Saiyyidina Abu Bakr as Siddiq rad. holds a special place within the Ummah. Indeed, there is a hadith that says after the Ambiya, the first to enter Jannah among this Ummah is Saiyyidina Abu Bakr.
The Ulema delved into this to ascertain why. They came up with the concept of the Mauqif. A standing point. A moment in time when, through one’s actions, one distinguishes one’s self above the rest. And there are so many occasions which are the mawaaqif where Abu BAkr shone. Very briefly, When he accepted Islam. Rasulullah SAW he never wavered even for a second when Rasulullah SAW first made dawah to Abu Bakr. Then, the incident of Isra Me”raj, a test for the Ummah. Abu Bakr never wavered or doubted the words of Rasulullah SAW. Then the incident of the passing of Rasulullah. In a moment where fitnah could emerge for the Ummah, Abu Bakr made that famous statement, ‘He who worships Muhamad, let him know that Muhammad is dead. But he who worships Allah, let him know that He is Alive, and Cannot die.’ Then the sending out of the army of Usama Bin Zaid, when even the senior sahabahs advised him to hold back and protect Madinah.
The life of this remarkable individual is filled with so many Mawaqif that will be his witness when he stands in the Court of Allah azzawajal.
Brothers and sisters, what is our Mawqif?
What actions can we take in this fleeting life to present in the Court of Allah azzawajal? In this current LGBT controversy, do we sit back within the safety of our comfort zone, or do we stand up and speak the Truth, for the sake of Allah azzawajal?
Wallahualam, but I believe this could count as a Mauqif for Prof Khai. There are many comments made regarding the NUS Provost letter. To my mind the capitulation and pandering to the Liberals is predictable. And at the end of the day, it is nothing more than a slap on the wrist for Prof.
I am very heartened that the unintended outcome of this event is the awakening of our community. We have been asleep for far too long. Subhanallah, so many has come up to voice their support. The pushback against the LGBT lobby is indeed eye-opening and unprecedented. The Ulema have come forward in numbers. The conservative majority is becoming less and less docile.
Brothers and sisters, this is the time to push forward. There are so many issues that are harming the Ummah. The LGBT lobby. The larger issue of the poison of Liberal Islam. So many of our youth are ideologically-defeated and dancing along the periphery of jahannam.
It is not the time to pull back. And focus on individual worship.
We have serious work to do. And in the process, in sha Allah,gather our own mawafiqs – standing points that can be our Witness in the Court of Allah azzawajal.
Barakallahufeek.
Syed Danial commented on Minister Shanmugam’s Facebook comment regarding the LGBTQ issue.
There’s some confusion going around that I wish to address.
LGBT is a movement. It wishes to legitimize unnatural acts that is unacceptable in the sight of Allah azzawajal. I do not support the movement. I support homosexuals or people with tendencies who wish to change. To these people, we lend a helping hand. Not the LGBT movement.
At it’s heart, the movement is hypocritical. They claim to be promoting love. Universal love. That is disingenuous. Two people can profess love for each other. That does not mean they have to consummate it by piercing an orifice whose function is to excrete human waste. So the movement does not promote love. It promotes disease causing acts against nature .
We must differentiate between the two. Peace
Syed Danial and his friend MD Shawal created Facebook PicBadges to show support for the anti-LGBTQ movement.Syed Danial and his friend MD Shawal created Facebook PicBadges to show support for the anti-LGBTQ movement.
The Internet takes on an important function in maturing democracies with an under-developed civil society. Citizens see the cyberspace as an important avenue to perform checks and balances. This have led some to call for a rethinking of the rules of engagement.
A couple of years ago, Singapore’s Minister for Information, Communication and the Arts called for the crafting of an Internet code of conduct. Attempts to regulate the cyberspace through the suggested “netiquette” and the recent passing of the MDA regulations to legislate online news were met with disagreement on the part of the netizens. About 1,500 people registered their discontent against this new implementation and an Internet Blackout Thursday saw more than 130 bloggers trading their web pages with black screens carrying the slogan ‘Free My Internet’.
The complexity of the issue is compounded by the ambiguity as to whether social networking sites such as facebook represent the private or public sphere. Comments posted on personal capacities are often shared among hundreds or thousands of people. With this development, the phenomenon of public lynching on the Internet is becoming more common in Singapore. The cases of Amy Chua’s comments on the Malays, a PRC Chinese student’s remarks on Singaporeans, Anton Casey’s observations on the poor and Dr Aljunied’s views on homosexuality are some examples.
