Mohamed SaiddhinAbdullahNUS Professor Syed Khairudin Aljunied
I was recently made aware of the uproar over my dear friend Prof Dr Syed Khairudin Aljunied and his post on the wall of his personal Facebook account.I do not see why is there a need to make a big fuss over his post in the first place. There were some who took offence as they see it as him replying in his official capacity just because the word “prof” appeared. I find it daft really. It was the questioner who addressed him as “prof”. Prof K was replying in his personal capacity and nowhere did he say he is replying in his official capacity. (note that I too personally address him as Prof K)
Next, there are those who took offense at the words “diseases”, “cancerous” and “cleanse”. The ones starting the petition are being mischievous when they took those words out of context. It is literally putting words into his mouth when they angle it the way they are doing it now. The hypocrisy……
And if he edited the post, isn’t it good in some sense as perhaps he did see value in some of the complaints brought forth and corrected it accordingly. Or perhaps he realised it himself. I am just speculating here.
Most seem to fail to note who the post was addressing it to. Prof K was addressing it to the Muslim faithful. A Muslim not adhering to the teachings of Islam can’t be called the faithful can he? Nor can a Non-Muslim be part of the Muslim faithful. He is addressing to the in-house crowd. (though what Prof K is suggesting can be used by the other religions in their own religious context).
He is replying to a Muslim. How do you expect him to reply then? There is no way we can compromise on the issue. Islam abhors homosexual acts and we can’t condone nor compromise on it. As a scholar, he is obligated to stand up to deviant ideologies and practices. Read below:
“Scholars and religious teachers (asatizahs) must speak up and write against these ideologies and practices. They are obligated to explain to the public the true meaning of what Islam is and sexuality as defined by the Quran and Sunnah. When the scholars and asatizahs are silent about these issues, corruption will spread like wild fire.”
Same goes to Liberal Islam as they bring about a dangerous ideology that runs contrary to the teachings of Islam. They discard 1400++ years of scholarly research, debate and rulings and bring in instead deviant interpretation of the religion claiming that theirs is most up to date. And most of them who are advocating it are not even learned enough in the knowledge of Islam in order to make any new rulings. The ideas and ideals brought forth by the proponents of these ideologies and practices brings about many social ills and it is detrimental to the well being of any society. Any part of the body that is not normally there and brings diseases to it is cancerous. Then there is a need to cleanse it. Cleanse not in the sense of killing them but to do it spiritually in the context put forth by Prof K.
If we do not make a stand, society will degenerate faster that it is now. What next? If the pedophiles decided to form a lobby and lobby for the age of consent to be lowered further, what do we do? Do we let them be coz it is their rights? Freedom to love mah…Some European countries approve of Bestiality and some in fact have animal brothels. If ever we have a bestiality lobby here, do we allow them through also?
Where do we draw the line on the morality of society?
Many too failed to notice the words that come before and after those words mentioned above. They also fail to see the overall meaning he is conveying. Put it in context people! Nowhere is he spouting hatred for a certain group of minorities. It is conveniently angled in such a way by the authors of the petition. He is in fact advocating early detection and seeking early treatment. Read below:
“Parents and school teachers must be made aware of these challenges. They must detect early signs of waywardness from their children and students. Give advice, send them to proper religious classes and seek help from counsellors, if necessary. Win over the hearts of the misled youths and explain to them what’s right with knowledge and wisdom.”
We condemn homosexual acts but we do not condemn those who have homosexual tendencies or those who are transsexuals. We welcome them with open arms,always ready to listen to them and offer them advice if need be. We will accept them as who they are but we will never fail to remind them to return back to the true path. Coz we love ’em.
Peace.
PS. To all those who support Prof K can like his fan page created by some supporter out there. Haters need not come.
A letter jointly authored by Dr Muhammad Iqbal and Mr Faizal Razak; graduates and alumni of NUS to Provost and Deputy President (Academic Affairs), Vice Provost (Academic Personnel), NUS Alumni and Office of Student Affairs – National University of Singapore stating:
Concern over a recently published a petition against a professor and they display a trenchant hostility towards families and heterosexuals, and which we believe is unbecoming of an NUS graduate or undergraduate.
