7 Julai 2008 [9.00 pagi] – kes Tanah Perkuburan Kota Kemuning – Mahkamah Rayuan Putrajaya

Ini adalah permohonan Semakan Kehakiman oleh 187 orang bukan Islam terhadap penggunaan sebidang tanah yang masih belum digazetkan untuk tanah perkuburan Islam. Empat Jenazah Islam telahpun disemadikan di sana . Dan sekiranya permohonan semakan kehakiman tersebut dibenarkan empat jenazah Islam itu terpaksa digali semula. Sekarang perintah injunksi telah dikeluarkan bagi menghalang jenazah Islam lain dikebumikan di sana . Majlis Agama Islam Selangor (MAIS) telah memohon untuk mencelah tetapi tidak dibenarkan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi Sivil. MAIS merayu terhadap keputusan tersebut.

9 Julai 2008 [9.00 pagi] – kes penggunaan kalimah `Allah’ - Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur Jalan Duta – permohonan untuk semakan kehakiman (Judicial Review)

Permohonan Semakan Kehakiman difailkan oleh Titular Roman Catolic Church of Kuala Lumpur untuk mengkaji semula keputusan kerajaan menghalang gereja tersebut untuk menggunakan kalimah Allah dalam penerbitan Herald-The Catholic Weekly. Mereka juga memohon deklarasi mengisytiharkan perkataan ALLAH bukan milik khusus bagi orang Islam. Sekiranya dibenarkan orang Kristian bebas menggunakan perkataan ALLAH bagi tujuan agama mereka.

5 Ogos 2008 [9.00 pagi] – kes kalimah `Allah’ Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur Jalan Duta – Writ Saman

Pihak Titular Roman Chatolic Church of Kuala Lumpur telah memfailkan Writ Saman untuk deklarasi mengisytiharkan perkataan ALLAH bukan milik khusus bagi orang Islam.

7 & 8 Ogos 2008 [9.00 pagi] – kes kalimah `Allah’ (Sidang Injil Borneo ) Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur Jalan Duta

Permohonan Semakan Kehakiman difailkan oleh Sidang Injil Borneo kerana merampas bahan-bahan cetakan berbahasa Indonesia yang merujuk beberapa perkataan digunakan untuk merujuk kepada agama Kristian. Mereka juga memohon menggunakan perkataan perkataan ALLAH, BAITULLAH, KAABAH dan SOLAT bagi kegunaan pendidikan agama Kristian. Sekiranya dibenarkan orang Kristian bebas menggunakan perkataan-perkataan tersebut untuk disebarkan di Malaysia.

Seruan:

Kami memohon agar umat Islam, khususnya pendukung-pendukung NGO-NGO Islam yang berkelapangan untuk hadir di Mahkamah berkenaan pada tarikh-tarikh tersebut di atas bagi mengikuti secara langsung perbicaraan kes-kes yang dinyatakan, demi menzahirkan keprihatinan serta memberi sokongan moral kepada perjuangan ini serta pihak-pihak yang terlibat. Kes-kes tersebut merangkumi pelbagai isu melibatkan kepentingan umat Islam dan kedudukan Islam di dalam perlembagaan persekutuan. Sebarang pertanyaan/ pengesahan kehadiran boleh berhubung dengan Hj. Zainul Rijal Abu Bakar (0192351555) atau Azril Mohd Amin (0123037110).

Sekian,

Peguam Pembela Islam [PPI]

Pertubuhan-pertubuhan Pembela Islam [PEMBELA]

www.myislamnetwork.net

However, as I read writings of some figures in this feminism school, my initial prejudiced view about them has changed – to certain extend. Actually, their arguments, which are based on knowledge in relatively new fields such as evolutionary psychology, cognitive science, behavioral biology, and genetics, add fresh ideas to the feminists discourse. I think sometimes our reactionary attitude towards Darwinian-based theories is baseless and this is due to our shallow understanding of the subject-matter. We should be able to distinguish between the science and the philosophy of the science. So if we disagree with the philosophy behind the science, we can systematically disregard them without making the mistake of refuting the science itself for no valid reason. Of course each case is different, indeed there are pseudo-sciences out there, I am just saying: Be careful before you pass a judgment on something.

One thing that we should recognize is that in the fields of evolutionary psychology, cognitive science, behavioral biology, and genetics, there is a big concern about understanding the fitra (nature) of human being. I believe this trend can be the bedrock to refute some post-modern relativism thought. The basic argument is that: If we human being have a fitra state, then we should cater for the fitra in our policy-making decisions, arts, law, economic planning, etcetera; we cannot just say anything goes or everything is relative. For example in arts, post-modernism thought deliberately made art incomprehensible or ugly or shocking – mainly due to Skinnerian idea that our predilections for attractive faces, landscape, colors and so on are reversible social constructions. Today ‘beauty’ is reintroduced in art as many scholars and experts that have natural sciences background pointed out that ultimately arts depend on human nature. Of course, in the end I believe that the syari’ah is the only path that truly caters the human fitra, but the recognition of the fact that policy-makers should consider the human nature in making their policies is a step forward from absolute relativism. Well, maybe I am just dreaming – this is just a far-fetched pseudo-theory – wake me up please.

Dr. Helena Cronin, researcher at Centre for Philosophy of Natural and Social Science (LSE) has a pretty controversial view about feminism:

What originally inspired feminism was the idea that women shouldn’t be discriminated against qua women – where it was irrelevant that they were women: being barred from attending universities or owning property or having the vote not because they were incapable but because they were women. But the original inspiration ends up seriously distorted when you deny evolved sex differences. Things have got to the point where there’s expected to be some kind of fifty/fifty representation of men and women everywhere – universities, workplace, politics, sport, child care. So if women are not equally represented it’s put down to sexism alone. Well, whether or not sexism is operating, evolved sex differences certainly will be – differences in dispositions, skills, values, interests, and ambition. Women are likely to make systematically different choices from men. And it’s those different preferences, not blanket fifty/fifty distributions, that we should expect fair policies reflect.

One big argument among feminists to support their fifty/fifty distribution theory is “the differences within the sexes are greater than the differences between them.” This mean, one cannot generalize anything about the men or women (women are softer and less capable physically than men) as they argue that the differences within the sex itself (there are super women out there) override such generalization. Dr. Helena Cronin argues that such generalization has its place according to her Darwinian theories, as the difference between the sexes is an undeniable fact and it is part of the nature of our species. While I may not be hundred percent in agreement with her Darwinian philosophy, I find that her arguments – especially those regarding social ramification and policy-making – make a lot of sense, and – ironically - she sounds so traditionalist.

