by James Gomez & Zulfikar Mohd Shariff
Dr James Gomez (left) & Mr Zulfikar Mohd Shariff (right)
A plurality of voices speaking on Islam is the best way forward for building democracy and a multicultural society in Singapore.
This was the main idea we took away from a one day conference on Islam entitled, “Conflict, Religion and Culture: Domestic and International Implications for Southeast Asia & Australia” on 17 February 2011 at La Trobe University, Melbourne.
About two dozen researchers and academics presented and debated the topic of Islam, democracy and civil society in Southeast Asia at this meeting organised by the Centre for Dialogue, La Trobe University.
Agreement among the presenters emerged that a key factor for democratic transition in Muslim populated countries is the presence of civil society and political parties that openly engage each other over matters of ethnicity and religion.
Democratising Islamic engagements
This “engagement” takes place at various levels, with different groups recognising each others’ legitimate and lawful right to participate and be recognised as representing their community interests. However, this legitimacy is continuously negotiated within each countries legal and political framework.
It is this framework of engagement that allows for open debates and critique of the relationship between inter-ethnic dialogue and Islam’s relationship with the state in several Southeast Asian countries.
The volume of such discussions over inter-ethnic and inter-religious dialogue provides a critical mass towards democracy and fostering a multicultural society.
The different paper presenters noted that the democratisation of engagement has changed the dynamics of inter-ethnic relations. These days community groups do not merely defer to the authorities to maintain inter-ethnic and inter-religious relations. Instead, they are now able to provide support to each other by developing trust based on open and honest engagements.
One example that was referred to by several speakers is the Catholic Herald’s “Allah” issue. In the aftermath of the initial judgment allowing the Herald’s use of “Allah”, several individuals set churches and suraus on fire. In response, various Muslim NGOs stepped forward to offer protection to churches in Malaysia.
This development points to a maturing of inter-religious engagement in Malaysia, made possible through democratic inter-community engagement. While problems may be expected to arise from time to time, continued dialogue provides the basis for matured and sophisticated conflict resolution options.
While this dialogue takes place on many levels, several states have developed a symbiotic relationship with Islam that provides greater engagement and authority for both, Islamic groups and state policies. The outcome is contingent on the level of engagement and whether Islamic voices are sanctioned or democratised.
Singapore’s centralised managed of Islam
The examples from Southeast Asia and the findings of the conference suggest that in Singapore we need to move away from a PAP government controlled discourse of Islam and Malay issues to one that is open and plural.
Instead of open engagement that democratises the Muslim community, the PAP government has opted to centralise, manage and mainstream the Muslims through co-option, sanctions and delegitimizing independent opinions.
One presenter, Dr Michael Barr of Flinders University, argued, that the management and mainstreaming of Muslim voices in Singapore is based on a distrust and fear of the community. This fear shapes the PAP government’s approach and action with regards to the Muslim community in the city-state. And the same fear of the community has been transferred onto sections of the Singaporean public.
While there are attempts to reduce active discrimination of the Malays and Muslims in Singapore, such efforts are contingent upon Muslims entering the “mainstream” and accepting the PAP government’s management of Muslim interests. According to PAP logic, Muslims in Singapore are required to first prove they have become part of mainstream society before discrimination can be removed.
In order to mainstream the Muslims, the PAP has centralised opinions by ensuring only officially sanctioned views and actions are legitimised. Thus, only the Islamic Council of Singapore (MUIS) is viewed as the legitimate authority in providing Islamic opinions. Additionally, only organisations affiliated with the PAP government are deemed “legitimate” in providing social (but not political) views and only PAP Malay MPs are the community’s real political leaders.
Singapore’s centralisation of Muslim views has allowed the authorities to gain effective control of the Muslim community and has limited the democratisation of views and actions. It has also prevented independent Muslim groups from undertaking their own inter-ethnic and religious dialogues with other groups in Singapore.
Instead, inter-ethnic engagements are undertaken either at the urging or organised by government linked organisations. While it aids the government in ensuring continued support of its policies, the centralisation of opinions inhibits the maturing of society and for the different communities to naturally and spontaneously work with each other.
The centralised management of Muslim views is also evident in counter-terrorism measures in Singapore. Several states in Southeast Asia have found themselves with the Jemaah Islamic threats which are being tackled via community initiatives.
In Singapore, officially sanctioned actions are undertaken. The Muslim community here is not encouraged to develop their counter mechanisms. Instead the creation of a Religious Rehabilitation Group (RRG) and the Asatizah Recognition Scheme further points to a growing centrally mandated system.
