Do people take your words like they take the weather forecast?
The trouble with weather forecasting is that it's right too often for us to ignore it and wrong too often for us to rely on it. - Patric Young.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Fear of Holy Books from Farish Noor
| http://www.othermalaysia.org/content/view/149/1/ Fear of Holy Books Written by Farish A. Noor | |
| Thursday, 07 February 2008 | |
| Not too long ago, a certain Dutch politician – Geert Wilders, leader of the far-right Dutch Freedom party – caused a stir in that rather flat country by suggesting that the Quran should be banned on the grounds that it was a ‘dangerous book’ that spread the message of hate and violence. As the rather pointless and tiresome debate took its course, other right-wing politicians chipped in, suggesting things such as new laws that forbade the reading of the Quran in public, limiting the sale and dissemination of the Quran in Dutch society, controlling the number of Qurans being brought into the country, etc. Needless to say, Geert Wilders got what he wanted, which was to project himself yet again on the national stage as a rather loud and outlandish advocate of far-right causes. Predictably, the Muslim community of Holland and other European countries were upset by Wilders’ remarks. Many came to the fore to insist that all this talk about banning Qurans was part and parcel of a wider trend of Islamophobia in the EU; that it was essentially racist and that it was an attempt to rob Muslims in Europe of their fundamental rights and liberties. What offended many Muslims was the suggestion that the Quran could be seen by some as a ‘dangerous text’ which Wilders even compared to Hitler’s Mein Kampf: An ironic comparison to say the least considering Wilders’ own far-right political leanings. That Muslims would be offended by such claims and demands is understandable as no doubt most faith communities regard their sacred books as precisely that: sacred arks that bear the message of God and divine revelation. To even suggest that the Quran could be read profanely as some terrorists’ manual or guidebook for fanatics was to demean the text, and by extension Islam and Muslims. Yet the question remains: If Muslims can get so worked up by the fact that some right-wing Dutch politician hungering for publicity can stir up a debate by demeaning the Quran, why is it that so many Muslims remain indifferent to how their fellow Muslims treat the holy texts of other faiths and belief-systems? A case in point is the recent seizure of thirty-two Bibles from a Malaysian Christian who was on her journey back to Malaysia from the Philippines. Upon arrival in Malaysia, her bags were checked by the customs authorities and all of the Bibles were confiscated, on the grounds that they had to be vetted by the Ministry of Internal Security. But since when were Bibles deemed a security threat in Malaysia, and to whom might they pose a danger? More worrying still is the fact that the customs officers – who we were told were Muslim – had seized the Bibles on their own initiative, despite there not being any formal ban on Bibles in the country. (After all, there are literally millions of Christians of all denominations in Malaysia and they have lived there for decades if not centuries, so why the fear of Bibles now?) In the event the Bibles were eventually returned to the Malaysian Christian in question, but worrying doubts remain. What will be the fate of other books of other religions and belief-systems? As a scholar who teaches comparative religion, I have in my collection not only numerous editions of the Bible but also Taoist, Buddhist, Hindu, Tantric, Animist and Jewish texts. Are these to be screen and vetted too? And on what grounds; that as a person born to the Muslim faith (a contingency of history that I did not decide or determine, I might add) I am not allowed to read such texts for fear that I may be ‘contaminated’ by alien ideas of alien creeds? Predictably the first to react to the seizure of the Bibles were the Christians of Malaysia. But it is sad to note that the same level of anger and outrage that was expressed by Muslims over the Muslim-bashing sentiments of a Dutch politician thousands of miles away was not evident when this outrage was perpetrated on their own shores. Universally this has become the norm, where religious communities the world over have grown more introverted, inward-looking and consequently selfish in their motives and concerns. In the same way that non-Muslims seemed relatively indifferent to the constant Muslim-bashing that is taking place in places like Europe today; Muslims are equally indifferent when injustices such as the seizure of holy books are meted out to those who are not of their flock. Should this trend continue then we are certainly on the verge of a balkanisation of the religious communities of the world, and this spells trouble for multi-faith nations like Malaysia and the countries of the West. The remedies are primarily political ones, which include controls on hate-speech and fear-mongering by far-right demagogues like Wilders in Holland and other equally right-wing demagogues in other communities, including Muslim communities too. But all this can only work if we begin with the fundamental premise that sacredness is not something exclusive to ourselves and our own faith community. When Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists alike realise and respect the sacredness in the other, and drop the claim that they alone monopolise all that is good and holy; perhaps then we will be one step closer to recognising the fundamental humanity we share with each other – whether we like it or not. |
Friday, February 08, 2008
I have shared many times about the Derek Prince prediction / prophecy of England becoming an Islamic nation.
