Rilek1Corner

Tag: Almakhazin SG

  • Almakhazin: When Anti-Islamophobia Activists Are Islamophobic

    Almakhazin: When Anti-Islamophobia Activists Are Islamophobic

    Over the years, I have met with a lot of Muslims in Singapura, Malaysia and Australia who claim to be concerned about Islamophobia.

    They engage with their surrounding society and government to reduce or eliminate threats to cohesion and co-existence.

    Those who work on this issue can be broadly categorised into 2 groups:

    1. Those who challenge it by promoting Islam.

    2. And those who challenge Islamophobia by making themselves appear acceptable to non-Muslims

    The first group will discuss Islam, what we need to do and promote the religion while participating in the discourse.

    The stance is “We are Muslims. We will not change who we are to be acceptable to anyone else.

    We are happy to engage and discuss. Hopefully that will bring understanding. If it does not, that is alright. We will continue engagement”.

    The second group tries to be accepted. They create videos such as “Happy Muslims” and “We are Muslims dont panic”.

    They tend to attach themselves to rights discourses.

    Their usual argument is that Muslims are a disempowered minority. Their recourse is to work with other disempowered minority groups for mutual support.

    We see these Muslims in support of homosexuality, socialist/ Marxist class struggles etc.

    Their discourse on rights and freedom are taken from liberal values.

    Their main focus is to be accepted.

    In their quest, they change Islam so that others will accept them. They try to be the face of acceptable Islam.

    Their struggle is not about the deen. It is not about Islam in its full scope (the beliefs, the practices, the philosophy).

    Their struggle is against disempowerment.

    So rather than Islam rejecting homosexuality, these Muslims argue that we should support the movement because we are both from minority, disempowered groups.

    Their rejection of Islamophobia is not based on Islam. It is based on a need to be accepted.

    It is about negating disempowerment.

    What they may not realise is that their very response is a product of Islamophobia.

    Their attempt to change Islam, to infuse Islam with values and beliefs that are accepted by the majority or the West, is the very product of Islamophobia.

    They provide the counter-narrative against Muslims who want to live according to Islam.

    Rather than resisting, they have become the purveyors of anti Islam rhetoric.

    They are its product.

     

    Source: Almakhazin SG

  • Sovereignty And Loyalty In Malay Governance

    Sovereignty And Loyalty In Malay Governance

    As previously discussed, the Malay concept of citizenship/ subject is based on participation within a society and allegiance to a ruler. The concept of land and country is secondary (and almost alien for the latter).

    When someone migrates to the Alam Melayu, whether internally (such as from Sulawesi to Sumatra) or externally (GuangZhou to Singapura), their migration is understood as an application to be a part of the Malay society, acceptance of Malay customs and laws and allegiance to the Malay ruler.

    Sovereignty then, is not vested in the land or country, but with the Malay ruler. In Malay, sovereignty is understood through the concept of daulat.

    Daulat can be described as sovereignty with a supernaturally imbued character (Soenarno, 1960, p. 1).

    The recognition of the ruler’s daulat and the model of the Malay-ruler relationship is probably found in the sumpah (oath) between Sri Tri Buana and Demang Lebar Daun.

    Demang Lebar Daun, who became the father in law to Sri Tri Buana committed his service and those of his descendants to Sri Tri Buana and his successors. In return, he requested his ruler to treat them fairly and even if they were to commit grave error and receive the capital punishment, to not humiliate them:

    “Tuanku, segala anak cucu patek sedia akan jadi hambalah ke bawah Duli Yang Dipertuan; hendaklah ia diperbaiki oleh anak cucu tuanhamba. Syahadan jika ia berdosa sebesar-besar dosanya sekali pun, jangan ia difadhihatkan dan dinista dengan kata yang jahat jahat; jikalau besar dosanya dibunuh, itu pun jikalau patut pada hukum Syar’a”

    Sri Tri Buana accepted Demang lebar Daun’s request and in return asked for loyalty from Demang Lebar Daun’s descendants even when their King is oppressive and cruel:

    “hendaklah pada akhir zaman kelak anak cucu bapa jangan durhaka pada anak cucu hamba,jikalau ia zalim dan jahat pekertinya sekalipun”

    Both of them agreed to the conditions and made an oath that if either of them breaks the agreement, may Allah destroy their households.

    “Maka keduanya pun bersumpah-sumpahanlah, barang siapa mengubahkan perjanjiannya itu dibalik Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala bubungan rumahnya ke bawah kaki tiangnya ke atas. Itulah sebabnya maka dianugerahkan Allah subhanahu wata’ala kepada segala raja-raja Melayu: jikalau sebagaimana sekali pun besar dosanya, tiada diikatnya dan digantungnya dan difadhihatkannya dengan kata yang jahat. Jikalau ada seorang raja memberi ‘aib (seorang hamba Melayu) itu alamat negerinya akan dibinasakan Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala.”(Windsted, 1938)

    Relationship between ruler and subject

    The responsibility of the subject, who bears allegiance to his ruler, is to obey regardless whether it serves his interests, whether he agrees with his ruler’s decision or whether he find it oppressive. A subject cannot agree to act when it benefits him or reject his ruler when he disagrees.

    For the ruler, he commits to treat his subjects with grace and not to humiliate them.

    The only higher law that the Malays refer to, is the Hukum Syara’ or the Syariah.