Democratic path for a multicultural society
The central management of the Muslim community in Singapore has limited the possibilities for the growth of genuine inter-ethnic and inter-religious dialogue.
In fact, the different ethnic groups work within the central command of the PAP government, often with limited community input. Engagement and space is therefore, dictated rather than negotiated.
While other neighbouring states has allowed or encouraged the democratisation of Islamic discourse and inter-ethnic and inter-religious engagement, Singapore has continued to resist such developments. Instead, it is developing greater control mechanisms to ensure that the PAP remains as the core component of a centralised engagement process.
What is instead needed is a more democratic form of inter-community engagement if Singapore is to develop a genuine multicultural society.
In spite of challenges, emerging examples from Southeast Asia show that countries that have open inter-community engagement foster a more genuine multicultural society. By moving away from state centred management of communities, a decentralised approach has the prospect of also contributing towards political democracy as several cases from Southeast Asia show.
Since independence, the PAP government has centralised the management of ethnicity and religion to secure its position as the only viable political authority for Singapore. This has to change.
In order for Singapore to truly return to the path of a genuine multicultural society, the process of inter-ethnic and inter-religious engagement needs to be returned to civil society and the people. Only such engagement can contribute to a democratic Singapore.
Dr. James Gomez is Deputy Associate Dean (International) and an academic at the Centre of Islam and the Modern World (http://arts.monash.edu.au/politics/cimow/), Monash University. Mr. Zulfikar Mohd Shariff holds a Masters in International Relations, La Trobe University.
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
What would be a good example of a model country/state we could look at?
How has this contributed to a multicultural society in that State/Country?
How are other religions “engaged” in Singapore and the other states ? Are they “engaged” differently?
What has happened in this region? “church” burning? “cow” slaughter? How could incidences of this be reduced? How do we reduce this tension?
Is the state of religious tension lower in neighbouring states/countries?
What is a good example of a Democratic Muslim State/Country? What good examples can we learn from their example?
Good point on STATE over Religion.
Freedom of religious worship of any nature is important.
It is a good thing to clamp down on divisive religious opinions and expressions; be they from Muslims, Christians, Buddhist or Hindus.
State Security comes first!
Freedom of Religious Expression BUT not when it infringes of Freedom to exist PEACEFULLY
Any voices that threaten the Security and Peace of the State should be clamped down. Say No to: inter-religion or intra-religion-sub-division holy wars; to burning of religious buildings; to acts of provocation against other religions. Stop them whether they are Christians, Muslims, Buddhist, Hindus, etc. Freedom of Religious expressions should not infringe on Freedom for a Peaceful and Safe existance.
May i say you are both INCORRECT.
The malays CANNOT have it another way, because should they decided to be buddhist or christian, they are shunned by FAMILY, all friends and relatives, ONE reason why they are not FREE to choose here and in Malaysia. In Malaysia, they are forced to be one, FORCE, by the state, federal gov and by the constitution and last by the religious school and mosque.
They have to leave the country and settle else where should they decide not to be a muslim.
Even dogs are not allowed, to touch or keep, but in turkey, north africa, the muslims EMBRACE all things, LOGICAL.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/world/africa/21tunisia.html?hp
Secular country like Indonesia, is where a muslim can convert, as and when he wants, marriage is one good reason, and Turkey, once a model of modern islamic society is changing to fanatism, reason why Europe is putting the country at arms length from joining eu.
Islam has been hijack by radicals and knowing where these radicals educate themselves will tell all.
In Europe and the first world, islam is growing because PARENTS, EDUCATION, RELIGIOUS, have FAILED the children, double income is not good.
The CHILDREN AND YOUNG ADULTS were not TAUGHT properly and ITS why they embrace Islam, but then, as with the Hari Krishna, once flourishing in europe, the religion will see it’s fall, mark my words, Africa and Middle East will modernize like europe is now and religion will fade away, and there may be a renassiance of old religion in europe, torn away by evangelism in the 70’s.
Let us not forget, Islam WAS taught 300-500 years after christinianity and all its religious books contents were TAKEN from the Jewish TORAH(Old Testement) and the New Testement (Bible)and changing the names to arabic sounding ones does not mean anything, only to fool the illiterates and poor in knowledge. The world is changing and with the internet, more children and adults will QUESTION the religious teachers and they will have to come TRUE, hijacking the people is not the ANSWER.