Consequently, the opportunity to engage deeper on contentious issues such as race, nationality, religion and social class are lost due to the manner in which these discussions have placed too much emphasis on the personalities. Surely, the strategy of removing or silencing the protagonist cannot be a better alternative to addressing the root of the concerns in open discussions. More important questions such as who represent these views, how pervasive these views are, and who are discriminated, remain unanswered. If there is one rule of engagement on the internet, it is this – every contentious point should be engaged in a civilized and respectful manner, regardless of age, hierarchy or any other social divisions.
An accompaniment to the culture of public lynching is the culture of online petitions. The petitions against and for Dr Aljunied circulating online over the last week denouncing or championing their professor is neither the first nor will it be the last that we will see. Certainly, for every social group that feels aggrieved, there will be another that feels validated. Such is the complex cosmopolitan society that we live in today.
However, if university students were to start petitioning against every disagreeable point spouted by their professors, the university will lose its critical edge and become an undesirably monotonous place. These points of views should be debated in a mature, open and inclusive manner taking on board views from all sides.
The problem with the culture of public lynching is that living in a state where there are many punitive measures to sanction the citizenry against making contentious comments that may potentially cause public disorder, it will be more convenient to slip back to an era where people are governed by a culture of fear and not speak on critical issues, anxious that they will tread on the wrong side of vague OB markers. This will surely retard Singapore’s progress and quest for a more consultative society.
Written by Kamaludeen Mohamed Nasir
Kamaludeen Mohamed Nasir is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at the Nanyang Technological University. He is the author of The Future of Singapore: Population, Society and the Nature of the State (Routledge, 2014).
Associate Professor Reuben Yik-Pern WongWalid Jumblatt Abdullah
THE recent controversy over a National University of Singapore professor’s Facebook posts on homosexuality has thrust the issue of academic freedom to the fore (“Protests over NUS don’s Facebook post”; last Saturday).
Academic freedom extends from the core peer-reviewed activities of research and teaching to include extramural domains of speech – where faculty members speak or write on larger political, social or religious matters outside their institutions.
While academics, who enjoy a privileged position in society, should be held to a high standard of accountability for what they say in or outside academia, society should not curtail them from expressing their ideas. Otherwise, social innovation, knowledge creation and creativity would be seriously hampered.
Clearly, these two imperatives need to be reconciled.
The term “academic freedom” emerged in German universities in the 19th century. The three basic principles were the freedom to teach, the freedom to learn, and the freedom to do research. These principles were adapted to different circumstances in higher education all over the world.
The 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) is regularly cited in legal cases involving academic freedom.
An AAUP interpretive comment from the 1970 update of the 1940 statement noted that “controversy is at the heart of the free academic inquiry which the entire statement is designed to foster”.
Academics should be allowed, indeed encouraged, to express alternative or non-conformist opinions, however counter-intuitive these opinions may seem.
Of course, they should do so with tact and respect, and within society’s moral and legal limits. Academics must also protect the intellectual space they so cherish, by allowing others to voice opposing opinions.
How we respond to the latest incident is indicative of how we wish to move as a society. Do we value engaging people and dissonant ideas on a calm and intellectual basis, and respond to dissenting ideas respectfully and via reasoned argumentation?
In a civilised society, ideas should be discussed, debated, developed or demolished at the liberal marketplace of ideas, without fear of being accused of bigotry or thought crimes. Otherwise, we risk slipping into a culture of intolerance and self-censorship, a perpetual pressure to conform to the “politically correct” or “progressive” ideas of the day.
I hope that responses to contentious views can follow the dictum famously ascribed to the thinker Voltaire: “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Written by Walid Jumblatt Abdullah & Reuben Wong (Associate Professor)
Alex Au, a blogger at Yawningbread and founder of a Singapore gay rights group, People Like Us.
When the story first broke, what struck me most was the focus on lesbians. It is far more common in anti-LGBT speech for the reference to be either directed at gay males or framed with reference to gay male sex, at least in Singapore and the West. But coming from a lecturer in Malay Studies, I wasn’t surprised.
On 20 February, Syed Muhd Khairudin Aljunied made a post on Facebook in which he lambasted “liberal Islam” and its support for lesbianism, describing them not only as “wrongful ideologies” — a matter of opinion, perhaps — but also as “diseases” and “cancers”. The latter may have stepped into hate speech.
As the story in the Straits Times (headline shown above) shows, it generated protests and several petitions.
Now, before I go further, it is important to look at what Khairudin actually said. An anonymous comment led me to the Rilek1Corner site which had a screengrab (see thumbnail at left). His Facebook post seems to have been an answer to a question by an unnamed person, concerning a “new development” in which liberal Islam may be affirming unorthodox sexual identities. In his answer, Khairudin suggested giving advice, going to “proper religious classes”, and seeking help from counsellors. He urged using the “power of technology” to alert groups and movements about spreading these “wrongful ideologies”.