What's your view?
A. Really, with "friends" like this, who needs the enemy.
B. They don't need your help.
C. Repent now.
D. If you can't beat them, join them. It's survival.
Here's the original news article.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, faced heavy criticism after stating that the introduction of some aspects of Sharia law in Britain was “unavoidable”.
Speaking to the BBC on Thursday, the Archbishop called for a "constructive accommodation" for Muslims in areas relating to marriage, divorce, custom and inheritance, pointing to the fact that other religious communities already enjoy the accommodation of their laws in Britain.
Sharia is the body of Islamic religious law based on the teachings of the Koran and the Prophet Mohammad, and which has developed over centuries to incorporate the rulings of Islamic scholars.
Asked if the adoption of Sharia was necessary for community cohesion, Dr Williams said: "It seems unavoidable.
"Certain conditions of Sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law, so it is not as if we are bringing in an alien and rival system."
Prime Minister Gordon Brown's office has distanced itself from the Archbishop’s comments, however. Mr Brown’s spokesman stressed that the Prime Minister “believes that British laws should be based on British values”, according to the BBC.
Home Office Minister Tony McNulty said: "To ask us to fundamentally change the rule of law and to adopt Sharia law, I think, is fundamentally wrong."
Criticism also came in from other parties. The Conservative Community Cohesion Minister Baroness Warsi told the BBC, “Dr Williams seems to be suggesting that there should be two systems of law, running alongside each other, almost parallel, and for people to be offered the choice of opting into one or the other. That is unacceptable.”
Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg agreed that Britain should not set up different laws for different people.
“Equality before the law is part of the glue that binds our society together. We cannot have a situation where there is one law for one person and different laws for another,” he said.
"There is a huge difference between respecting people's right to follow their own beliefs and allowing them to excuse themselves from the rule of law."
The chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Trevor Phillips, went further in his criticism, warning that the “implication that British courts should treat people differently based on their faith is divisive and dangerous”.
Mohammed Shafiq, the head of the Ramadhan Foundation, was positive about the Archbishop's comments.
"Sharia law for civil matters is something which has been introduced in some western countries with much success," he said.
"I believe that Muslims would take huge comfort from the government allowing civil matters to be resolved according to their faith."
Dr Williams stressed that he was not endorsing the wholesale adoption of Sharia or the practical manifestations of the legal system as seen in some countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, where murderers and drug traffickers are publicly beheaded or hanged.
"Nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that has sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states, the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women," he said.
Safeguards would be necessary, he stressed.
“I think it would be quite wrong to say that we could ever licence so to speak a system of law for some communities which gave people no right of appeal, no way of exercising the rights that are guaranteed to them as citizens in general.”
Muslims should have a choice in legal disputes over marriage and financial matters, Dr Williams said.
"There are ways of looking at marital dispute, for example, which provide an alternative to the divorce courts as we understand them. In some cultural and religious settings they would seem more appropriate."
What's your view?
A. Really, with "friends" like this, who needs the enemy.
B. They don't need your help.
C. Repent now.
D. If you can't beat them, join them. It's survival.
Here's the original news article.
Archbishop’s Sharia comments draw heavy criticism
by Maria Mackay
Posted: Friday, February 8, 2008, 9:34 (GMT)
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, faced heavy criticism after stating that the introduction of some aspects of Sharia law in Britain was “unavoidable”.
Speaking to the BBC on Thursday, the Archbishop called for a "constructive accommodation" for Muslims in areas relating to marriage, divorce, custom and inheritance, pointing to the fact that other religious communities already enjoy the accommodation of their laws in Britain.
Sharia is the body of Islamic religious law based on the teachings of the Koran and the Prophet Mohammad, and which has developed over centuries to incorporate the rulings of Islamic scholars.
Asked if the adoption of Sharia was necessary for community cohesion, Dr Williams said: "It seems unavoidable.
"Certain conditions of Sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law, so it is not as if we are bringing in an alien and rival system."