PROPAGANDA IS NOT THE ANSWER…..
Most of you may not know that in Kuwait and UAE, Iran, Iraq and most of North, East and West Africa, the world’s oldest profession is practice, in the old castles and runned down houses. Daily you do see locals visiting them, with police or army guards fronting these places and some of them collecting “buckshi” from these visitors.
As tourist, we are allowed to view and most of these women are in the late 50′s and 60′s, reason why so many are not cared for by the gov. Jobless youths (egypt,tunisia(poor side of town, bahrain) roaming the streets and selling anything from used shoes(even in malaysia)clothes and whatever they pick up from the streets, can be sold, if one needs them, car murgards, tyres, bottles.
Not every gov gives out money and even the oil producing ones are stingy and little programmes of any kind to help mitigate unemployment.
What is happening today in Africa and Middle East is expected.
Hhahaha…Islamophobes…continue your rants…
I am inclined to agree with the authors. The centralised management of Islam and Muslims through MUIS has created a blnkered view of Islam by Muslims for non-Muslims.
The main discourse of Islam has a strong familial feel to it and consists mainly of two types — motherhood statements and grandmother stories.
Even in centralising the Muslim response to terrorism, the government co-opted religious leaders in the Religious Rehabilitation Group (RRG) have been ineffective at best; and supporting the enemy at worst!
But the greatest atrocity inflicted on the Muslims has been by MUIS itself. In the last seven years, contributions to the Mosque Building & Mendaki Fund (MBMF) have been raised twice. A portion of the collections have found their way into the pockets of favored co-opted organizations such as the Association of Muslim Professionals (AMP).
In the last hike, Muslim MPs and senior officials from MUIS and Mendaki actively lobbied in support of the move. As soon as the hike was approved by Parliament, the voices went silent, and so is any news of how the extra S$11 million collected a year is to be spent.
MUIS’ penchant for making Muslims part with their hard-earned money did not stop there. Under the guise of staff secondment, executive chairmen of mosques will have their paychecks made up of 80% from the charity boxes of their mosques and 20% of MUIS.
MUIS pleads that these chairmen are seconded to the mosques, so the community must pay their salaries. MUIS conveniently forgets to tell the public that these chairmen are staff recruited by MUIS to manage a mosque committee appointed by MUIS to run mosques which form part of MUIS assets. So, what secondment is there?
The management of madrasahs is another case in point. In a divide-and rule strategy, MUIS has used the Madrasah Fund to give preferential (and thus discriminatory) support to madrasahs which join its Joint Madrasah System (JMS). Despite the additional funding and support from MUIS, these JMS madrasahs have fared no better than those who chose not to join this system of institutional discrimination.
The institutionalization of Islam through MUIS has led to excesses, and an abject lack of transparency. Formed as a statutory board under the Administration of Muslim Law Act, MUIS also acts as a charitable organization collecting and spending community funds. But it does not have the transparency and oversight required by the Commisioner of Charities.
As Alami Musa, the Chairman of AMP and now President of MUIS once said of the Malay MPs, “There are systemic problems…”
There are indeed now in the institutionalized and centralised management of Islam in Singapore.
“This was the main idea we took away from a one day conference on Islam entitled, “Conflict, Religion and Culture: Domestic and International Implications for Southeast Asia & Australia” on 17 April 2011 at La Trobe University, Melbourne.”
17 April 2011?!! Wow, I’m getting news from the future!
@allinav, thanks for spotting the typo. it should be 17 Feb. we have informed TOC for a change. cheers.
“Any voices that threaten the Security and Peace of the State should be clamped down. Say No to: inter-religion or intra-religion-sub-division holy wars; to burning of religious buildings; to acts of provocation against other religions. Stop them whether they are Christians, Muslims, Buddhist, Hindus, etc. ”
Really? Are you trying to be politically correct? When was the last time you heard a buddhist bombing up while shouting Buddha is great, or chant Nan Mo? Seriously, please let me know if you can find one instance of that happening. Otherwise, please don’t insult the other religions. Doesn’t mean that a religion doesn’t have a doctrine of subjugation makes it a soft target. There is no way to twist the teachings of Buddha to justify a bombing. However, there are clear versus, note that these are clear divine relevation, no need to twist the word of God, that justify these acts of terror that we see. I suggest you take a look at
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks
Now, please find me a parallel elsewhere in the other religions, otherwise, please stop insulting the non-muslims because your refusal to acknowledge the cold hard facts as to why these terrorists acts are committed, and they indeed happened, is bigotry and hurtful.
