Ustaz Nurul Turun with Sheikh Syuaib al-Arnauuth who supports Wearwhite. He send his supplications to those who are involved in this, may the blessings of Allah be with all of you and may Allah give you strength and Iman.
Is wearing white a Sunnah?
Answering accusations thrown against the Wearwhite campaign
Recently a brother of mine, Ust Noor Deros, initiated a noble campaign called wearwhite. It aims at herding & guiding us back to Fitrah. At the same time, it promotes wearing white on the first day of Ramadhan as it is a tradition of our beloved Prophet. One of the main tenets of this campaign is also to enjoin good virtues and forbid vice acts (Amr Ma’ruf Nahy Munkar). In spite of their pure and noble intentions, I have personally witnessed baseless accusations being thrown at them. Thus with the will of Allah, I will try to discuss and refute a few, if not all, of the claims.
1. Prophet did not force anyone to wear white. Why should you say it is a Sunnah?
Suprisingly, this “queer” accusation came from Muslims. It is clear from authentic narrations that the Prophet encouraged wearing white, to the extent that in the eyes of certain scholars it is Wajib not Fard. Nonetheless, no scholar argues that it is not a Sunnah.
With a big YES, the most beloved colour to Prophet Muhd in clothing is white. He said:
البسوا من ثيابكم البياض ؛ فإنها من خير ثيابكم
Wear white from your clothing, as it is the best of your clothing…
– Recorded by Nasaie and graded as Hassan
البسوا البياض ؛ فإنها أطهر وأطيب
Wear white, as it is the purest and the best…
– Recorded by At-Tirmizi and other and he said: Authentic & Good (Narration).
Therefore, I hope it is clear now that Prophet loves white in clothing and with affirmative I say that WEARING WHITE IS A SUNNAH
2. Wearwhite promotes hatred and division against Singaporean. At the same time it discriminates the rights of Homosexuals
I wonder what has happen to our sound & just mind. Most of us try our best to rationalize things, yet only a few reason on it. Why does supporting wearwhite can be considered as a “culture war”?
If promoting the family institution and culture equates to vilifying the rights of homosexual, doesn’t it reciprocate to the same thing? When you encourage the limitless “freedom to love” of Pink dot, you are subjecting the family institution to harassment and threatening the safeguard culture of the majority?
If you call for an equality that entails a check of majoritarianism – the act where majority values are imposed on minority, why is that minoritarism – the act of imposing minority rights and cultures on majority, can prevail without being questioned?
If you are calling for the rights of minority to be freely exercised without condemnations towards it, which is in this case accepting LGBTQ, why is it when I am rejecting it is not considered as ‘exercising my rights’ as a citizen?
Why is Pinkdot a good campaign and Wearwhite a bad one?
If you are promoting love towards homosexuals,
We are promoting love towards family institutions which has been the backbone of any civilizations throughout history.
If we are endorsing hatred towards homosexuality,
Then you are endorsing hatred towards heterosexuality, family institutions, religions and the security of our country at large.
Isn’t it only fair, if you have the rights to promote it to me so that I’ll accept LGBTQ, I also do possess the rights to promote family institutions so that you’ll accept it?
If part of your rights are for me to accept LGBTQ, isn’t it part of my rights to reject it as a lifestyle too?
Again, I am not saying we should marginalized homosexuals especially from religious institutions such as mosques, you are more than welcome there. We are just saying that we can never condone it becoming a culture and we still strive with all efforts to curb it.
3. Wearwhite main aim is to counter pinkdot which is masked under the name of Sunnah.
As mentioned earlier, the basis of wearing white is an encouraged Sunnah. Thus if by promoting a Sunnah, we can accomplish different other objectives as well, then where is the issue?
Hypothetically, if I can create a campaign called “Quit Smoking, Start Siwaking!”. With just one campaign, I can promulgate a Sunnah – which is applying siwak (a form of cleansing the mouth), I can promulgate living a healthy lifestyle and also at the same time preventing a bad action which is smoking. Thus 3 birds are killed with one stone.
So Wearwhite is not using Sunnah as a semblance where in actual fact they are sincere in promoting the Sunnah.