The recommendation may sound reasonable, even if we disagree with his view. Nevertheless, the dehumanising tone he used to describe lesbians — and for that matter, adherents of “liberal Islam” too — is what made the post stand out.
I have on several occasions argued that homophobia is deeply linked to insecurity stemming from a loss of male privilege. You get clues to this when you read some of the things Pope Benedict XVI used to say, speaking of both “radical feminism” and “homosexual lifestyles” in virtually the same breath, and how both have undermined “family life”. Traditionalists’ conception of a happily ordered family is one where the husband is the dominant member, and where the sexes had clearly demarcated roles. Feminism, which argued for equality and autonomy for women, was a serious threat. The gay rights movement sprang from this, making the point that true autonomy includes autonomy in sexual orientation and gender identity.
It is not easy to see this linkage between feminism and gay rights when one looks at the speech of the US-based Christian Right, and that may be why we forget that there is a link. This, in my view, is because in the US, it has become socially impossible to speak openly against equality for women. Thus, even as the Christian Right goes ballistic over gays and lesbians, they know it won’t be politick to attack heterosexual women as well.
However, this does not mean they don’t engage in side actions that try to limit women’s autonomy. The same people also tend to support tighter restrictions on abortion. But they have cleverly packaged it as a “right to life” issue, not as an “attack women’s right to control their bodies” issue, which in reality it is.
Islam is much less reticent about speaking out against equality and autonomy for women. I used to joke that Muslim clerics aren’t as prominent in attacking the LGBT movement as the Christian Right because they were too busy trying to control women. Things may be changing now, not because they are any more accepting of equality for women, but because the LGBT issue has made enough progress that we can’t be ignored any longer.
But it is probably no coincidence that the religions that feel most threatened by this “deadly mix” of feminism and gay rights, and are more explicit about linking the two, are the ones that still segregate men and women, either in prayer halls or in clerical roles. Gender distinctions are not just important in Islam and Roman Catholicism, they are part of the teaching. It is much easier for them to speak out against both feminism and gay rights simultaneously than it is for conservative Protestants, who have already conceded the point on women’s equality (even if they have not internalised it).
This dual threat perception comes together to explain why the question that Khairudin had to answer focussed on lesbians. Lesbians represent both a refusal to be subordinate to men and a challenge to heteronormativity. They are the “worst of the worst”.
* * * * *
In the wake of the news reports, I asked around if anyone knew Khairudin or had heard him speak on previous occasions. One friend gave me a particularly interesting answer, painting a negative picture of the man. She had attended one (or maybe more than one — I didn’t clarify with her) lecture by him and came away with the impression that he was insufferably sexist. She remembered how the notion of male privilege and dominance held up many of the ideas he propounded.
The other strong impression she came away with was his condescension towards Malays. She said, “His opening remarks was something along the lines of ‘I want to stress that while my field is Malay Studies, I myself am not Malay, but Arab’. Why was it necessary to stress that? He then added, ‘However, I married a Malay wife,’ and saying how much he ‘loved’ Malays.”
My friend got quite agitated just retelling this to me. I don’t blame her. It sounds awfully like people who say, “I have nothing against gays, in fact some of my best friends are gay, but . . . “
It’s a bit ironic then that a group called Fellowship of Muslim Students Association (FMSA), responding to petitions being circulated, described in a statement it issued,
Dr Syed Khairudin is an icon of the Malay/Muslim community in the field of academic achievement. He continues to play a contributing role to the Malay/Muslim community and the mainstream society.
Another thing you’d note from the FMSA statement is its reference to a “Neo-Sodom-Gomorrah community”, presumably newly coined by them. However, as playwright Alfian Sa’at pointed out,
They do use the term LGBT as well, which clearly shows that the coinage is a silly and childish attempt at testing the limits of provocative and inflammatory speech.
Which brings me back to the question of hate speech.
* * * * *
There is at least one petition calling on the university authorities to sanction Khairudin for committing hate speech. Khairudin’s defenders argue that if the university did so, it would be a violation of academic freedom.
Where is the line between academic freedom and hate speech? It may be hard to draw, for indeed there is value in allowing space for counter-mainstream, even offensive ideas. But a necessary test may be whether the idea being espoused is intellectually grounded: What is the basis for the idea? How sound is it?