    In discussing the relationship between the ruler and the people, Kratz notes:

    we find that the ruler, important as he may be, is nothing without a people, and that it is the people and their traditional leader(s) who choose their ruler, and who decide freely to whom they want to offer their total obedience…

    loyalty and respect are qualities which have to work in both directions, to and from the ruler, in order to affect positively the well-being of state and society. (1993, pp. 76-77)

    References:

    Kratz, E. U. (1993). Durhaka: The concept of treason in the Malay” Hikayat Hang Tuah”. South East Asia Research, 68-97.

    Soenarno, R. (1960). Malay Nationalism, 1896–1941. Journal of Southeast Asian History, 1(01), 1-28.

    Windsted, R. O. “The date, author and identity of the original draft of the Malay Annals.” Journal of the Malayan Branch Royal Asiatic Society 16.part 3 (1938): 27-34.

     

    Source: Almakhazin SG

  • Malay Lion Dance: Is This PAP’s Version Of Integration?

    Malay Lion Dance: Is This PAP’s Version Of Integration?

    A reader Azman, sent us this video.

    Click link to Watch Video

    He said:

    “The video shows the lion dance troupe, all young malay boys.

    Integration indeed.

    I am actually disappointed that during the recent CNY celebrations, i see a lot of our Malay youths doing the lion dance.

    I know they are probably working for money the halal way, but is there no other good avenues to work?

    Is this how integration is going to be like? Malay youths doing the Lion dance. We don’t see Chinese youths baca takbir raya during Aidilfitri or help sembelih during Aidil Adha.”

    The group on the video are all Malay youths in their late teens to early 20s.

    We have seen quite a number of Malay youths performing in Lion Dance and Chinese funerals.

    Is this the type of integration Yaacob Ibrahim wants?

     

    Source: Almakhazin SG

  • Only PAP-Approved Version Of Islam Allowed In Singapore?

    Only PAP-Approved Version Of Islam Allowed In Singapore?

    When PAP Minister Masagos Zulkifli made his comment about the hijab ban and gay sex, there was another issue that he mentioned that probably has a much larger repercussion..

    Masagos stated that Islam in Singapura should be practiced according to local context.

    On the surface, it does not look that harmful.

    It supposes differences in context for Muslims living in different parts of the world and at different times..

    Many assume he simply meant that Muslims should take our local context into account.

    But that was not all he said.

    Masagos’ comment was in relation to the PAP government’s decision on the type of Muslim speakers they allow into Singapura..

    It is about the type of Islam the PAP allows to be practiced.

    In discussing the ban on Muslim scholars who believe Muslims should not wish others on their religious holidays..

    Masagos argued that these scholars did not take “into account the teachings of our religious scholars that allows it, and they reject our religious scholars – this is very dangerous.”.

    But his assertion that we should take into account the teachings of local scholars (as though all our local scholars allows it)…

    betrays the fact that there is a difference of opinions among the local scholars.

    PERGAS wrote in their irsyad that the difference of opinion is valid and that this difference should be respected.

    How can he accuse the Ulama as though they are behind the decision to ban these speakers when these Ulama stated they accept the difference of opinions?

    And the ulama do not have the ability to deny anyone entry.

    That ability rests with the PAP government.

    The decision to deny entry was not made by the Ulama.

    That decision was made by the PAP government.

    The PAP government decides on the types of Muslim scholars allowed to enter Singapura based on the type of Islam they allow.

    The “Islam according to local context”…has nothing to do with referring to our local scholars.

    It is about referring to the PAP.

    Masagos’ statement is about creating a version of Islam…

    Created and approved by the PAP.

     

    Source: Almakhazin SG

  • Almakhazin SG: What Is PAP’s Tudung Policy Really All About?

    Almakhazin SG: What Is PAP’s Tudung Policy Really All About?

    The hijab ban is not because interracial harmony or relationships.

    The ban…which Masagos Zulkifli supported..

    Is about a group of secular fundamentalists trying to control Islam.

    Two nights ago, PAP Minister, Masagos Zulkifli justified his party’s ban of the hijab.

    He claimed that the ban is part of the PAP’s way of ensuring harmony by making every community sacrifice what is important to them.

    He is not alone in the PAP in making such comments.

    Former Prime Minister, Goh Chok Tong said the hijab affects integration.

    Yaacob Ibrahim claimed it is problematic.

    But the claim that the hijab affects harmony or integration does not stand scrutiny.

    According to Assoc Prof Lily Zubaidah Rahim

    “To date, the government has not provided any empirical evidence to support the presumption that allowing Muslim headscarves in primary and secondary schools impedes national unity.

    Indeed, some school principals contend that students who had donned the tudung in the past did not disrupt social integration in class.”

    If harmony and integration are not the reasons for the hijab ban..

    then what is?

    Lily Zubaidah argued the “no-tudung policy for Muslim schoolsgirls bears many similarities to Turkey’s headscarf restriction policy…

    Both states exhibit secular fundamentalist and authoritarian tendencies…”

    As Lily Zubaidah noted “An Naim has observed that this form of authoritarian state secularism is ‘often designed to enable the state to control religion…”

    The PAP’s ban is not about a creating a multiracial, multireligious Singapura.

    It is about a group of secular fundamentalists trying to subjugate Islam.

    Reference:
    Rahim, Lily Zubaidah. Governing Islam and regulating Muslims in Singapore’s secular authoritarian state. Murdoch university. Asia research centre, 2009.

     

    Source: Almakhazin SG