SINGAPORE — The National University of Singapore professor at the centre of an online controversy has acknowledged that his recent Facebook posts discussing his views on homosexuality caused offence, said NUS provost Tan Eng Chye.
In a circular sent out this morning (Mar 5), Prof Tan said that Associate Professor Syed Muhd Khairudin Aljunied’s comments on his views of lesbianism “contained provocative, inappropriate and offensive language”.
NUS Professor Syed Khairudin Aljunied
“I have counselled Associate Professor Khairudin, who has acknowledged that whilst his only intention had been to convey his point of view, his original posts reflected poor judgment in the tone and choice of words. He has since amended or removed these posts,” said Prof Tan.
Two alumni and a current student had earlier lodged a complaint to NUS over Professor Khairudin’s Facebook posts, claiming that Professor Khairudin had described “alternative modes of sexual orientation” as “wayward”, and as “cancers” and “social diseases” to be “cleansed”.
The circular emphasised NUS’ commitment to diversity, regardless of “gender, ethnicity, religion, nationality, political beliefs or sexual orientation”, and highlighted the need to respect this diversity when communicating with others.
Both staff and students were reminded to “show restraint, due care and respect with their words and actions, particularly when communicating online.”
Source: TODAYonline
Read the ENTIRE chronology of saga in category ‘AGAMA’:
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.