4. Allah will not look at what you are wearing this Ramadhan, He will observe the most pious amongst all of you
A classic decoy just to stir people away from the intended course. Allah will insyALlah accept the prayers of a servant if he is doing terawih alone in his room. Yet isn’t it better to pray in congregation in mosque? Allah will accept your prayers if you come for terawih with an old t-shirt, yet isn’t it better for you to apply perfumes on your best of clothing? Allah will accept you prostrations if you are wearing a pink Jubah yet isn’t it better to wear a white Jubah emulating the Prophet and abiding to his commands?
If you comprehend the message, you will abide to it. Wearwhite is bridging us towards a better cause. What are you waiting for?
The best part about Wearwhite is that the campaign is being led by scholars of our community. Let the world be reminded of the power in the hands of our scholars. We have the likes of Imam Ahmad, Imam al-Ghazali, Sheikh Ibn Taimiyah, Sheikh Omar Mukhtar and many other may Allah vouchsafe them paradise. One of the most contemporaries would be Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, a quadriplegic scholar who was nearly blind, had used a wheelchair since a sporting accident at the age of 12, yet managed to convert the whole communist community who were jailed with him to Muslims.
When Allah guards something, there is nothing that can afflict harm to it. Wearwhite has received more attention than it can ever imagine just because of its adversaries. It was even featured in Reuters. Verily, Prophet Muhammad had promised:
“And know that if the nation were to gather together to benefit you with anything, they would not benefit you except with what Allah had already prescribed for you. And if they were to gather together to harm you with anything, they would not harm you except with what Allah had already prescribed against you. The pens have been lifted and the pages have dried.” – Recorded by Tirmizi and he classified it as Authentic & Good.
I am wearing white this Ramadhan. Are you?
The pens have been lifted and the pages have dried.
The WearWhite movement is a social media initiative inviting Muslims to return to our natural disposition (fitrah) and the Sunnah (way) of Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him).
The movement’s genesis was from our observations of the growing normalization of LGBT in Singapore. However, we recognize the conduct and it’s support among Muslims is due to the lack of understanding and connection with Islam and our fitrah. We thus came together initially with the expressed purpose of reminding Muslims not to participate in the LGBT event on 28th June.
The movement encourages a return to the values as guided by Islam. These values include prioritizing the family and marriage, responsibility and justice and fair dealings.
The initial campaign emphasizes a return to natural relationships as found in Islam. Given the clarity in Islam on the nature and conduct of family relationships, marriage between a man and a woman forms the basis of the family.
We hope to continue promoting family focused campaigns throughout the year. These campaigns will hopefully strengthen the family unit and result in healthy relationships. We also call for a return to fitrah through reconnecting the Muslims especially the youth, back to Islam and clarifying key concepts such as freedom and rights in Islam.
WearWhite supporters have indicated that some of the other family oriented campaigns they would like to promote in the near future include developing respect and recognizing responsibilities among family members as guided by the Prophet Muhammad.
It is our hope that this campaign helps bring Muslims back to our fitrah and reconnect us with the Sunnah of the Prophet.
Let us return to family. Let us return to fitrah.
ABOUT WEAR WHITE
WearWhite is an informal grassroots movement that has come together to help Muslims return to their natural disposition.
As a social media initiative, it has no membership or institutionalised committee. WearWhite supporters discuss initiatives, gain advice and suggestions and develop family oriented plans. These initiatives are centred around developing family relationships as guided by the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad.
Individuals provide support based on their expertise and capabilities.
Given the holistic nature of Islam and it’s beautiful exhortation to goodness, we do not limit the invitation to or against any specific group. Our invitation is for the return to fitrah in its entirety and for all humanity.
WearWhite is launching our initiative with a call for Muslims to attend the first Terawih prayer on 28th June 2014 in white.
At first glance, the statement issued by “members of civil society”, which is signed by 217 individuals and 9 organisations like Maruah, AWARE and the Free Community Church, appears to stand for a side advocating for the love and care of LGBT individuals.
In their statement, they quoted values like democracy, justice and equality; called for a dialogue to foster understanding and tolerance; used words like compassion and knowledge and contrasted it against ignorance, hatred, prejudice and discrimination.