Another counter-point she pointed out is: “If there are wide differences within, then women aren’t very homogenous - there’s a wide spread of abilities and dispositions – and some proportion of women will be in the male end of the distribution.” That may include hormone level, which of course wouldn’t make sense – how can one argues against the fact that women tend to have more estrogens and men tend to have more testosterone? Another question that can be asked to counter the “differences within” theory is: Why do women high-achievers in traditionally male dominant pursuit such as engineering are emphasized to be “role models” for other women by the feminists? Most feminists argue that it is only male prejudice and self doubt that hold other women back. She countered back by showing that argument actually shows the logical fallacy in their “differences within” theory:  “But maybe these women are the extremes of those “differences within” that feminists themselves emphasize, and so they’re not just like the next woman.”

Of course she admits that sex differences are only statistical generalizations and these generalizations don’t hold true for all individuals. However, she said glass ceiling in statistics is an important factor that most feminists – mistakenly – dismiss it as just a statistical generalization: “Statistical generalizations are exactly what many feminist issues are all about.” As I have mentioned earlier, her view about policy-making is what caught my attention the most. With the world pushing for sex blind policy and regards it as the epitome of equality and fairness, she has a different view:

All policy-making should incorporate an understanding of human nature, and that means both female and male nature. Remember that if policy-makers want to change behavior, they have to change the environment appropriately. And what’s appropriate can be very different for women and for men.

So she argues that sex blind policy isn’t more fair; in fact, sometimes it is less so. She gives a rather pseudo-example about boys and girls learning pattern to justify her view – nevertheless it is an interesting and fresh view:

If you look at say mathematics, the academic areas in which sex differences are most extreme, the boys’ advantage probably rests on their innate superiority in mechanical and three-dimensional thinking. There’s some evidence that girls improve considerably if they’re taught in ways that circumvent this. That’s the kind of consideration that a fair education policy should be concerned with. And the same goes for the law, for the workplace, for the economic planning – for whatever field social policy is being devised.

Furthermore, she gives the example that unemployment may mean different social crisis – not just financial one – for men and women: It means loss of job for women, but lost of status for men. She pointed out that misattributed paternity is as low as 1 percent among very high-status American males but up to 30 percent among unemployed, deprived, inner city males. Although her argument is based mainly on the “criminal genes” theory – which I omit most of the part in this article as it is pretty technical – the gist of her recommendation challenges the norm of the West’s notion about equality:

Our social policies need to cope with a world that is rapidly changing, and those changes include the relations between the sexes. There’s the increase in male unemployment. There’s women finally having the resources to go it alone as parents. And women finding that their own status rises, the pool of potential partners shrinks. There are increasing inequalities, consigning substantial proportions of men to permanently low status. And there’s growing acceptance that legal systems should not treat women as the chattel of men. How will our evolved psychology react to these changes? What will be significant for men and for women?

One can only imagine that Dr. Helena Corlin is a pretty controversial figure, especially among feminists. However, I believe she is not alone with her controversial ideas, as other leading thinkers and researchers in evolutionary psychology, cognitive science, and other related fields also put emphasis in understanding human nature and devising policies that cater towards them; rather than disregarding our nature altogether in our bid to achieve a false notion of equality. I find this emerging trend among the so called ‘new humanists’ as interesting, as it may provide the bedrock to reform the West’s thought about equality. But to me, people who talk about policy and society by excluding Revelation are also controversial: Our understanding of human nature is – and will always be – incomplete.

Reference:

John Brockman. The New Humanist: Science at the Edge. Sterling 2003

Sufism came to West Africa through decentralized individual devotees but has ever since evolved into major social movements. The earliest Sufis in West Africa can be traced back to scholars of Timbuktu, Mali in the 15th century. Organized Sufi turuq only achieved widespread appeal a few centuries afterwards under the Qadiri shaykh, Sidi al-Mukhtar al-Kunti (1729-1811). It then took the form of a militant jihad under Uthman dan Fodio in 1804 foreshadowing the potential of Sufi brotherhoods as a social force to be reckoned with. This jihad was followed by another one led by al-Hajj Umar Tall of the Tijaniyya Sufi order in Segu and Messina. Anti-Sufi movements such as the Salafiyya and Wahhabiyya popular in the Middle East during this time did not catch on amongst the West African population until the period of modernization and anti-colonial struggle in mid-20th century. This paper will discuss main factors for the emergence of an anti-Sufi attitude amongst Muslims in West Africa with particular attention to Senegal and Nigeria in the 20th century. It will be argued that opposition towards Sufis are not due to Sufi practices per se but is instead brought by the changing political and social trend of the time.

Before going into detail, definitions should first be made on what will consistently be referred throughout this paper as Sufism and anti-Sufism. This is important, as will be later discussed, because deceptive semantics has often been used to construct Straw Man fallacies by both the Sufi and anti-Sufi camps in their polemical literature. Sufism has often been stereotyped as an isolationist and irrational way of life alien to Islam. It can also be defined in the broadest sense as Islamic spirituality. However, for the purposes of this discussion, Sufism will refer to Muslim brotherhoods that are led by a highly venerated saint and are engaged in intra-communal practices with distinct prayer rites. They have common doctrines found disagreeable to an anti-Sufi Muslim such as tawassul, mawlid and baraka. The most popular Sufi brotherhoods in West Africa are the Tijaniyya, Muridiyya and Qadiriyya. As for anti-Sufism, this paper identifies three distinct groups: liberalists (or progressives), the Salafiyya and the Wahhabiyya. The reason for making this polarization is because most Muslims in West Africa prior to widespread anti-Sufism would identify themselves with a particular Sufi brotherhood and therefore those who distance themselves from a brotherhood would mean they have adopted an anti-Sufi stance.

As was earlier stated, Sufism in West Africa started with individual figures and gradually grew into large organizations led by a centralized leader called a Caliph. As these brotherhoods grew in number, leadership and control of them was of strategic importance for a person’s or a group’s economic and political interests. In Senegal, the French were worried about the Muridiyya’s economic strength and the Tijaniyya’s anti-colonial motives. To consolidate their position, it is speculated that the French plotted rivalries between marabous of the same brotherhood, such as the rivalry between Seydou Nourou Tall and Ibrahim Niasse. However, self-interest of these leaders also played a role in a bid to win more followers. Furthermore, marabous were led to make public statements of their allegiance with the French colony to either avoid opposition with the French# or to protect their political and economic interests. This development resulted in confusion amongst followers. In the midst of this development, new independent religious leaders emerged to call into question the legitimacy of these representatives. To lend credibility for their anti-colonial stance, these new leaders would need to break the tradition of scholarship by seeking independent views on religious matters since their own leaders had made public declarations of allegiance to the colonial rulers. The colonial tactic of divide and rule became the stepping stone that questioned the need for a corrupted Sufi brotherhood bureaucracy and thus anti-Sufism started gaining popular attention in West Africa.

