Tag: religion

  • Walid J Abdullah: Crucial That Singapore Muslims Involve Themselves And Contribute In Issues Beyond The Traditional

    Walid J Abdullah: Crucial That Singapore Muslims Involve Themselves And Contribute In Issues Beyond The Traditional

    It is important that Muslims – in Singapore and elsewhere – speak up, donate, and craft solutions to issues beyond traditional ones that we are used to be passionate about (hijab, Islam and homosexuality, Palestine etc). A good example would be the collection of funds for the Nepali victims a couple of weeks ago.

    We should be more proactive in dealing with issues of poverty, homelessness, refugees, amongst others, so as to truly display the ‘mercy to all’ conduct that is befitting of our faith.

    Don’t get me wrong: i’m not saying that we should not take up those traditional issues, i am saying we must go beyond that as well.

    It is especially difficult to speak up/do something in issues where there is minimal gain (due to the unpopularity of the matter, like the Rohingyan refugees, as opposed to the Palestinian crisis) and plenty of costs (for example, ‘sensitive’ topics like poverty), but it has to be done. And, i believe this is one of the things that religion in general can offer to the modern world.

    On that note, anyone knows of anything we could do/could think of w.r.t the Rohingyan crisis? Any idea is welcomed, from the trivial to the sustainable.

     

    Source: Walid J. Abdullah

  • Shyam Anand Singh: Logic And Empathy Should Guide LGBT Discourse

    Shyam Anand Singh: Logic And Empathy Should Guide LGBT Discourse

    I refer to Mr Walid Jumblatt Abdullah’s letter “Don’t let secular fundamentalism be the norm” (May 15), and Mr Hairol Salim’s letter “Efforts of Pink Dot ambassadors should be lauded, not condemned” (May 13).

    Although I agree that each of us possesses a unique code of values that conditions our moral beliefs, I contend that Mr Jumblatt has misinterpreted the context of Mr Hairol’s letter, which does not state that all religious beliefs are based on emotions.

    Mr Hairol’s statement about not letting religious-driven emotions cloud our judgment was made in relation to personal attacks on Pink Dot ambassadors based on their religious affiliations, and was not a wider critique of the state’s secular principles.

    Despite the fact that religious mores play a role in societal discourse, it is critical to distinguish between ideas rooted in logic and sentiments based on emotions, especially when discussing an issue as complex as LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) rights.

    Given that religious doctrine has traditionally been wielded over centuries as a tool of persecution, it is vital to underscore that religious-driven emotions can often double as hate speech against LGBT individuals.

    This is distinct from religious perspectives grounded in logical thinking. While the line between the two may be thin, the former has a tendency to vilify the self-worth of sexual minorities.

    Religious views guided by logic, conversely, facilitate dialogue with a greater degree of self-reflexivity and openness to accommodating alternative notions of sexuality.

    Such an approach would benefit religious sexual minorities facing difficulties reconciling their sexual orientation with their faith.

    Often, these individuals encounter double discrimination: From religious groups for their sexual orientation and from segments of the LGBT community for their religious convictions.

    Ensuring that religious perspectives refrain from mischaracterising homosexuality as a moral hazard would aid in the personal and social struggles of LGBTs, religious or otherwise.

    Exercising logic and better empathising with the struggles of sexual minorities would therefore be a positive reflection on the progressiveness of our public discourse and be a harbinger for a more inclusive society.

     

    *This article written by Shyam Anand Singh, was published in Voices, Today, dated 19 May 2015

    Source: www.todayonline.com

  • Singapore Has Always Been Fundamentally Secular

    Singapore Has Always Been Fundamentally Secular

    I disagree with the writer’s views in the letter “Don’t let secular fundamentalism be the norm” (May 15). I think Singapore is fundamentally secular.

    While I agree that some Singaporeans cannot help it if their religious beliefs colour their contribution to public discourse, the writer is confusing “is” with “ought”. Public discourse should be as secular as possible because to engage in it is to consider the interests of all Singaporeans, and not all believe in the tenets of any one religion.

    Consequently, any laws or policies influenced by the tenets of any one religion are liable to be divisive and not representative of the views and interests of all Singaporeans. Thus, since independence, Singapore has pursued a secular approach.

    The late Mr Lee Kuan Yew even remarked that religious leaders should “take off (their) clerical robes” before taking on anything political. This is because our founders recognised the partiality and potential divisiveness of religion in public discourse.

    Secular fundamentalism has always been the norm: It is simply a steadfast, fundamental adherence to secularism in public discourse. To do away with it is to do away with a core principle on which Singapore is founded.

     

    *This article was written by Benjamin Seet Chong Eng, in Voices, Today, on 18 May 2015.

    Source: www.todayonline.com

  • Walid Jumblatt Abdullah: Don’t Let Secular Fundamentalism Be The Norm

    Walid Jumblatt Abdullah: Don’t Let Secular Fundamentalism Be The Norm

    I refer to the letter “Efforts of Pink Dot ambassadors should be lauded, not condemned” (May 13). I take issue with the statement that “it is important to not let religious-driven emotions cloud our judgment when it comes to contentious issues such as this”.

    It is problematic for two reasons: It assumes all religious beliefs are based on “emotions” and are therefore irrational; and it promotes the idea that in our version of secularism, ideas based on religious or moral convictions should not enter the public discussion.