They make a Samaritan out of everyone who attends PinkDot and vilifies those who have campaigned to wear white.
Welcome to the art of persuasion, called rhetoric.
Only thing – rhetoric might not always be true. As its purpose is persuasion and not truth, it does not have to base itself on facts.
Being scientifically grounded or truthful is not the goal of rhetoric.
Hence, as great sounding as it can be, it is often meaningless and insincere, if you are willing to examine in-depth what is said.
With persuasion as an end in itself, rhetoric is also often exploitative.
Yes, feelings will be stirred, words associated with human rights and dignity like discrimination, prejudice, equality and justice will often be used. With little discernment or lack of understanding to a certain issue, most people would almost certainly be persuaded.
If you aren’t persuaded, then you might be made to feel guilty, ignorant or bigoted for going against humanity.
Rhetoric is so powerful that it can make good look evil and evil look good. One of the best examples of how rhetoric was used, “or misused”, in the history of mankind was Hitler. Hitler was a charismatic speaker skilled in rhetoric. He was so good that he used religion to justify the holocaust.
But remember, rhetoric has no care for sincerity and truthfulness. If I can claim a religious affiliation to lend support to my cause, why not? I can be a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Humanist, or a mix of everything! But my professed faith is not a true faith that I practice in sincerity.
In one of the statements from the “civil society”, they said that pitting religious believers against those holding secular beliefs is a “false dichotomy”, as many religious leaders and organisations both in Singapore and around the world have expressed support for LGBT equality.
I do not intend to contest this statement, but I find it real funny that just months ago, it is likely that these same activists were ostracizing the religious, and polarizing the HPB’s FAQs saga as an “us” vs “them” debate.
The same activists were probably the ones who portrayed this dichotomy in the hope of getting Singaporeans on middle ground to be disengaged in the HPB saga – telling the average Singaporean that unless you are a religious fanatic, you should not be bothered with public morality.
Now, the stakes are changed. In an attempt to win more to their side, they are now all encompassing, welcoming all Singaporeans, from the middle ground to the religious, unto their side. Inclusivity, so it claims.
But is there any real meaningful sense we can take home from the pink rhetoric – inclusivity, diversity and tolerance?
To be truly inclusive, why not invite the wearwhite participants to PinkDot?
If you are truly diverse, why unrelentingly seek to redefine marriage and change the natural fact that family is made up of one man, one woman and their offspring/s?
If you are really tolerant, why force upon society your views and jump on those who disagree by labelling them as homophobes, bigots or ignorant, uneducated people who discriminates?
The answer is simple. There is no real meaning or sincerity to the terms inclusivity, diversity and tolerance. It is just rhetoric meant to persuade, impress and sound “high class”, so people would feel they are educated, informed and compassionate by agreeing with it.
The whole PinkDot movement, done carnival-style to attract, with performances, music and speeches; self-reported attendance; on the surface promotes diversity, inclusivity and the freedom to love, but deep underneath, is really garnering support to change our social mores by altering our law and policies.
And the organisations and individuals pushing for it are likely believers of the sexual rights movement. It is a movement that began with America’s sexual revolution in their 1960s, based on the fraud science of Alfred Kinsey. Proponents of the sexual rights movement prize sex as a right, and believe all forms of moral restraints on sex are ridiculous. They stand on the opposite end from those who prize morals as a critical pillar for societal well-being.
Proponents of the sexual rights movement do not accept the proven historic fact that public morality affects society gravely. They also do not agree with the principle that since a society is made up of people who appointed a government to maintain order and harmony, law therefore exists primarily for public good. From this perspective, the famous philosopher H.L.A Hart declared the state’s important role to legislate for or against morality: “The aim of making an act criminal is to announce to society that these acts are not to be done and to secure that fewer of them are done.”
Therefore, it is no wonder that the 3 named organisations of the “civil society” – Maruah, AWARE and Free Community Church – are all well-known activist groups that push for sexual rights and sexual freedom above other forms of human rights. These organisations will definitely be tolerant towards any extent of sexual freedom, but expect their tolerance to end with any suggestions of values, societal restriction or moral restraints. Here’s a post on how tolerant sexual rights activists can be if they do not agree with you.