In their open letter, they attempted to discredit the Professor and threatened to get him sacked. These actions are tantamount to intimidation. They do not merely express a principled opposition to deny the extension of legal rights to heteronorms. What they represent is a clarion call to eradicate any and all instances of gender expressions and relations that fall outside their preferred homosexual order.
In their letter, they had forced the Professor to delete his post. They wanted to oppress any free speech that questions their lifestyle.
We however believe that they have crucially misunderstood their place as a graduate or undergraduate.
Firstly, the undergraduates and graduates have a respectful duty to provide a safe academic environment for its teachers, regardless of sexual orientation. Their petition however exhibit a fundamental disregard for the safety of heteronorm teachers, and that is unacceptable of any student, whatever their religious or political convictions.
Secondly, contrary to what they claim, they are not engaging in a debate about homosexuality. It is more accurate to see their letter as an intimidation towards teachers and denies recognition to heterosexuals and pro-families. Instead of being respectful to educators, they chose to launch this untenable and unjustifiable assault on an educator.
This goes beyond any issue of academic freedom or religious liberty. Not only have they failed to accord respect to educators, they have conducted themselves in a way that is not reflective of an NUS graduate or undergraduate.
We thus urge that they withdraw their petition and apologize to Professor Syed Khairuddin, as well as undergo counselling to further understand the issues and challenges confronting the student-teacher community. We also hope that the university leadership can see that these remedial actions are adhered to.
6. The University encourages students to display consideration, kindness and responsibility in their dealings with other persons. Students should not engage in disorderly or offensive behaviour such as making threats against others, intimidating others, harassing others, drunkenness, lewdness, or participating in any unlawful assembly.
7. Students should also refrain from participating in any activity which physically or mentally harms, intimidates or humiliates other students, or which violates one’s dignity as an individual. In particular, negative and improper orientation practices that make new students feel uncomfortable (also known as “ragging”) are not tolerated by the University. Such practices display a lack of basic respect for other persons, imperil students’ physical and mental welfare, and may unintentionally result in an unhealthy atmosphere of fear and intimidation on campus.
Read the ENTIRE chronology of saga in category ‘AGAMA’:
This short writing of mine seeks to address one of the central argument that they and their likes have never failed to summon while trying to defend homosexuality, it is none other than the idea of Tolérance, or its new form; Recognition, as used in the petition.
1. We have seen the idolisation of the word Tolérance and the destructions it brought during the French Revolution where it was given the status of a dogma and endowed with the sanctity of a religion together with its share of fanaticism and blind herds. During that time, those who were intolerant of their brand of tolerance were sent to the guillotine. It was and never is a neutral word nor does it bear any positive connotation in itself. Of course it can be and was already used as a tool for oppression.
“It is preferable that we use the term (Tolérance) in its French orthography, since it was consciously conceived as one of the power instruments of the emerging atheist state following the French Revolution. It is a significantly irrational doctrine, while it poses as being the opposite. If examined, it is clear that it is a power instrument aimed at one group to subvert them to the value structure of the opposing group. In other words, it has a uni-directional dynamic. We mean by that, a doctrine of tolerance orders the accused group, “Tolerate us!” It contains in it no possibility of a reverse process by which the group demanding tolerance offer tolerance to the accused group.” – Shaykh Abdal Qadir As-Sufi.
Hence, the act of tolerating or ‘recognising’ something in itself is not necessarily good. The main issue lies in the object of your tolerance. What are you tolerating?
2. The dangerous appeal and the control power of the word Tolerance lies in its deep and subconscious attachment to the basic need of the human self, and that is the need to be accepted, which – like tolerance – is not necessarily good in itself. But whenever the word is summoned today, you can almost see its spell breaking through any defense mechanism of the mind and leaving it defunct.