    Each one of us has a code of values that defines what is moral or not, and which can be based on religious or non-religious ideas. Neither is inherently more rational or emotional than the other; both sets of values must be open to scrutiny and critiques once they enter the public domain.

    Every citizen has a right to air his/her views as long as they do not violate any law. Religious-based views, as our Prime Minister has said, can be aired in the public domain and can contribute towards public discourse.

    To dismiss one set of values before it is properly discussed, and to disallow religious-based opinions from entering the public realm of ideas, sounds to me like secular fundamentalism, which is not the version of secularism Singapore practises.

    However, I agree with the letter writer that there is no room or need for attacks on the Pink Dot ambassadors’ personal character. One must discuss the issue itself and not attempt character assassinations of those championing a particular cause.

    At the same time, just as the ambassadors have a right to propagate their beliefs, others must be given the same right to critique their actions. Doing so based on reasoned arguments should not be equated with personal attacks, and is to be expected when entering the public domain.

    It must be noted that religion is dear to many people, as much as freedom and notions of liberalism are to others. Expecting religious people not to base their judgments on their beliefs is, unfortunately, fallacious.

    Discussions on notions of morality and what is acceptable will be here to stay and will probably intensify in the coming years.

    I hope all sides will remain civil in this discussion and that none will be discriminated against for whatever beliefs are held. All sides must also make it clear that attacks on one’s character should be avoided under any circumstances.

     

    Source: www.todayonline.com

  • Divide In Malaysia Laid Bare By Cross Furore

    Divide In Malaysia Laid Bare By Cross Furore

    KUALA LUMPUR — The protest by a group of Muslims in Selangor who called for a new church to remove a cross outside its premises has drawn a strong reaction from a broad coalition of moderate Muslims and politicians, exposing the rift between ultra and moderate Muslims and prompting the Cabinet to announce that the police will launch an investigation.

    Malaysian society has become increasingly polarised along religious lines in the past few years. In particular, the growing politicisation of religion means that, going forward, one can expect pushback from the majority of Malays, who are moderate in orientation, analysts told TODAY.

    In announcing the Cabinet’s decision yesterday, an under-pressure Prime Minister Najib Razak said the Sedition Act or other existing laws could be used against the protesters. “The protesters should have discussed with the church, instead of taking actions that have created worry and restlessness in this multiracial country,” he said.

    “The people must abide by the country’s laws and practise respect of other religions, as enshrined in the Constitution. We also need to have an attitude of tolerance and mutual respect among communities of different religions,” Mr Najib added.

    The protesters were roundly criticised since the incident, notably by a group of former Malay high-ranking civil servants, also known as the G25. “Firm action must be taken against the ignorant, intolerant Muslims who protested for the removal of a cross from a church,” said the G25 yesterday.

    The moderate group added that the protesters’ actions were an embarrassment to Islam and proved that they were ignorant of the tenets of their own faith, which preached tolerance and respect for all religions.

    The Muslims Professional Forum also denounced the protest, saying that this “mindless act of hatred and incitement against another religion’s place of worship has no place in Islam and deserves unreserved condemnation”.

    Dr Ooi Kee Beng of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, noted that the protest was a “serious provocation”.

    “Since race has slowly become ineffective as a way of polarising society to strengthen certain parties’ hold on power, it has over the last few years become the fashion to use religion as the means by which the division of Malaysian society can continue,” he told TODAY. “What this cynical process means is that an attack on the idea of cultural pluralism and tolerance has been sustained for several years … At some point, Malaysian society, especially the majority of Malays who believe pluralism is the basis of social peace in Malaysia, has to push back.”

    On Sunday, about 50 people gathered outside the church to demand the removal of a cross affixed to the building. The protesters reportedly said the presence of a cross in the Muslim-majority area posed a challenge to the religion and could sway the faith of the youth.

    The cross was taken down by church leaders a few hours later.

    Yesterday’s Cabinet decision came after remarks by Home Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi on Monday that the protest was seditious and that the government would take action. Putrajaya updated and strengthened the Sedition Act this month to crack down on people inciting racial and religious disharmony.

    Police chief Khalid Abu Bakar received a barrage of criticism from both sides of the political divide for his initial reluctance to launch a sedition probe, indicating that there was no element of sedition as the demonstration was not against Christianity.

    From the opposition end, Democratic Action Party (DAP) secretary-general Lim Guan Eng yesterday said that failing to take any action against the protesters would “put an end to any talk of moderation at the international stage” by Mr Najib.

    Mr Henry Benedict Asirvatham, Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC) liaison committee deputy chairman for Penang, yesterday said the incident had “put a black stain in our country’s multiracial and multi-religious image”. The MIC is a component party of the ruling Barisan Nasional.

    “There is a worrying trend within the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) ruling party to politicise religious issues,” said Dr Mohamed Nawab Mohamed Osman of the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies.

    “UMNO is currently in a weak position and seeks to survive. There are elements within the party who will use racial and religious issues to position themselves. Some extremist political groups have been gaining traction in some segments of society because of how well the Chinese and Indians had effectively organised themselves during the last election. There is fear among the Malays that the Chinese will use the (opposition) Pakatan Rakyat to their benefit, even though there is no Chinese Prime Minister.”

     

    Source:www.todayonline.com