10 responses so far ↓

• __earth // Nov 11, 2006 at 6:05 am

  And my comment in return:

  ithout doubt I would deem ‘moral policing’ a possible way to help Muslims live within the limits of appropriate behavior, and to the Will of Allah. The fact that some media sources have taken it upon themselves to label a well intentioned suggestion by a Muslim organization to improve our local Ummah as a “snoop squad” is an attack on Islam.

  A snoop squad is an attack on liberty. If you take opposition to the violation of privacy as an attack on Islam, so be it. I - and any other like minded - won’t granted any authority to moral police forces other to adhere to their moral while failing that different people has different moral.

  Muslim groups within our community, when they observe a social/moral problem arising, have every right to suggest a plan of non-punitive moral policing.

  No they don’t. It’s a violation of privacy. And those suggestions almost always are punitive in nature. These religious department could throw you in lockup and fine you.

  This must, of course, be done within the law of the community and with the consent of the government.

  In history, some government consented to the genocide. But that doesn’t make it right does it? As far as I’m concerned, I’m not consenting to moral police and will oppose it.

  All Muslims, and non-Muslims living in a Muslim country, should both accept and welcome an attempt to improve the moral quality of life within the community. Do not ever forget that as Muslims we are subject to the clear revelation Allah has provided to guide us along the path of righteousness.

  Attempts that do not violate individual liberty is alright. Attempts that do violate is not. The problem is moral policing is that it violates individual liberty. Preaching is already, forcing others to do what you preach is wrong.

  And we don’t live in a theocracy. Don’t forget, to yours your own and mine, mine. If you respect my rights, I’ll respect yours.

  If you go into someone’s home and spy on them then that might be called an invasion of privacy, but if someone is doing something wrong in public then if other people notice your wrong behavior and make a comment on it that could never be called an invasion of privacy. Keep your bad behavior out of public areas where people will see you and no one will bother you, but if you want to show an example of wrong behaviour in public you should expect to have someone command the right and forbid the wrong. I hate it when some people or groups try to demand their ‘right’ to act immorally in public in a Muslim country.

  The moral police in Malaysia is doing exactly that - invading other person’s privacy at their home. These moral police bother everybody regardless of private or public space. The fiasco with the American couple happened in private space.

  However, I agree that “bad behavior” in public is unfavorable. Indecency in public is unwanted. In my dictionary, having sex in public is indecency. Holding hand in public is okay with me. Not wearing headscarf is okay with me. Women wearing bathing suit on the beach is okay with me. They pay tax too you know.

  Point to note is that, the term “bad behavior” is opaque at best. Killing could be a bad behavior too. So, what is your definition of “bad behavior”?

  If you can’t stand seeing ppl holding hands, don’t go out of your house. It’s that simple.

  I hate it when some people or groups try to demand their ‘right’ to act immorally in public in a Muslim country.

  Sorry to hear that you’re unable to tolerate other people and need to hate others that disagree with you. Perhaps, that’s the reason why the Muslim world is in shamble today. Too much intolerance and hatred just because people refuse to submit to Muslims’ moral preference.

  Allah Almighty says, “Let there be a community among you who call to the good, and enjoin the right, and forbid the wrong. They are the ones who have success.” (3:104)

  That ayat sounds very much like an authorization for the suggestion by a kind and loving group of sincere Muslims who desire to carry out what is called “moral policing” to help bring more goodness to our community.

  Great! Show me a country that have powerful moral police and also a first world nation.

  I’m sorry to say that you need more than a passage from the Koran or the Bible or any holy book to convince me.

  How can you possibly justify labeling an action to “command the right and forbid the wrong” in accord with the Will of Allah an “intrusion of privacy”?

  There where you fail to why many “liberal” people disagree with you. A person like me don’t use religion to justify anything as how secular people don’t. Only rationale reasons or provable events appeal to people like me.

  Again, sorry to say that you need more than a passage from the any holy book to convince me.

  Of course, I fully agree that the empowerment of human responsibility is essential. But this can only properly take place if appropriate social sanctions were put in place to avoid the moral standard of society from drifting to the lowest common denominator.

  Moral standard is too relative in nature that it’s useless and costly to enforce high and self-righteous moral standard. You have to understand, people are diverse. The easiest way it the lowest common denominators. Only the lowest agreed common denominator will allow a peaceful tolerant and progressive society. Only a tyrant would try to assimilate the people by force.

  Attempt to unilaterally increase that standard and enforce it - like many religious conservatives - would cause the society to concentrate pitiful patty issues and not on education, economy, the environment and other important issues that push the society well-being higher and previously. That’s why, conservative religious societies are backward compared to the more liberal society.

  Religious conservative societies are too busy controlling everybody’s life that in the end, most resources are given to religious institution to control people’s and not too much left available to bring people out of poverty and make the world a better place.