This test may be easier to apply in some disciplines than others. It is, for example, quite clear that advocating the “truth” of creationism can seek no protection from academic freedom, but arguing the moral value of large-scale genetic engineering of humans — well, that may not be so clear-cut.
But lost in the debate about whether Khairudin was exercising his academic freedom is this: Was his Facebook posting on a matter that was within his area of expertise? It is doubtful. From what little I know, his area is that of Malay Studies, which I would think is quite distinct from Islamic Studies. He was pronouncing on religion, particularly on liberal Islam. I am sure there are scholars out there with much deeper knowledge about Islamic perspectives.
This is important. A professor of monetary theory can have no special claim to be an expert on transgender identities.
If on balance his passing judgement on liberal Islam and lesbians wasn’t within Khairudin’s area of expertise, then the greater laxity that one might give for academic freedom will not apply. He was in fact just exercising his right to free speech, the same right that you and I have. That speech will need to be tested on the same basis as anyone else’s speech for hate content. So the question comes back to this: Is labelling a class of people a “disease” and “cancer” something that would cross the line? Suppose one said that the migration of dark-complexioned people from such and such a place to Singapore was a “cancer” — would that be OK? Suppose one said that a new religion making inroads and gaining adherents was a “disease” infecting Singapore society, would that be acceptable?
POST-SCRIPT
In Straits Times’ Breaking News,
The National University of Singapore (NUS) professor who drew criticism last week for referring to lesbianism as “cancers” has been counselled by the university.
In an e-mail to all faculty members, staff and students on Wednesday, NUS provost Tan Eng Chye said he had counselled Associate Professor Syed Muhd Khairudin Aljunied, who acknowledged that his original post “reflected poor judgment in the tone and choice of words”.
Prof Tan, who is also NUS deputy president of academic affairs, said Dr Khairudin’s comments “contained provocative, inappropriate and offensive language”.
– Straits Times, 5 March 2014, NUS professor “counselled” by university for Facebook posting on lesbianism, by Pearl Lee
In a Clarification Statement which I found on Rilek1Corner (the source was Khairudin’s Facebook page) he wrote that he has not removed the original post, except the words “cancer” and “social diseases”. He also wrote that “My position as a Muslim about LGBT remains clear and is in line with the view of Muslims scholars”, and that “There is no disagreement in Islam on the prohibition of homosexuality.” Although Khairudin stressed that this was his personal view, the sense one gets from the foregoing is an attempt to invoke his religion for justification and defence.
I watched with dismay as a Malay Studies Professor was insulted and intimidated by two alumni and a student for posting his personal views regarding “alternative modes of sexual orientation” on Facebook.
This action constitutes an attack on free conscience and free speech. It aims to terminate debate on a highly controversial issue. It hampers the expression of diverse viewpoints. If left unchallenged, it will harm academic freedom and democracy in the long run.
This is not the first time an academic is being maligned by LGBT activists. In 2007 when our leaders were debating whether to repeal or retain Section 377A of the Penal Code, two NUS law academics were subjected to abusive, lewd emails from LGBT activists for their cogent arguments supporting 377A. Be warned: the chief danger of the LGBT movement is its political agenda to take away freedom from anyone who disapproves their alternative lifestyle.
Academics have the right to express their religious and professional convictions on public morality. What Dr Khairudin Aljunied said on Facebook is the very essence of academic freedom, not beyond academic freedom. It is intolerant and offensive for the alumni and student to demand that he undergo counselling.
At National Day Rally 2009, Prime Minister said: “We are not against religion… religious groups are free to propagate their teachings on social and moral issues and they have done so on the IRs, on organ transplants, on 377A, homosexuality… And when people who have a religion approach a national issue, they will often have views which are informed by their religious beliefs. It is natural because it is part of you, it is part of your individual, your personality. But you must accept that other groups may have different views, informed by different beliefs and you have to accept that and respect that. And the public debate cannot be on whose religion is right and whose religion is wrong. It has to be on secular rational considerations, public interests—what makes sense for Singapore.”
The petition against Dr Aljunied makes no sense in Singapore—a secular society with conservative roots where all citizens are free to address public issues based on their moral convictions secular or sacred or both.
We hope Dr Aljunied will not lose his job over this incident. It will be a very sad day for Singapore if he does. It will derail the future of a moral man with a brain and a spine. It forebodes the end of freedom and our decline as a nation.
NUS must not allow an undemocratic minority to vandalise our consciences, defy our shared values, degrade our virtues, and terrorise our collective well-being by forcing homosexual credo on a conservative society. NUS must draw the line between truth and error, right and wrong, good and bad. Or we might end up as a mere footnote in history instead of the shining red dot our Prime Minister hopes for.