So don’t be fooled by mere appearances, even if one might appear like a loving Samaritan. The thing they really love is the sexual rights agenda. It wouldn’t matter if you are an LGBT – if you stand for morals, or if you could compromise their agenda, be prepared to be ostracized by them.
As in the words of a faithful PinkDot attendee, who revealed that there are “hierarchies within the ‘LGBT community’”: “It is unfortunate that (as exemplified by Pink Dot) the ‘LGBT community’, in its pursuit to be accepted by mainstream society, has chosen the less noble path of presenting an elite… At last we now know what is meant by the stated vision of an “inclusive” society – that the gay/lesbian elite be “included” by the mainstream. The celebration of true diversity – the non-elite within the “LGBT community”, is sorely lacking and, in this case, deliberately avoided.”
Now, to distinguish my speech from rhetoric, I shall provide some facts, meaningful analysis and evidences that informed groups of Singaporeans have raised as concerns regarding the agenda to promote “freedom to love”.
For example, an often heard but under analysed point of paramount concern, is the fact that the rates of STD and HIV infection among the gay community remains unimaginably sky high.
It must be noted that these are not statistics that happen out of the blue.
In 2006, HIV infection through heterosexual sex was 222, more than double that by homosexual sex, which was only 109. By 2011, infection by homosexual sex has overtaken that by heterosexual sex.
This trend where HIV infection among an extremely small community overtakes the rest of the population has persisted since then.
Last reported, in 2013, HIV infection rates by heterosexual sex have dropped to 181, while that by homosexual sex has risen to 247 – HIV infection among this subculture is now 35% more than the rest of the population!
If the statistics have not already shocked you, I invite you to take an analysis of this picture, so you may imagine the details.
Firstly, these are not ordinary statistics. They are statistics with direct behavioural causes. Think – what kind of behaviours, attitudes or lifestyles, could have caused such unimaginable statistics? A lifestyle which promotes love?
How much love today do we see among heterosexual communities? How many couples do we know really lead exemplary lifelong loving relationships?
Most people I have talked to would say that there are few. Most people are aware that among heterosexual communities, there is a great amount of cheating, betrayal, promiscuous behaviours.
If this is the love portrayed by the heterosexual community, what would you expect to be the “love” in the gay subculture – considering their rate of HIV infection is more than 20 times that of the heterosexual community?
Remember that statistics don’t lie. And these are statistics that tell a story – stories that are truer than that told by PinkDot’s advertising campaigns, propaganda videos, rousing speeches and plain rhetoric published all over media. Freedom to love is never really about the freedom to pursue monogamous lifelong relationships as what their rhetoric and propaganda portrays. It has always been to legalize sodomy so that all that is desired sexually by this subculture can be expressed in unrestrained manners, legally and freely.
But it will not stop here.
Once sodomy is legalized, expect genderless marriage to be pushed. Some activist claim that they are only fighting against the criminalizing of sodomy. Don’t be fooled by this insincere rhetoric. Fact is, not one activist will be able to promise that genderless marriage will not be pushed if 377A is repealed. Why is this so? Because it is not in anyone’s prerogative to decide what other activists would do. Even if one activist decides not to push for genderless marriage, he can’t say that for all activists.
While all minorities, including the LGBTs, are as entitled as anyone else to basic human rights, it is quite a different thing altogether to promote any group’s private beliefs or preferences – culminated into practices and cultural behaviour, into mainstream society. Every form of practice and behaviour promoted into mainstream affects the society; hence, in all fairness, must be subjected to objective analysis and scrutiny.
Fact is, there can never be a total acceptance of all kinds of beliefs and behaviours. Some beliefs clash fundamentally.
Non-acceptance of a group’s practices or behaviour does not necessary mean intolerance or discrimination.
377A discriminates against an act (not a person). It is an act which should be judged based on its own merit – an act of which whether you are homosexual or heterosexual, you are capable of committing, hence not discriminatory to homosexuals alone. And by its own merit, sodomy is an act that raises real health issues, as already highlighted above.