In the struggle for independence and the subsequent post-colonial era, the major reason for an anti-Sufi attitude amongst certain groups of Muslims was the failure of Sufi brotherhoods to carry out the ideals of Islam as a comprehensive way of life (according to what is defined by the Salafiyya), particularly in the political scene. However, the definition of Islam as a comprehensive way of life by these Salafiyya revivalists is rather problematic to understand. They advocate the notion of following strictly to the Qur’an and Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad and bringing about the society as constructed during the time of the Khulafa’ Rashidun. By propagandizing this idealistic reformation, the Salafiyya has effectively skipped centuries of Islamic tradition that has painstakingly transmitted the framework of Islamic scholarship through a sanad. This tradition is what Sufis have hung onto via their concept of an intimate master-disciple relationship, and through tradition, they too claim to bring the ideals of the early pious Muslims. With that cleared, the Salafiyya claim that Sufism, along with other sects, is an innovation from orthodox Islam. Practises of saint veneration were considered inconsistent with strict monotheism.

In the West African context, groups carrying the spirit of the Salafiyya include the Jamaat Izalat al-Bid’a wa Iqamat al-Sunna (Society for the eradication of evil innovation and the establishment of the Sunna) led by Abubakar Gumi (d. 1992) in Northern Nigeria, the Union Culturelle Musulmane (UCM) in Senegal in 1957, and before that, the Subbanu al-Muslimin in Mali and Guinea. This new wave of reform was parallel to successful revivalist movements in North Africa. In the case of the UCM, initial opposition towards Sufism can be more accurately labeled as “anti-maraboutic” rather than anti-Sufism because the UCM collaborated with Prime Minister Mamadou Dia in an effort to usurp the powerful influence of the marabous. The UCM felt discontent that marabous did not use their power to oppose the threats of colonialism and Christianity in corrupting the Muslim generation. However, this trend took a different turn when they lost influence in the government whereas marabous maintained considerable influence in Senegal. Henceforth, the UCM then joined forces with the marabous. The UCM further extolled Amadu Bamba, founder of the Muridiyya, for his anti-colonial resistance. The discontented Cheikh Toure afterwards managed to acquire financial support from the Muridiyya’s Caliph-General to continue his reformation program. The good relationship between reformists and marabous in Senegal continued symbiotically where firstly, reformists extolled al-Hajj Malik Sy and Ibrahim Niasse (both are Tijanis) in addition to Amadu Bamba as heroic Muslims; and secondly, marabous helped disapprove secular President Senghor’s policies. It can thus be suggested here that the cause for Sufi dissension was merely an opportunists’ ploy to gain political support rather than a flaw of Sufism per se.

The situation bears slight resemblance in Nigeria where Sufi leaders have a positive historical reputation for maintaining Islam’s influence against the British in northern Nigeria. Here, the legacy of Qadiri Sufi Usman dan Fodio’s jihad and the establishment of the Sokoto Caliphate are still fresh in the memories of Islamic revivalists. The major anti-Sufi individual here, Abubakar Gumi, regarded Usman dan Fodio’s jihad as a driving force for their reform program. However, in 1972, Abubakar Gumi started an attack against Sufism by publishing a book on the importance of Sharia. Typical of the Salafiyya’s simplistic worldview, Abubakar Gumi’s writings gained widespread popularity. Gumi’s mass popularity increased further after his criticism of corruption in the Gowon regime. Amongst his biggest followers are members of Muslim Students’ Society. Another factor that aided Abubakar Gumi is the financial backing of Saudi-based World Muslim League. Though not directly related to anti-Sufism, Gumi gained support from modern educated Muslims (such as graduates of the British-based Kano Law School) through his initiative in encouraging Muslim women to participate in politics. Gumi also argued against pilgrimage during the election year to increase Muslim participation in the elections. This flexibility of interpretation (note this does not mean being tolerant) is another characteristic of the Salafiyya school of thought. The ensuing establishment of the Izala anti-Sufi movement in 1978 was followed by several years of violent clashes with Sufi brotherhoods as the Izala disturbed Sufi brotherhood activities and gained control over Friday mosques. This heated anti-Sufi period died out when Sufi leaders connected the Izala with the Maitatsine riots. A positive outcome of this clash is the unity between the Qadiriyya and Tijaniyya brotherhoods. Overall, the most salient factor in attracting people to the Izala anti-Sufi movement here is modernization.

Indeed, these anti-Sufi movements came synchronous with the arrival of modernity in Sub-Saharan society. As most modern criticism of Sufism started from the Wahhabiyya in Najd and is not an intrinsic characteristic of traditional Islam, it only successfully pervaded Sub-Saharan Muslim society during the period of modernization. A possible explanation for the causal relationship between modernity and anti-Sufism is the demand for rational explanations of religious practice and natural phenomena. As such, superstition, mysticism, and saintly miracles did not offer much attraction to the modern-minded person. In addition, modern technology and increased globalization encouraged people to make the pilgrimage to Mekkah, the stronghold of the Wahhabi anti-Sufi movement. Increasing amount of students from Egypt and the Middle-East also sought to bring reforms in other Muslim territories such as the Ikhwanul Muslimin’s penetration into the Sudan. The humanist worldview then encouraged individual exploration of religious knowledge instead of through a master-disciple method. It is an irony here that a group hell-bent on wiping out modern innovations and returning to the era of the early pious generation is in itself a modernist construct.

The anti-Sufi phenomenon in Sub-Saharan Africa is a relatively new development of the mid-20th century and not much has been studied in its internal nuances. However, one salient difference between the Sufi brotherhoods in sub-Saharan Africa as compared to the Middle East is its resilience and still influential social and political role, particularly in Senegal. The possible reasons for this can perhaps be explored in a separate paper. Another aspect of this Sufi and anti-Sufi clash is its effects on the Sufi brotherhoods; one which clearly stands out is the increased cooperation between the Qadiriyya and Tijaniyya in Northern Nigeria. In conclusion, the mid-20th century witnessed the emergence of anti-Sufism in the form of Islamic revivalism that employs the Salafiyya school of thought to justify their anti-Sufi arguments. Furthermore, this development was a product of increased modernization in sub-Saharan Muslim societies and is not directly related to an inherent problem of Sufi doctrine per se.