Prime Minister Gordon Brown's office has distanced itself from the Archbishop’s comments, however. Mr Brown’s spokesman stressed that the Prime Minister “believes that British laws should be based on British values”, according to the BBC.
Home Office Minister Tony McNulty said: "To ask us to fundamentally change the rule of law and to adopt Sharia law, I think, is fundamentally wrong."
Criticism also came in from other parties. The Conservative Community Cohesion Minister Baroness Warsi told the BBC, “Dr Williams seems to be suggesting that there should be two systems of law, running alongside each other, almost parallel, and for people to be offered the choice of opting into one or the other. That is unacceptable.”
Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg agreed that Britain should not set up different laws for different people.
“Equality before the law is part of the glue that binds our society together. We cannot have a situation where there is one law for one person and different laws for another,” he said.
"There is a huge difference between respecting people's right to follow their own beliefs and allowing them to excuse themselves from the rule of law."
The chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Trevor Phillips, went further in his criticism, warning that the “implication that British courts should treat people differently based on their faith is divisive and dangerous”.
Mohammed Shafiq, the head of the Ramadhan Foundation, was positive about the Archbishop's comments.
"Sharia law for civil matters is something which has been introduced in some western countries with much success," he said.
"I believe that Muslims would take huge comfort from the government allowing civil matters to be resolved according to their faith."
Dr Williams stressed that he was not endorsing the wholesale adoption of Sharia or the practical manifestations of the legal system as seen in some countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, where murderers and drug traffickers are publicly beheaded or hanged.
"Nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that has sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states, the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women," he said.
Safeguards would be necessary, he stressed.
“I think it would be quite wrong to say that we could ever licence so to speak a system of law for some communities which gave people no right of appeal, no way of exercising the rights that are guaranteed to them as citizens in general.”
Muslims should have a choice in legal disputes over marriage and financial matters, Dr Williams said.
"There are ways of looking at marital dispute, for example, which provide an alternative to the divorce courts as we understand them. In some cultural and religious settings they would seem more appropriate."
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
No pushover
See the original news article here.
Malaysia's government should stop harassing Christians by seizing their Bibles especially at entry points, the country's biggest church group said on Tuesday amid a new furore over the imports of the holy book.
The Christian Federation of Malaysia's statement came a day after a Malaysian Christian complained that airport custom officers seized 32 English Bibles on her arrival from Manila.
Federation chairman Bishop Paul Tan Chee Ing said the incident, which happened on January 28, was not an isolated case.
"We have received many complaints from Christians being told to hand over religious books to custom officers at various checkpoints in the country," he said in a statement. "Now they even want our Bibles.
"We will not comply with any directives from the government or its agencies that infringe on our right to use our sacred book and other Christian literature," said Tan, who represents the country's three main church groups.
The Bible seizure is the latest in a series of disputes that are stoking fears of an erosion of non-Muslims' rights ahead of the coming general elections, widely expected within weeks.
Politically dominant Malay Muslims form about 60 per cent of the population of about 26 million, while the ethnic Chinese and Indian minorities include Hindus, Buddhists, Christians and Sikhs.
Hands off Bibles, church body tells Malaysia
Posted: Tuesday, February 5, 2008, 13:45 (GMT)
Malaysia's government should stop harassing Christians by seizing their Bibles especially at entry points, the country's biggest church group said on Tuesday amid a new furore over the imports of the holy book.
The Christian Federation of Malaysia's statement came a day after a Malaysian Christian complained that airport custom officers seized 32 English Bibles on her arrival from Manila.
Federation chairman Bishop Paul Tan Chee Ing said the incident, which happened on January 28, was not an isolated case.
"We have received many complaints from Christians being told to hand over religious books to custom officers at various checkpoints in the country," he said in a statement. "Now they even want our Bibles.
"We will not comply with any directives from the government or its agencies that infringe on our right to use our sacred book and other Christian literature," said Tan, who represents the country's three main church groups.
The Bible seizure is the latest in a series of disputes that are stoking fears of an erosion of non-Muslims' rights ahead of the coming general elections, widely expected within weeks.
Politically dominant Malay Muslims form about 60 per cent of the population of about 26 million, while the ethnic Chinese and Indian minorities include Hindus, Buddhists, Christians and Sikhs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)