Freedom to love? What if the Geylang community comes out and demands for it? No limits! Legalize every sex. Reduce the age of consent of sex with minors (and this is exactly what will be pushed for if 377A is removed)! What if they hold carnivals in colours and get celebrities to endorse their events. What if they meet with government officials and push for our laws to be removed. How would society react? Accept their proposal? Embrace their ideology?
Of course we will say no. Because we know that the love that they are talking about, is not quite the monogamous, lifelong, wholesome and healthy love that we imagine it to be.
Likewise, we have to look beyond the pink rhetoric, and note how incredibly little evidence, facts or statistics they bring to the table of dialogue. And how quick they are to dismiss the facts we bring to the table – with rhetoric. They cite reasons like stigma, lack of condom awareness, as the reasons for their high HIV infection rates – all of which are invalid and false arguments.
If I can blame someone for all my problems, I will never have to take any responsibility for my attitude and actions; I will be able to advance my agenda without ever needing to account for these problems I cause.
Not as if society wants to stop them from having their fun privately, but they choose to, very publicly, impose upon society to embrace their “freedom to love”; unrelentingly push for changes to long established social norms and mores; seek to redefine marriage and family that will bring harm to children and religious liberty.
They cry foul and demand for public acceptance, while refusing to accept public accountability for the implications of their actions e.g. health concerns. Normal citizens like you and I are made to pay, while they unceasingly lobby and push their agenda.
For this reason, I believe wearwhite has to exist. Largely also because conservative Singaporeans have no confidence that our ministers and MPs still do care for the moral fabric of our nation.
I personally too, will be wearing a white top as a private protest this 28 June. In fact, for as long as PinkDot is held each year, I will wear white on the day of pink.
I would like to address this letter to Farah AR and correct several misconceptions on the usage of pork/porcine apparel products.
—————-
In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.
To Farah AR who wrote about pig skin, she had shared about her experiences and her Islamic understanding in pork/porcine products. May Allah increase Farah’s knowledge and grant her insight to understand Islamic rulings.
I recall a long time ago when I emailed MUIS about the same query regarding usage of pork/porcine products such as handbags and shoes. This is fairly common among Muslims who may have accidentally purchased these products. unfortunately, many realized the truth only much later.
Responding to my query, MUIS stated the following:
The majority of scholars consider pig and all derivatives from it as heavy najis (filth), which entails the necessary purification of seven washings, one of them with a mixture of sand and water, for surfaces that come into contact with pig and its organs. However, the condition is that the surface contact is wet or moist.
If it is dry, then no purification is necessary.
Hence, wearing shoes or using things that are made from pig’s organs are not advisable since it runs into possibility of being wet or moist and hence necessitates purification. Without such purification, Prayer (salah) is not valid.
MUIS also recommended a good book titled ‘The Reliance of the Traveller by Nuh Ha Mim Keller’. This book can be easily purchased from online bookstores such as Amazon.
In my opinion, Muslims should strive hard to keep their bodies and clothes clean and pure; hence it is better for Muslims to wear leather that is originally permissible or derived from an animal that is lawful.
But, whatever it is – the most important is : CHECK IT OUT FIRST. It’s all about subjectivity, so you have to take the preventive steps to confirm whether it is pigskin or not. Some Gucci and Fendi might use pigskin, you’ll never know (actually Gucci did use pigskin for some of their ladies’ bags in previous seasons, which they did mention in the press).
In case of syubhah, don’t buy it. It’s up to you. But as a Muslim, I won’t be using anything pigskin.
To avoid future misconceptions, MUIS should make sure that Islamic advisories or fatwas are clear and easily accessible so that Muslims can easily refer to it whenever there is doubt. Also, MUIS should employ dedicated officers to manage public queries. Singapore Muslims should not have to wait 5-10 days for a simple reply that possibly require only 10 minutes to write.
We agree that Muslims need clarification from MUIS, and hope the Islamic organisation can be more forthcoming to address matters concerning the Muslim community.
When it comes to situation like this, clarity is key to avoid unnecessary misconception and anxiety.
Have you encountered a similar experience whereby you purchased a porcine product unknowingly?