References

Kaba, Lansine. The Wahhabiyya: Islamic Reform and Politics in French West Africa. Northwestern University Press, Evanston, IL. 1974.

Westerlund, David. Reaction and Action: Accounting for the Rise of Islamism.

The issue of Muslim identity in the modern world centers on the question of how Muslims relate to other peoples, their religions and the resulting civilizations. The context in which this issue of identity arises is the dominance of Western civilization and their intervention in the Muslim world. Where for over a millennium the traditional socio-political worldview of Muslims sproting from the divine sources of revelation remained dominant, in the last several centuries this appeared no longer a reality. Western intervention and in ways subjugation of Muslim societies through the breakthroughs of modernity, chiefly the five aspects enumerated by Harvey Cox; the emergence of sovereign nation-states, science-based technology, bureaucratic rationalism, quest for profit maximization and secularization and trivialization of religion. The earliest responses to this challenge came from intellectuals considered fathers of Islamic modernism, chiefly Rifa’a Badawi Rai al-Tahtawi, Sayyid Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, Shaykh Muhammad Abduh, Ali Abd al-Raziq and Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan. Some discernible characteristics of this early discourse reveal admiration for the West. Therefore, an important question arises on the issue of identity – with those positive characteristics of Western civilization, how do Muslims set themselves apart from other civilizations? The twentieth century witnessed the maturity of Muslim responses to the west that began as early as the eighteenth century in Ottoman Turkey. Modernizing reforms as well as indigenous reforms all played a part in the game of catch-up with the West in the quest for self-assertion. John Voll in the book Islam: Continuity and Change in the Modern World views this issue, contrary to popular opinion, not in the sense of “Why did Islam fail?” but rather to discern traits in the experience of Muslims that show continued vitality in the global dynamics of recent centuries. Muslim response can be grouped in four broad categories; adaptationism, fundamentalism, conservatism and personal piety. With particular to the issue of identity, it involves a discourse of how Muslims view themselves in relation to others, taking into account the needs for internal development within the Muslim world, limits of tolerance and pluralism in co-existence with others, and the quest for a universality in its discourse. I argue that this debate is about the search for Divine transcendence in the midst of a leveling worldview subjugated by secularism.

In the Middle East, Islam is almost homogeneous throughout. This land was the seat of Islam’s glorious medieval civilization where before it was a tribal society in constant warfare. If pre-Islam, the dominant paradigm of identity is their tribe, the advent of Islam washed out tribal differences and there sprouted a unified identity of Islam-first and tribal allegiance playing second fiddle. The global dynamics of the twentieth century was the trend of emerging nation-states, a sole sovereign legally defined authority over a particular boundary. The Middle East were divided into apparently arbitrary small gulf states in addition to more dominant players of the Fertile Crescent. A mass of land once unified and prosperous under the banner of Islamic caliphate was splintered into smaller kingdoms, reminiscent of pre-Islamic Arabia. Western colonial powers were seen as culprit in this divide-and-rule strategy to subjugate the rich lands to their power. With the emergence of Israel smack in the heart of the Middle East backed by America, it was easy for Muslims in the Arab world to play the blame game of victimization in their failure to make any progress since the respective states’ inception. Not too different is the scenario and its responses in other parts of the Muslim world. This is the intellectual-laziness that Tariq Ramadan laments in The Arab World and the Muslims Faced with Their Contradictions. He iterates that while it is true that the Other did squander the fortunes of Arab nations, to play the blame game is not a very positive measure to avert the crisis. I contend that Tariq Ramadan’s central point of demanding Muslims to seek their own alternative internal solutions is correct, his contention that Arabs are split between violent radical protest and compromising resignation to Western intervention is too sweeping of a generalization. To cite an example, the movement that his grandfather Hassan al-Banna founded in Egypt, the Ikhwan al-Muslimin (Muslim Brotherhood), is essentially a grassroots organization that is very mainstream and has focused on building their own sustainable financial and educational strengths. If free and fair elections were held, these Ikhwani-based parties and their offshoots in other parts of the Muslim world, is touted to win every time as evident in Palestine’s HAMAS. This is to show that this moderate movement is a popular movement and enjoys wide support amongst the lay person, and in general not a radical and violent organization if compared with Al-Qaeda and Al-Takfir Wal-Hijra. Yet, evidently, this moderate organization espousing Islamic fundamentals, with widespread popularity and focused on harnessing internal strength, despite existing for more than half a century, has failed to lift the Arab world from its crisis proves a counter-example to Tariq Ramadan’s rational-based thesis. Therefore, his proposed solution does not answer the identity crisis that Muslims face all too well though development-centered alternatives should rightly remain a thrust in the Muslim world. The case of Iran, which is a land never colonized and does have a functioning, though relatively youg modern state that came out within its traditions following the Iranian Revolution, will be an interesting experiment in this regard once they reach maturity. This is a case in which the transcendent dimension of Islam is asserted in its philosophy, which is missing in Tariq Ramadan’s dry and leveling advocacy of collaboration with the South and the global justice movement.

After development comes the issue of tolerance and pluralism in the formation of a global Muslim identity. Osman Bakar advocates inter-civilizational dialogue in Islam and the Malay Civilizational Identity: Tension and Harmony Between Ethnicity and Religiosity. Central to his analysis is the ability of Islam as a universal religion to merge in harmony with local ethnic contexts, giving some textual proof in addition to historical proof in the fusion of Islam in the previously Hindu Malay civilization, citing the role of tolerant Sufis in inculcating the holistic Islamic worldview to this civilization. Implicit in his article is the transcendent superiority of Islam and its universal qualities, justifying Islam and Malay protection in Malaysia’s constitution. Osman Bakar, however, avoids the question of intellectual pluralism that Nurcholish Madjid had to answer in his article Islamic Faith and the Problem of Pluralism: Relations Among the Believers. In Osman Bakar’s context of Malaysia, local conditions made it possible for such harmony to exist on the surface level. The Malaysian colonial encounter, beginning with the Portuguese and later the British was relatively mild as opposed to Muslim experience in India and neighboring Indonesia. What resulted was, according to Voll, the continued relevance and vitality of traditional religious institutions. The social fabric was still intact. The process towards independence saw Malay Muslims firmly in control of the political arena with special-preference to the Malays embedded in the constitution itself. Voll adds further arguments why there is apparent harmony in Malaysia, that is the fact that radicalism that emerged in Malaysia was Chinese communism, which gave a bad reputation to dissent in general. Also, Chinese and Indians in Malaysia were merchants and commercial notables who did not have an interest in social change, and they later formed the ethnic based parties MIC and MCA that allied with the Malay party UMNO. The British role in providing administrative experience to elite Malays and the preservation of the royal institution to maintain conservative Islam were two factors too strong to leave any vacuum for radicalism and dissent. However, if the recent Malaysian general elections were of any indication, it is that the days of communal politics is closing to an end with multi-cultural political parties storming through Parliament in what was dubbed a political “tsunami,” seen as the second wave of racial dissatisfaction after the 1969 racial riots. Conversely, in Indonesia, multiculturalism emerged very early on with the unifying nationalist ideology of Pancasila. Madjid examines the Quranic roots in this imperative for pluralism based on classical as well as modern Quranic commentators. Avoided here, however, are the controversial issues such as Christian missionary activities and implementation of Sharia law. If there is tolerance and respect for other religions, where is the limit of Islam’s transcendent value over the all-leveling of secularism? Indonesia has been tussling with this issue since independence, and Malaysia will join in the foray very soon.