We need to break its spell by being aware of its neutrality.
3. We must know that it is perfectly fine to be intolerant of certain things and ideas. The health of the society is in danger when it becomes tolerant of everything as the body breaks down when it loses its ability to be intolerant to sickness. Even those who idolised tolerance or ‘recognition’ never failed to be intolerant towards those whom they perceive as a threat to their idol.
But when I say that I can’t tolerate the idea of homosexuality it does not mean I can’t have a coffee with a homosexual while calling him to heterosexuality. We just need to grow up and leave either-ors to kids.
4. As a person who believes in a Higher power who is conscious of Himself and all of His creations, free from any physicality and humanness, and that He sent prophets to guide human beings to spiritual happiness till the end of time, I would like to reiterate that The Islam of the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w – not the Islamic “Islam” – views homosexual inclination as a sickness that must be treated. It is no different from incestual inclination, and that act of homosexuality itself is one of the most abhorrent sins.
Some general suggestions from a Muslim’s perspective:
Re-inculcate the belief in The higher power that is Most Merciful and Compassionate yet Majestic in the same time. And that we are the created not The Creator, we are here not by ourselves nor are we a product of a random activity of an unconscious cosmic soup.
Punish child molesters severely.
Make marriage easy to those who are ready.
Women must be allowed to be women and men to be men. Homosexuality will emerge in a society whenever the economy forces the majority of the women to take up the responsibilities of men.
Protect the institution of marriage with the Divine law.
5. Homosexuality is a cancer to the society, yes it surely is. This is an objective and unemotional statement. Unlike the term ‘hate speech’ used in the petition, it seeks to convey the scale of threat and destruction brought about by the homosexual lifestyle. Whereas the term ‘hate speech’ is a direct accusation to a person. If we are serious for a healthy debate we should avoid such jerky misconstructions.
6. What we want is a healthy and a harmonious society, a society that is free from the stench of moral relativism and is built upon the firm belief that truth is not subjected to time & context, instead it is the other way round. Therefore we should stop demanding people to be tolerant of immoralities such as homosexuality.
For sometime, we hear the homosexual lobby play the victim card. They claim they just want to be heard. That their sexual proclivities should be recognised. That their immorality should not be questioned.
They demanded for their choices to be accepted and normalised. When anyone questions their claims, the questioner is seen as being intolerant. Their lifestyle and choices are seen as given. The victim card is played repeatedly.
But today, we see how vicious the homosexual lobby really is. How intolerant they really are. How vindictive their tactics.
When Assoc Prof Khairudin Aljunied wrote his Facebook post on the need to cleanse society of homosexual behaviour, homosexual advocates launched a campaign against him. “Benjamin Seet, a graduate student in Political Science; Melissa Tsang, a former Law student who is reapplying for admission into Arts; and Khairulanwar Zaini a final-year undergraduate in Political Science and Philosophy” are organising a petition to be submitted to the Provost of NUS against Khairudin.
For these homosexual advocates, their behaviour is beyond reproach.
Anyone who dares to question their immorality is targeted.
Anyone who seek to return society to family values would be attacked.
Anyone who raise any objection to their attempt to make homosexuality normal is abused.
We need to be clear that the homosexual lobby is not about creating safe spaces. They are not interested in engagement. They have no interest in debates. They do not care about morality or positive conduct.
All they want is for their behaviour to be recognised. And anyone who speak against it is an enemy that need to be removed.
Lets not kid ourselves. They are not a tolerant group.
The question for us is a simple one. What do we do about these intolerant, militant and self interested homosexual lobby?
Do we keep quiet and cower while they attack anyone who dare to speak?
Or do we finally say that this enough?
How we respond define not only how our society will be.
It also defines who we are. Are we social cowards who realise the homosexual lobby is taking advantage of our silence and continue to keep our mouths shut?
Or do we finally respond and take back the ground and stop these bullying tactics they employ?
Are we going to do what is right?
Are we finally going to say that the homosexual lobby has gone too far?