To “To Rey”,
I don’t think Rey is trying to “insult the other religions”, he’s just saying that hateful acts should be discouraged from all sides, regardless of which group the perpetrators belong to. I also don’t think he was trying to say that violent acts are equally common among the different groups. It takes an extremely oversensitive reading of his comments to call them “bigotry and hurtful”.
I also take umbrage at your comment that in Islam, “there are clear versus… that justify these acts of terror that we see.” To me, this demonstrates a poor understanding of the history of Islam and the Quran.
Although I’m an atheist ex-Muslim (who left for purely skeptical reasons), I get peeved by all the Sam-Harris-wannabes who read some verses in the Quran and think they’re commandments for Muslims to commit acts of violence. Even a cursory study of Islam would tell you that the Quran is NOT exactly a book of commandments; that is totally misunderstanding the “genre” of the book. Rather, all of the chapters in the Quran are strongly tied to the various events that happened during Muhammad’s 23 years as a prophet; thus, if you read the verses alone without knowing the backstory of what was happening when the verse was revealed, the Quran will not make any sense, and you might walk away thinking a few parts sounded like an endorsement for present day Muslims to instigate violence. Basically, my point is that the genre of the Quran is somewhat different from other holy texts, and that it is not something you read in isolation without knowing the backstory.
By the way, you might be interested to know that countless Islamic scholars have issued unequivocal fatwas that condemn terrorism absolutely, regardless of whatever circumstances Muslims are in. (In case you didn’t know, Islamic scholars don’t tend to issue fatwas that blatantly contradict the Quran.)
Islam has a levelling effect. That is why it is feared by those in power.
Interesting. Let’s take the previous comment into perspective. Someone once said, at least concerning the last few years, that
“few _____ are suicide bombers, but most suicide bombers are _____.”
Let’s substitute the blanks with 1) Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Tamil Tigers, etc…
Concerning, “there are clear versus… that justify these acts of terror that we see.” To me, this demonstrates a poor understanding of the history of Islam and the Quran.”
I am not sure why this conclusion is immediate. Sounds like ad hominem to me. How can you be sure that the person doesn’t live in the Middle East, speak perfect Arabic and is/was a muslim? Whenever someone make such remarks that may be unpleasant, the person is immediately written off immediately as having a poor understanding of a religion. That’s sounds like a red herring. The main point is, adherents believe that there is something sacred about the text, which is the literal word of God. Some verses are presented in the “active tense”, they are as clear as they can be.
In fact, things look a lot worse judging by history, the incident at Banu Qurayza is a good example.
Because the Quran is believed to be a literal word, it has been taken literally to justify acts of terror. Now, are we in the position to say that the Shahids are wrong in their interpretation? What’s makes us think that our interpretation is correct, as oppose to taking a more literal interpretation of the teachings?
Sure, there are fatwas against terrorist activities. No one is saying that there aren’t moderate peace-loving muslims and muslim leaders. However, it will be a tough position denying that nothing is said in the Quran or hadith about conquest, the treatment of a dhimmi, associating with non-believers, etc. Ok, that’s in the past. But what’s in store during the end days? Indeed, this is well enunciated in Sahi Muslim 41:6981, which I will leave it as further reading for the interested.
Yes, there are those who do not follow the literal meaning. But there are those that do follow through. No one can follow nothing, you cannot follow my empty thoughts, so some messages are clearly there and someone is taking them pretty seriously.
Now, someone would say look “comment”, Hindus are violent, Tamils are violent, Christians are violent. Look at their old testament before christians became christians and you’ll see a lot of
violent history there. Or catholics and protestants fought in Ireland, Shaolin monks had their history of conflict and war.
By and large, my experience with muslims is like my experience with any others. Certainly, I recognize that there are well meaning muslim leaders (at least, that’s my impression) such as Abdurrahman Wahid, Muhammad Sayyid Tantawy, many more clerics who denounce these violence openly. Not all are shady like “bridge-builder” Feisal Abdul Rauf. I can even say that my experience with Singaporean Malays (pardon my generalizing them as Muslims) is on average more positive. However, that doesn’t mean that the muslim we obseve in Singapore is stereotypical. Perhaps, what we are experiencing is not the Muslim culture per se, but the Malay or more generally, southeast asian culture. My Indonesian friends, well they are so nice to be around, yet we see crazy things happening in the news. My friends aren’t going to burn down the churches, but that doesn’t mean someone else wouldn’t in the name of Islam.