To provide a solid foundation for this debate, a universal mode of discourse has to be developed. Muqtedar Khan and Ali Mazrui contends that this role should be played by human reason. More adept in Islam’s classical tradition, Khan examines the usage of Ijtihad in ways reminiscent of Kant’s Sapere Aude. Seeing the shortcomings of classical understanding in ijtihad as being limited only to analogical reasoning, he proposes the full employment of reason in Muslim discourse. A glaring weakness in Muqtedar Khan’s analysis is poor choice of reference, limiting it to only Shafii’s Risala. Instead, he should have consulted the wider corpus of traditional intellectual discourse encompassed in the field of usul (foundations), maqasid (purposes) and qawaid (maxims). If the depths were thoroughly explored, just perhaps, he will see the usage reason in abundance to make sense of Sharia. Mazrui’s view on reason is somewhat heterodox, and lacking in its engagement with the already elaborate and established theological discourses on the usage of reason. A crucial point of contention is his over-reliance of his own reason without doubting it being shaped and conditioned by the overarching epistemology of secularism. He juxtaposes the most literalist and shallowest of conservative Muslim opinion with his rational method and ignoring the moderate voice that are more engaged with both modern worldviews as well as classical thought in which crystallized those various schools of Islamic thought. The emergence of post-modern philosophy has demonstrated the shortfalls of positivism and Enlightenment ideals. We are again asked, if all there is to revelation today is the consensus of Western modes of legal thought, where is the transcendence of Islam’s divine sources?

In conclusion, there are three issues being examined in the quest for a global Muslim identity uniquely Islamic. Foremost of these is a common identity for internal development that has to come out of its own ideals. These options are out there, but have yet come to fruition. Another issue is the limits of tolerance and pluralism where increasing transparency and globalization demands a melting pot of multiculturalism in place of quiet subordination of others in the name of communalism. A global Muslim identity in the modern world also requires a global mode of discourse that is capable of engaging with pre-modern insights as well as sophisticated tools of modern intellectual analysis.

References:

Ramadan, Tariq. “The Arab World and the Muslims Faced with Their Contradictions.”

Cox, Harvey (1965). “The Secular City: Secularization and Urbanization in Theological Perspective.”

Weaken by days with no food
Finding itself with no mood
Dreaming for the open sky
Where it can be free to fly
Along with the nightingale
But everything is off to no avail

Because the soul neglects its own need
Suffering in pain, trying not to cry
But others don’t realize their misdeed
For a butterfly, truly belongs to the sky

I found a very interesting video that offers another point of view which I think very essential in understanding the shape of the world. It might not be 100% true but it has some elements that can spark some thinking and further research on this matter. I myself have ordered books from a well known writer John Perkins and have been trying to relate this with an Islamic perspective from books like Jerussalam in Quran from Imran N Hosein.

I hope to be guided on this issue by those who have knowledge.

Please spend your precious time to watch it as the video has been removed for a number of times by those who dont want people to know about it.

This is the first part (there are 5 parts of the video):

Click for part 2, 3, 4, 5

I’ve always felt that I should say something for this post from our esteemed Taufik, but so far hadn’t found the right contents to deliver. Alhamdulillah, I guess watching a video and later discussing it with another friend has provided me with enough inspiration to write here. To save me from constantly making reminders in the following text, until I denounce the association, I emphasize here that by HIJAB I’m talking about the headscarf per se, not the demand to cover the awrah in general. After all it is the regions above the neck that are most subject to disputes, right?

I often wondered how give an explanation to non-Muslims (especially) and even Muslims (well, there are times) about hijab, and more complicated, the niqab, with arguments that would convince both of us. Yes, you read it right, even I am not convinced with a lot of the general pro-hijab discourses, especially among the lay public. The pro-niqab ones are MORE convincing, sometimes. Allow me to play the devil’s advocate for a few paragraphs.

As people commented, it makes sense to cover the bosom and thighs and the other ‘red light’ regions - but what sense does it make to cover the head? Still more puzzling, why is the face - the most attractive part of a person - not obligatory to be covered (according to most Islamic scholars)? It doesn’t make complete sense, if ‘to prevent lust’ and ‘to render the woman unattractive’ is the argument. In other words, modesty in terms of discouraging distracting and lustful attention, is just part of the idea, not the main one, when discussing hijab. Men - especially men who advocate hijab - would vouch by their masculinity that females in hijab can be a lot more attractive and endearing than the ones without. Wearing the niqab (which is not obligatory) would be more reasonable to hide attractiveness, although I think the only way to completely eradicate attraction would be to envelope a woman in the Afghan burqa which is so impractical in today’s affairs (and not obligatory as well). Even then, an Afghan man accustomed to see women in burqa might even find these faceless ladies in flowing garments attractive!

Talking about attention and attractiveness, a lot of women would also vow that there are men out there who are just so “wow” they couldn’t take their eyes off them. Dumb though the question may sound, it makes perfect sense when it is asked, “Why men are not required to cover their heads and face as well?” In the olden days we can say that it is because the men have to go out and work and it wouldn’t be practical, but today we know that women with hijab and niqab and long loose dresses go out to work and do practically everything men can do without difficulty. Yes, it was proven that men do have higher sex drive and higher sensitivity to ’stimulants’ as compared to women, but it doesn’t mean women don’t feel, uhm, edgy. Another point against the wholesomeness of the ‘attractiveness’ argument.

