it is to be a woman, how to be a woman and then to use religion to confine us to these socially constructed limitations that reduce us to being the inferior half of the human race. We are believers, and as believers we want to find liberation, truth and justice from within our own faith. We feel strongly we have a right to reclaim our religion, to redefine it, to participate and contribute to an understanding of Islam, how it is codified and implemented–in ways that take into consideration the realities and experience of women's lives today.

Today's Muslim women in a country like Malaysia that is fast modernising and industrialising will no longer accept their inferior status, not even when it is justified in the name of religion.
Times […] are changing. We live in an era where women are educated, travel the world, hold positions of power and responsibility in increasing numbers. Today in Malaysia, 70 percent of the students enrolled in public sector institutions of higher learning, are girls. The female labour force participation stands at 47 percent and is rising. It can only be expected that women, with increasing knowledge and education, with economic independence, will gain more confidence and courage to speak out in the face of injustice. If the injustice is committed in the name of religion, then today's women will go back to the original source of the religion to find out for themselves whether such a great religion could indeed be so unjust to half of its believers.
[33]

 

It is not that Anwar regards 'Islamic feminism' as the only key to Muslim women's liberation. She recognizes that in Muslim-dominated countries such as Malaysia it is essential to operate within a broad 'Islamic' paradigm, articulating Islamic arguments for gender equality, because people's consciousness as well as public discourse is heavily influenced and indelibly shaped by Islam. She also sees this as something mandated by her own faith in Islam, as a believing Muslim. At the same time, she is open to working together with other civil society actors, including secular feminists, for common goals, such as justice and equality for women and religious minorities, regarding this as nothing less than an Islamic imperative.

 

Zainah Anwar can be contacted on zmha54@yahoo.co.uk  Her writings can be accessed on www.sistersinislam.org.my and www.musawah.org

 

[2] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

 

[5] Silence Not The Women, op.cit.

[6]Zainah Anwar, Islamic Revivalism in Malaysia: Dakwah Among the Students, Petaling Jaya: Pelanduk Publications, 1987, pp.90-92.  

[7] Zainah Anwar, A Flock That Grows A-Weary (http://www.sistersinislam.org.my/index.php?Itemid=258&id=931&option=com_content&task=view0.

[10] Zainah Anwar, Unjust and Unnecessary (http://www.sistersinislam.org.my/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=928&Itemid=2580.

[11] Zainah Anwar, Mediation The Wiser Path To Take (http://www.sistersinislam.org.my/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=552&Itemid=2580.

[12] Zainah Anwar, It's Deeds That Will Test Religion (http://www.sistersinislam.org.my/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=553&Itemid=258).

[14] Zainah Anwar, Islam Hadhari Champions Needed (http://www.sistersinislam.org.my/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=538&Itemid=258).

[15] Zainah Anwar, Making Taboo A Cherished Tradition (http://www.sistersinislam.org.my/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=527&Itemid=258).

[16] Ibid.

[17] Matter of Conscience, Not Policing, op.cit.

[18] Zainah Anwar, Failing The Test of Public Reason (http://www.sistersinislam.org.my/index.php?Itemid=258&id=932&option=com_content&task=view).

[19] Ibid.

[20] Zainah Anwar, No Solution in Sight

(http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/5/3/focus/3824693&sec=focus).

[21] Zainah Anwar, Women Wise Up To Their Rights (http://www.sistersinislam.org.my/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=541&Itemid=258).

 

[22] Zainah Anwar, Neither Alien Nor a Threat (http://www.sistersinislam.org.my/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=935&Itemid=258).

[23] Zainah Anwar, How Much I Love Thee, Malaysia (http://www.sistersinislam.org.my/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=533&Itemid=258)

[24] Unjust and Unnecessary, op.cit.

[25] Zainah Anwar, Why Equality and Justice Now, http://www.musawah.org/docs/pubs/wanted/Wanted-Intro-EN.pdf

[26] For details, see Zainah Anwar, Seeking Justice For Muslim Women

(http://www.sistersinislam.org.my/index.php?Itemid=258&id=523&option=com_content&task=view0.

 

[27] Neither Alien Nor a Threat, op.cit.

[28] Seeking Justice For Muslim Women, op.cit.

[29] Neither Alien Nor a Threat, op.cit.

[30] Neither Alien Nor a Threat, op.cit.

[31] Silence Not the Women, op.cit.

[32] Let There be Public Debate About Laws, op.cit.

[33] Zainah Anwar, Malaysia: Advocacy for Women's Rights Within the Islamic Framework—The Experience of the Sisters in Islam (http://www.wluml.org/english/newsfulltxt.shtml?cmd%5B157%5D=x-157-20681).

 

 




__._,_.___


****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration: 
Call For Articles:

http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68

http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585

****************************************************

VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/

****************************************************

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
               -Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___