In short, I wouldn’t trust my personal experience as evidence for what is objective and real. I wouldn’t use this warm glow as evidence to convince another that there are zero traces of forceful negativity in the teachings of the prophet. Visit the UK, you’ll see a very different picture and your personal experiences which are close to you will be put to the test. If things are so clear cut, the so-called radical cleric Anjem Choudar would be ostracized, yet he has a healthy group of followers. Same for Hizb ut-Tahrir.
Let me say this. There are well meaning muslims or ex muslims who might be hurt by these statements. But there are fundamentalist who criticize the moderates for not practicing the true faith and accused them of cherry picking. Anjem Choudar is one person, who expressed these views about moderates, are people of concerned. However, to say that Islam does not legitimize their thinking and actions is to sweep things under the carpet. Say to Anjem not to legimitize his actions by the teachings of Zoroaster and he would say he wouldn’t. Because the Quran contain verses that clear and lucid, expressed in “active tense”, that they can be taken as is, verbatim, without adding or subtracting anything, to justify violence. The great majority don’t follow through these lines of thinking doesn’t imply that no one will, present or future. And if religion is used to justify violence, that doesn’t mean that the religion cannot be the cause of action as these are often the way the politically correct press would report the events. As I’ve said, no one can follow nothing.
“comment”,
“I am not sure why this conclusion is immediate. Sounds like ad hominem to me. How can you be sure that the person doesn’t live in the Middle East, speak perfect Arabic and is/was a muslim? Whenever someone make such remarks that may be unpleasant, the person is immediately written off immediately as having a poor understanding of a religion. That’s sounds like a red herring.”
(1) I did not merely “write him off immediately” as having a poor understanding of Islam because I find his comment unpleasant. Rather, I disagree with the crux of his argument, that is, his claim that the Quran explicitly justifies the acts of terror we see today, and explained my disagreement above. It’s not a personal attack, it’s a disagreement with his claim. I describe his views as demonstrating a poor understanding of Islam/history/Quran simply because I’m making a point about a common misconception about the genre of the Quran. To call that an ad hominem or a red herring also warrants an oversensitive reading, if you ask me.
(2)While it’s most probable that “To Rey” isn’t currently a Muslim, this wasn’t assumed anywhere in my comments. One can be Middle Eastern, speak perfect Arabic and be a Muslim, and still not realise that the Quran does not make sense without historical context. In fact, such Muslims are not at all uncommon. I personally have a relative (albeit not Middle Eastern) who studied at a Madrasah when she was young, and willingly admits that despite all the time spent on learning Arabic and studying Islam, she used to know practically nothing about the events surrounding the birth of Islam. Thus, whether or not “To Rey” is Muslim/Middle Eastern/Arab-speaking is inconsequential to my point.
“The main point is, adherents believe that there is something sacred about the text, which is the literal word of God. Some verses are presented in the “active tense”, they are as clear as they can be.”
(3) Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear in my original comment. I have never denied that the vast majority of Muslims believe the Quran to be the literal word of God, divinely inspired, yada yada yada. What I am denying though, is this pernicious myth that there are verses in the Quran which command the Muslims today to indiscriminately kill the Jews/Christians/disbelievers/whoever.
(4) Some verses presented in the “active tense”? As opposed to what, the “passive tense”? If you would be so kind, please quote one of these verses, and rewrite it in “passive tense” to show how the former lends itself to terrorism more readily than the latter.
(5) Sahih Muslim. This is a Hadith; totally separate and distinct from the Quran. To recap, “To Rey” made a claim specifically saying there were verses explicitly justifying today’s terrorism. I disagreed with him. You bring up a Hadith (which doesn’t contain verses, if you haven’t realised) about some Judgement Day mumbo jumbo and this adds to the discussion how?
(6) Treatment of dhimmi. Again, what is the relevance to our discussion on whether the Quran explicitly endorses current terrorism? I’m assuming your comment is still directed at my original comment, and hasn’t morphed into a rant about all things wrong with Islam.
“the Quran contain verses that clear and lucid, expressed in “active tense”, that they can be taken as is, verbatim, without adding or subtracting anything, to justify violence
(7) To the vast majority of Muslims (who believe the Quran is the literal word of God, blah blah blah), reading the verses without knowing the historical events that inspired them is a process of subtraction from the Quran. The “cherry pickers” are hardly the Muslims who read the Quran the way practically ALL Islamic scholars agree it should be read. Rather, they are the ones who insist that history doesn’t matter.