A lot would also say that it indicates respectability, that the woman who covers herself is honorable and dignified. In the worldly sense of it, in the eyes of human beings, as judged by most sociocultural etiquettes today, a woman with an honest and well-mannered bearings and dressing in “their own self-defined boundaries of ‘awrah” - modest loose dress, say, Malay baju kurung, but not covering the head - would not look any less respectable than the lady who adds a headscarf to her attire! With all due respect, a woman who wears hijab normally looks respectable, but NOT wearing it doesn’t instantly affect a woman’s honor in itself. Putting on a headscarf does not necessarily mean the lady has suddenly obtained and increment in her respectability and dignity. And no one - only Allah - knows how worthy of heavenly respectability a particular person is, regardless of the person’s attire. Get it? It makes sense to dress modestly to be dignified (no one would advise skin-tight blouse and minis to work unless one works as ..uhm..), but wearing a headscarf to be dignified is very culturally-related thing, depends on what the culture appreciates, and is not a strong argument to use. Indeed, it is very out of place - even arrogant - to walk around in the West wearing hijab and expecting people to shower you with more respect than they would give to the blonde Maths-grad girl beside you who wears a Puma tee and a pair of Levi’s.

It is not about “…to be judged for who I am, not how beautiful or sexy I am, to be seen as a person with my own intellect and opinions”. So you mean women who don’t wear hijab don’t have their own intellect and opinions? You mean women who don’t cover their heads are regarded as sexual beings? Face it, if you’re a woman, you’re a woman. You’d still be subject to sexual stereotypes, even unwanted attention, especially if you’re particularly beautiful, even if you wear the hijab. Refer to my earlier points about wearing hijab not making you less attractive. For niqabis this might be at least partially true, the face is an integral part of one’s identity conventionally, and covering it would render the other parts of the personality to gain a high prominence, such as intellectuality and opinions, to replace the face as a determiner of identity.

I often found myself not being able to convince my own self, hence suffering a nasty feeling of being a weak “da’ie”, for I felt there is little hope that the person I’m giving all these explanations to would accept it if I myself am not. The only argument that satisfied me was “It’s God’s will. He told us to do it, so we abide.” But as anyone would vehemently point out, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to those who don’t believe in God, those who couldn’t understand why must we listen to God, those who believe in their understanding of a God who doesn’t ask the believers to wear hijab. Anyway, I often conclude my arguments by saying exactly that, I do it because I believe in God.

I’ve ceased looking for reason behind religious practices for quite a time ago. I didn’t really get awed by all the scientific proofs in the al-Quran, miracle stories, or such glories. Hikmah is different, it is the wisdom behind the command, the worldly positives that you can get if you obey, but it is not something that you can’t live without. It is not the WHY a particular command is given. Relying on the ’scientific proofs’ and ‘miracle stories’, as a lot of persons would agree, is quite dangerous, for should ’something’ that might counter the aforesaid ‘proofs’ and ‘miracles’ appear, would it discredit the Truth of the Faith? Looking for a reason means seeking justifications that would completely explain a particular practice, and it is a completely fallacious move. Faith can be partly explained by Logic, but it cannot be justified by such. Those who learn Epistemology or Theory of Knowledge would know that Faith is also a Way of Knowing equal side-by-side with Logic.

As the previous commenters had said, it has to begin with Faith in Allah who commanded the believing women to cover, for hijab is about SUBMISSION.

One thing that I realised about the hijab - I’m referring to headscarf, remember - is about restriction and control. Its essence is not about attraction, gender segregation or respectability. It is about controlling the self from what it wants to do, so that it doesn’t get to do as it pleases, regardless whether the deed is disastrous or not, for there is a bigger aim behind all the restrictions, that doesn’t have much to do with the commands themselves. The commands provide the means to reach the end.

Human beings have the innate inclination towards goodness, hence the effective argument by the Atheists that we do not need Faith to be good people and make the world a good place. Superficially, yes. However we should not forget that there is also the ‘animal instinct’ also innate in us, sitting side-by-side with the aforesaid goodness. A simple example : one can easily make extramarital love with a daughter whose parents refuse the union, with all the pure justifications of Love and Happiness, while simultaneously breaking the hearts of the family. Homosexuality doesn’t hurt anyone else, except the whole society (which is often labeled conservative and close-minded) who views it as an insult to the family institution and jeopardizes the children’s normal development. As Taufik had stated, we tend to embark upon a cognitive mission to justify what we do as right, and fending ignorance for the darker sides of it.

The religious restriction is a way for human beings to purify their hearts and get rid of the ‘animal’ instincts which, if obeyed, would be pleasing and emancipating, but the human being would not go any higher on their plane of existence (oh I love this phrase). Restraint and obedience taught the soul to be submissive to its Lord, just as a tiger held in captivity learns to obey its trainer. Allah does not obtain any gains or losses from what He commands us to do or to leave. What we do, we do it for Him, to gain our own salvation. That is the reason WHY we do things. From His Mercy, it is not only in the afterlife that we shall gain reward, in this Earth also we can reap the sweetness of our effort. See As-Saff, 61: 12-13.

He will forgive you your sins and will admit you to Gardens beneath which rivers flow. He will lodge you in excellent mansions in the Gardens of eternity. That is the supreme triumph.

He will also grant you the other favour that you desire : help from Allah and a victory that will come soon. Give glad tidings of this to the believers.

It is His Mercy that there is hikmah behind His commands that we can instantly see, although even if they’re not there, even if a girl wears full hijab and still get raped (na’udzubillahi min zaalik), it is not a reason to discredit the virtues of hijab.

I remember reading a Malaysian Nobel Laureate, Abdullah Hussain’s work, the novel IMAM. In a particular chapter, the main character, the Imam, explains to a young novice about how fasting is not about compassion to the poor or cherishing the health. It is about breaking the norm, pushing the physical out of its comfort zone, rendering it less susceptible to complacence that will weaken the spiritual, and strengthening the soul’s submission to the Lord.

Today, the aim of restriction for the soul by wearing hijab is quite losing its strength. For one thing, the hijabi is not a ghuraba’ (stranger) anymore. Not as it was like in Malaysia in the sixties or seventies, where wearing the hijab is a real test, restricting oneself from enjoying the pleasure of conformity and enjoying societal approval. It is now a trendy thing to do! Even in the UK, the hijab is greatly losing its innate ‘test’ quality. For a lot of hijabis - including me - wearing the hijab feels like second nature. Couldn’t bear the thought of going out without it. This might be the reason why some women took to wearing niqab as a further step of soul purification, opting for more restriction to remind the soul of the Lord, and to train the soul into complete submission. “I wear it to please Allah, to get closer to Him…” is a perfectly concise way of putting it, whatever Jack Straw may say. People can tolerate and respect homosexuals, socialize with HIV patients, even the blind and wheelchair-bound people are given their due share in the society with all the empathy and aid they need to minimize the difference of their quality of life from other people, why should a veiled face be treated as a freakshow to be gaped at speechlessly? It doesn’t make sense, unless the spectator is an imbecile.