• pemuja rahsia // Nov 11, 2006 at 6:59 am

  “sesugguhnya tiada paksaan dalam islam”..
  undang2 mungkin salah satu cara untuk membaiki moral,tapi itu hanya utk seketika.hanya apabila seorang pemimpin yg melaksanakan undang ini berkuasa sahaja,moral policing mampu berjalan.jika pemimpin itu hilang kuasanya,maka tak kemana polisi tu.

  lebih baik kita cuba mendidik dari memaksa.kalau kita memaksa hasil nye tidak kemana.saudara bersekolah di sekolah berasrama penuh tentu tahu akan hakikat ini.pelajar2 berdisiplin hanya apabila berada disekolah,bagaimana apabila mereka kelua sekolah.adakah mereka mampu bertahan dengan sikap yg sama.

  tapi saya akui,keruntuhan akhlak masyarakat muslim terutama di malaysia amat membimbangkan.saya sendiri tidak tahu jalan ape yg sesuai utk menangani masalah moral ini.lain orang lain pegangan moralnye.penulis komen sebelum saya sudah tentu memiliki pegangan moralnye sendiri.

  sebagai muslim kita kena tahu tanggungjawab kita sebagai muslim.didikan agama itu penting dan cara didikan itu diberikan juga perlu dititikberatkan.jadi,marilah kita sama2 mendidik diri sendiri dan rakan2 sekitar kita supaya mengikut syariat.

  paksaan hanya akan membawa imej negatif terhadap islam.ade sesetengah perkara perlu dipaksa,tetapi dalam hal berdakwah,kita kene sampai kehati penerima dahulu.ambil hatinya biar dia paham apa yg dia buat.dengan itu,baru dia akan istiqamah dan kekal dengan perbuatannya.

• pemuja rahsia // Nov 11, 2006 at 7:37 am

  to _EARTH

  “I’m sorry to say that you need more than a passage from the Koran or the Bible or any holy book to convince me”..

  Why don’t we together find the passage from the Koran or Bible or any holy book to convince us to solve the problem.instead of we critizing other people suggestion,why don’t we use our brain to find the solution.by doing this way i think we can find the solution faster rather than keep arguing with people and let the problem remain unsolve.Am i right mr _EARTH?Do you have any solution in your mind or you still want to argue?

• __earth // Nov 11, 2006 at 7:39 am

  I apologize, the previous comment was made in haste. It has typological error that makes my message rather hard to comprehend. Hence, I’ve reproduced my comment with correction in it:

  Without doubt I would deem ‘moral policing’ a possible way to help Muslims live within the limits of appropriate behavior, and to the Will of Allah. The fact that some media sources have taken it upon themselves to label a well intentioned suggestion by a Muslim organization to improve our local Ummah as a “snoop squad” is an attack on Islam.

  A snoop squad is an attack on liberty. If you take opposition to the violation of privacy as an attack on Islam, so be it. I - and any other like minded - won’t grant any authority that forces other to adhere to their moral while failing to notice that different people has different moral beliefs.

  Muslim groups within our community, when they observe a social/moral problem arising, have every right to suggest a plan of non-punitive moral policing.

  No they don’t. It’s a violation of privacy. And those suggestions almost always are punitive in nature. These religious department could throw you in lockup and fine you.

  This must, of course, be done within the law of the community and with the consent of the government.

  In history, some government consented genocide. But that doesn’t make it right, does it? As far as I’m concerned, I’m not consenting to moral police and will oppose it.

  All Muslims, and non-Muslims living in a Muslim country, should both accept and welcome an attempt to improve the moral quality of life within the community. Do not ever forget that as Muslims we are subject to the clear revelation Allah has provided to guide us along the path of righteousness.

  Attempts that do not violate individual liberty is alright. Attempts that do violate is not. The problem is moral policing is that it violates individual liberty. Preaching is already, forcing others to do what you preach is wrong.

  And we don’t live in a theocracy. Don’t forget, to yours your own and mine is mine. If you respect my rights, I’ll respect yours. Enforce your own moral on yourself instead of somebody else that disagree with your moral.

  If you go into someone’s home and spy on them then that might be called an invasion of privacy, but if someone is doing something wrong in public then if other people notice your wrong behavior and make a comment on it that could never be called an invasion of privacy. Keep your bad behavior out of public areas where people will see you and no one will bother you, but if you want to show an example of wrong behaviour in public you should expect to have someone command the right and forbid the wrong. I hate it when some people or groups try to demand their ‘right’ to act immorally in public in a Muslim country.

  The moral police in Malaysia is doing exactly that - invading other person’s privacy at their home. What makes you think the moral police only harass people in public spaces?

  These moral police bother everybody regardless of private or public space. The fiasco with the American couple happened in private space. It must not escape anybody that moral police was supposed to “take care only” Muslims’ moral, not non-Muslims.