Back to what I said about hijabis not being ghuraba’ anymore and it is not difficult to do, at least for a number of persons, I don’t mean that I grieve at how easy things has became. Nevertheless, when a test is easy, one tend to wonder, are we really following all the rules? OK, OK, of course it is possible to follow all the rules and still find it easy, but it won’t hurt to wonder. We might have missed some things.

Now I’m expanding my usage of the term hijab. It is not merely the headscarf that would bring the desired aim of restriction, it is also the other acts and attire that constitute the complete hijab. Hijab in its completeness constitute modesty of attire, lowering of gaze, prudence and care in intergender relationship, and - pay attention fellow sisters - avoidance of tabarruj. All these terms are more conceptual than concrete and would need scholarly explanation that goes far beyond what I’m capable of, but well, let us all refresh what our religious teachers once taught us or run to the nearest trustworthy scholar for clarification. Do not be cradled in the illusion of faithfulness when we are not!

Let us just remember, succumbing to every exciting, fiery and bright whim of the physical would render the individual not able to appreciate the silent beauty of tranquility, the tender severity of spirituality. Freedom is but an illusion, falling prey to it traps the prisoner forever in its grips until death comes. Confounding the illusion by realising it for what it actually is, is not easy. It is by these restrictions that the person learns to appreciate true freedom that is in the life to come. Death should come as liberation, for the true Muslim would find the Earth a suffocating prison.

Insha-Allah, I have said all that I wish to say. I hope this article would be a cause of Rahmah and Hidayah for everyone, especially my own reckless self.

meow~

“But then I must remind myself we are living creatures - we have religious impulses - we must - and yet into what cracks do these impulses flow in a world without religion? It is something I think about every day. Sometimes I think it is the only thing I should be thinking about” Douglas Coupland, author of Generation X. 

“Just what is happiness?”, an existential question that each one of us always ask ourselves - whether we do it consciously or not. Not to mention, philosophers, psychologists, neurobiologists, and theologians are trying hard to demystify ’happiness’. In the end, we, human being are constantly trying to find happiness in our lives. Almost everything that we do to certain extend is done because we are trying to search for ’happiness’ - regardless whether we actually find it or not. I come to the conclusion that there are two types of happiness in this world: One that is based on short burst of passion or excitement and the other one is based on a deep sense of inner tranquility.  

Eating food makes you happy, having sex makes you happy (I presume), bungee jumping gives you the exhilaration of adrenaline, drugs give you ecstasy (I presume), so on and so forth. The modern society has perfected the art of attaining this type of happiness - with television, computer, other technological advancements, big houses, fast cars, and other luxuries. Inspite of that, humankind has lost the real meaning of happiness. Humankind is captivated by false sense of happiness that this world has to offer. The search for a utopia in this world - wahn is the ‘islamic term’ I presume - that modernity is obsessed with has captivated even muslims. Nights out at bars, dress to impress - or kill?  - rock concerts, parties, etcetera are available to feed a modern person’s hunger for the elusive happiness. Yet, there is a palpable sense of disconnectedness and emptiness that a modern person feels. The betrayal of the state of fitra and the stop-gate that is put on the religious impulse has led to the modern society’s spiral into oblivion.  

Seyyed Hossein Nasr argues that an old sage who lives in an old village at Africa knows more about the human nature than the philosophers or the humanities professors nowadays. The second type of happiness can be achieved only when the heart is docile towards the Divine Law. The texture of this kind of happiness is different than the first one - anyone who has feel it before will testify to this fact. Unfortunately, I can’t even describe it here - If I try it will be a very terrible attempt.  Ya ayyuhan nafsul mutma’innah irji’i ila rabbik radiyatan mardiyah (”O you Tranquil Soul, return to Your Lord, well pleased, and well-pleasing unto Him!”) [Holy Qur’an 89:27-30] 

“So what kind of happiness are you trying to find?”, an existential question that is - perhaps - meant to be rhetorical. 

I read a particular ‘revelatory’ confessional piece from a genius-turned-callgirl. Among the parts that caught my attention was the part about her buying an expensive Gucci dress and handbag (expensive might not be the word, humongously extravagant could fit better). She was very happy about that, and bragged at length about how much she can earn with *simply* her curves and smiles.

I read the magazines on the kitchen table - Now!, Heat, Closer, and whatnots - with glamorous photos and latest gossips of artists whose names I can hardly identify. There were handbags worth thousands of pounds and winter coats worth a few more thousands. One celebrity mum buying designer baby-clothes and having her twin kids’s bedroom being done with the highest-quality furnitures. Celebrity couples having ‘lavish 2 mil weddings’ and ‘modest GBP 500 000 weddings’. The list is endless.

I wonder, how much can one buy with all the money that one have? Like the callgirl, she can buy one Gucci dress and one handbag - the man  she escorted, actually, bought them for her - but there would still be loads of expensive stuffs out there – the kind enjoyed by the celebrities - that she wouldn’t be able to buy. If her enjoyment lies in bits and pieces of the life of the popular and wealthy, how tiny those bits and pieces are.

Even the celebrities are not rich enough to buy everything. The Middle East sheiks are not rich enough to buy everything. Seeing them recklessly spending money on luxury upon luxury made me wonder, where does the value lie in their purchases? People used to associate diamonds with true love because of their rare quality and exceptionally high price – used to, note it. Now for every item of price – price, not value – there would be another item more pricey, more glamorous, more stylish, and within a few days it would be out of fashion. Where is the ultimate contentment that is supposed to be represented by the glittering glamour of self accompanied by material abundance and modernity, if the glitter itself is transient and relative, neither static nor stable, changing according to trends and fashion. What we’re left with are a sorry bunch of people desperately trying to buy everything of price and effectively possessing nothing of value.

Materialistic lifestyle is just one example of a miserable self-worshipping lifestyles. It’s all about the self. Everything one does, one does for one’s own satisfaction. Bad news is, worshipping the self provides a very narrow scope to derive meaning from. It’s all about the self, one’s own self, how wide and meaningful can that be, when that teeny weeny self is juxtaposed against the whole big bad world with all its vastness, harshness and severity?

For whom are we actually living our lives?