  However, I agree that “bad behavior” in public is unfavorable. Indecency in public is unwanted. In my dictionary, having sex in public is indecency. Holding hand in public however is okay with me. Not wearing headscarf is okay with me. Women wearing bathing suit on the beach is okay with me. They pay tax too you know.

  Point to note is that, the term “bad behavior” is opaque at best. Killing could be a bad behavior too. So, what is your definition of “bad behavior”?

  If you can’t stand seeing ppl holding hands, don’t go out of your house. It’s that simple.

  I hate it when some people or groups try to demand their ‘right’ to act immorally in public in a Muslim country.

  Sorry to hear that you’re unable to tolerate other people and need to hate others that disagree with you. Perhaps, that’s the reason why the Muslim world is in shamble today. Too much intolerance and hatred just because people refuse to submit to Muslims’ moral preferences.

  Allah Almighty says, “Let there be a community among you who call to the good, and enjoin the right, and forbid the wrong. They are the ones who have success.” (3:104)

  That ayat sounds very much like an authorization for the suggestion by a kind and loving group of sincere Muslims who desire to carry out what is called “moral policing” to help bring more goodness to our community.

  Great! Show me a country that have powerful moral police and also a first world nation.

  I’m sorry to say that you need more than a passage from the Koran or the Bible or any holy book to convince me.

  How can you possibly justify labeling an action to “command the right and forbid the wrong” in accord with the Will of Allah an “intrusion of privacy”?

  There where you fail to notice why many “liberals” disagree with you. A person like me don’t use religion to justify anything as how secular people don’t. Only rationality or provable events appeal to people like me.

  Again, sorry to say that you need more than a passage from the any holy book to convince me.

  Of course, I fully agree that the empowerment of human responsibility is essential. But this can only properly take place if appropriate social sanctions were put in place to avoid the moral standard of society from drifting to the lowest common denominator.

  Moral standard is too relative in nature that it’s useless and costly to enforce high and self-righteous moral standard on already a diverse society. You have to understand, people are diverse. The easiest way is to adhere to the lowest common denominators. Only the lowest agreed common denominator will allow a peaceful tolerant and progressive society. Only a tyrant would try to assimilate the people by force.

  Attempt to unilaterally increase that standard and enforce it - like what many religious conservatives want - would cause the society to concentrate on pitiful patty issues and not on education, economy, the environment and other important issues that push the society well-being higher than previously. That’s why, conservative religious societies are backward compared to the more liberal society.

  Religious conservative societies are too busy controlling everybody’s life that in the end, most resources are given to religious institutions to control people’s and not too much left available to bring people out of poverty and make the world a better place.

• __earth // Nov 11, 2006 at 7:52 am

  kepada en rahsia,

  Please keep in mind, I didn’t start this debate. It was kakibangku that first came to me. My blog is one of those “secularists blogs” the entry author referred to. So, I find it’s highly inappropriate for you imply that I’m the one started this.

  Regardless, the government has no right setting morality standard like what religious conservatives want. Moral is not the business of the government. It’s up to the individuals to choose his own moral. It’s free will. It’s freedom of conscience.

  The business of the government is simply securing the basic rights of the citizens that make up the government. Nothing more, nothing less.

  Talking about solution, the solution is already been given and its basically liberty - a standard that everybody could agreed on voluntarily, no matter how low those standards are according to those in favor of moral policing.

• ibn juferi // Nov 11, 2006 at 9:43 am

  “I’m sorry to say that you need more than a passage from the Koran or the Bible or any holy book to convince me.”

  If you are a Muslim and refuse to bow down to the judgement of the Qur’an, what does that make you?

• ustazmuda // Nov 11, 2006 at 12:20 pm

  Assalamualaikum…

  dah masukpun. Dah banyak kali sebenarnya tapi tak tinggal jejak. Duk Peranchis yer ???

  Tq juga jengok ustaz.

• kaki bangku // Nov 11, 2006 at 8:21 pm

  _earth: I’ve answered some of your salient points in my new post.

  pemuja rahsia: I think you didn’t read the last paragraph of my entry. I hereby quote again:
  

  Of course, I fully agree that the empowerment of human responsibility is essential. But this can only properly take place if appropriate social sanctions were put in place to avoid the moral standard of society from drifting to the lowest common denominator.

• reduced and recycled » against the moral police // Nov 12, 2006 at 3:26 pm

  [...] I stumble across the_earthinc’s blog and saw a lively back and forth about moral policing. Yesterday, it appeared someone posted a defense for moral policing. I found the post strange, because I rarely see posts providing arguments for the curtailing of one’s actions. [...]

• ship prescription phentermine no // Dec 6, 2007 at 10:33 am

  direct phentermine prescription no prescription diet phentermine no

Leave a Comment