All these toiling and studying is to gain social stature and financial prominence in the future. One wants to look good, so that one will be attractive and loved. One wants to say all the right things to make people happy, so that one will be popular and admired. One wants money, a lot of it, so that one can buy everything that one wants, a lot of beautiful clothes, have a grand house and a gorgeous car to go with it – but then again, where does it all end?

Where would be the point of ultimate satisfaction? Where is the real value, qualitatively and quantitatively? As someone once said, however many clothes that we have, we can only wear one at a time. However big one’s house is, one can only live in a small space at a particular time. The self is not that big a target. A small target can only provide small gratification, however large the resource – money, wealth, status - is.

Depending on people’s admiration – as if one person worshipping the self is not enough, more worshippers are needed, and the source is from the outside - is more fallacious, considering how small an individual’s self is in contrast to the wide options out there to choose from. Admirers can always shift their positions and agree with somebody else, or they can simply come and go at will, or the person itself would be forced to leave the admirers either by ordinary or extraordinary circumstances. After being crushed and left by the admirers, the residue would be the self, as wobbly and boneless as a jellyfish, so desperate to gain recognition from the other Selves outside that it forgets the outside Selves are just as helpless as it is in the hands of the Lord. Depending on the helpless only makes the self worse than the helpless.

For whom are we living actually? For the self? People often say – “I do this for my own satisfaction, because I loved to do it, because it makes me happy.” It’s all the self, one’s own self. Me, me, me. The very Self that those who seek to purify the heart and embark upon the sacred path towards the Lord seek to destroy, aiming for its ultimate destruction, for they knew that they would never be able to obliterate the Self entirely, and they hope that in the attempt they would finally reach the degree of detachment from the World and the bodily Self enough for the spirit to soar above the mundane plane of existence.

I’m talking metaphysical here. OK, I’ll come down to Mother Earth. The problem is, men are too self-centred. Justifying actions and thoughts on the self would imply two things : 1) chances are, the impacts are either not significant because of the small justification behind it – the self, or the impacts can be disastrous to the majority because of the small size of the population considered when making the decision – the self.

2) the gratification from the action, even for one’s own self, might seem virtually large but be tiny in value, because the only person meant to enjoy it is the tiny self.

Making life more worthwhile, more full of value, through living it for causes greater than the self in majesty might be one good idea to solve this predicament. Well, if one self is too small, why not increase the number to many, many more selves? Don’t just live life for one’s own self, live it for others as well. Don’t just make decisions with one’s own self under consideration, think about many, many other selves as well. Think about the family, the ummah, the animals and the plants, the deteriorating ozone layers, the poors in Africa, the world. Spend resources that belong to the self for others. Make others happy. Do voluntary work. Give charity.

I guess the celebrities are trying to add more value to their lives by alloting some resources for their charitable deeds. Sadly, in a lot of cases they are still too much preoccupied with their own selves that the value added from the invested resources shrink in magnitude when contrasted with the amount of resources spent, still for the enjoyment of the self. It is not how much resources spent for others per se that determines its overall value, it is the amount of resources spent for others relative to what is spent solely for the self.

When talking about values and meaning of life, another question would inevitably issue. Are those values seeked merely as a target within the physical plane, to please the heart and content the soul while living in this world, or is there another plane of existence, within which there are ultimate values to be reached, and towards which the spirit would wish to soar? Of course, the physical, material self is far from worthy enough to be propel itself on its own to get there. Even the values obtained from serving other selves, from spending resources for other selves would not suffice, for as stated earlier, all the selves in the world are equally helpless, equally trapped within the physical plane and all its rules of perceived reality. To transcend this boundary, the self has to discard itself as a focus and serve the One, whose creatures include time and space itself, whose domain is beyond any discernible by mundane physical perceptions.

All the effort of making others happy, of adding value to one’s life by serving others, are meant to strengthen one’s own spirituality and detach it from the confinement of the selfish Self. The pursuit of value is made complete and ultimate when it is dedicated to fulfil the orders and rules set by the One, hence giving it the highest gratification of all, Allah’s pleasure and his Jannah. Al-fauz-ul-kabir.

This is when we say, “Everything that I do, I do it for Allah, lillahi ta’ala.”

Wealth and children are an adornment of the life of the world. But the deeds of lasting righteousness are the best in the sight of your Lord in reward, and far better a source of hope. – Al-Kahf, 18:46

And remember,

Say, (O Muhammad) : “Shall we tell you who will be the greatest losers in respect of their works? It will be those whose effort went astray in the life of the world and who believe nevertheless that they are doing good. Those are the ones who refused to believe in the revelations of their Lord and that they are bound to meet Him. Hence, all their deeds have come to naught, and We shall assign no weight to them on the Day of Resurrection. – Al-Kahf, 18:103-105

And Allah always knows best.

meow~

The Jews, in the same context until today nostalgically honored their ancestral glory that is the Kingdom of David. Liberation from the dictatorial rule of Egypt’s mighty Pharaoh was a historical event that marks the beginning of Jewish evacuation on the Land of Kanaan (now known as Palestine/Israel) which sparks supremacy conflict with the Arabs until today. I’m not so sure if there is any, throughout Jewish civilization exist a ‘Hang Tuah’ who agitate his people by saying “Takkan Yahudi Hilang Di Dunia” (Never Shall the Jews Vanish from the Face of Earth) as a motivation for them to defend the so-called ‘Jewish Supremacy’ in dealing with their crisis with Palestine.

After the falls of Israel, during the Roman acquisition, the Jews lived hopelessly. Political power, supremacy and their special rights seems to be vanished and forgotten. For almost 2,000 years, this so-called chosen race was suppressed and marginalized. Nowadays, the Malays, a race that establish its civilization not more than 700 years ago have becoming to worry on their unpredictable future.  If the Jews uphold Zionism as an ideology to defend their supremacy, the Malays seems to be fanatic with Umno, the ’spirit of the Malay’ that will turn 62 in May this year.

If I am a Jew, Hatikvah might be the best cure for my worries on my race supremacy. Hatikvah was the melody of ‘hope’ which was inspired by Samuel Cohen in 1888 and was combined with a poem written by Naftali Herz Imber in 1878. Maybe the Malays need a new hatikvah. Not in the form of poetry or the form of melody or by Umno’s rehabilitation.

This new hatikvah should appear in the form of a leader who will not only unite the Malays but also will form unity and develop understanding amongst all citizens of this country. Who is this future messiah? Will he be an outspoken pensioner? Or a once failed figure? Or maybe a former convict who was being treated with cruelty?