(8) Nice sneaking in of the passive tense here to modify toRey’s original position. That nuanced difference sort of makes my point for me.
[Quote]
“…the findings of the conference suggest that in Singapore we need to move away from a PAP government controlled discourse of Islam and Malay issues to one that is open and plural…One presenter, Dr Michael Barr of Flinders University, argued, that the management and mainstreaming of Muslim voices in Singapore is based on a distrust and fear of the community. This fear shapes the PAP government’s approach and action with regards to the Muslim community in the city-state. And the same fear of the community has been transferred onto sections of the Singaporean public.”
[Endquote]
It is a strange coincidence that Zulfikar Mohd Shariff would be one of the authors of this article. I still recall reading in his now defunct blog, fateha.com, an email exchange between him and ST editor Leslie Fong, in which Zulfikar charged that ST was running a smear campaign against Islams and Muslims with its almost exclusive focus on terrorism-related news as the only coverage on Islam, Muslims, and Malays, both as individuals and as a collective.
Leslie Fong’s job, was of course to deny all those charges.
Still, it remains undeniable that whenever Islam-related topics are proposed, the talk of terrorism is never far behind. What else should we conclude then but that the PAP’s strategy to ‘centralise, manage and mainstream the Muslims’, in this case, with the Straits Times as its vehicle, has given Singaporeans a one-sided view of Islam and Muslims.
And what else does this State policy reflect if not just one man’s – Lee Kuan Yew’s – racism, prejudices, and paranoia, and how those have become state policy?
How different would the outcomes for genuine multicultarlism have been if ST had also just as consistently carried news involving ideological opponents to the Islamofascists – whose ideology spawns terrorism – in the Middle East and the rest of the Muslim world?
But there would have been a problem for the PAP government and its propoganda mouthpiece, the ST: the Arab and other Muslim opponents to Islamofascism comprised mainly political liberals, human rights activists, and secularists whose political vocabulary might have emboldened their Singaporean counterparts. This would have been detrimental to the PAP’s own fascism that opposes liberalism, human rights and secularism.
However, the PAP comprises people who are…shall I say…not very smart. The Arab and other Muslim liberals, human rights activists, and secularists have always taken an Islam-based approach on their stand.
That would have helped Muslim and other Singaporeans in our own ideological and political battle against the terrorist ideology.
please keep comments to less than 500 words.
Quoting “Islam4Singapore22″ on February 2011 who posted, “Islam has a levelling effect. That is why it is feared by those in power.”
It is statements like this that not only instil FEAR by those in power. It also instils FEAR in everyone else; be they Buddhist, Christians and Hindus and create “Islamophobes”
I strongly admire advocates of peace and non-violene like Gandhi,Tenzin Gyatso, Mubarak Awad, Aung San Suu Kyi, Yonassan Gershom, Martin Luther King, Jr.,Vijayanandsuri.
John Lennon “Imagine no religion. Nothing to KILL or DIE FOR. A brotherhood of man”
What is religion if its fruits are division, FEAR and violence?
And yet religion can be beautiful, if it’s fruits are Love, Peace and Brotherhood amongst all people. Religion is beautiful if it inculcates a spirit of love and not FEAR among all neighbours not just those who share the same belief.
Some posts points out that there are many “Islamofacists” as well as many Muslim anti-Islamofacists.
And some posts points out there are fatwas advocating acts of violence and terrorism and at the same time there are Fatwast condemn terrorism.
Exactly. We should encourage the non-violent voices of the anti-Islamofacist and those anti-violent muslims.
Just like we should clamp down on facist-Christians, facist-Muslims and any form of religious-facisims and platforms for divisions and instability; Less we be “LEVELED by FEAR!!”
PEACE before any form of RELIGION!!!
To ex-muslim,
You can try and defend the Qur’an and the faith it has spawned. All this argument means nought to the countless humans who have lost (and are still losing) their lives to this repressive ideology.
The problem is a significant number of Muslims believe that the Qur’an is the earthly reproduction of a mother-book kept in Jannat, which has existed since the beginning of Time. It has been written for all of humanity, for all times. Thus, it has no context, no history. Every word contained therein is true.
Please explain this:
“Mohammed is God’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another” Quran 48:29
Does Allah refer only to those who were following Mohammed when he was alive? Is it not applicable today?
By defending this book, you sound just like those apologists trying to dissociate themselves from those who commit terror in the name of Allah:”see, they got it all wrong, it’s not like that at all.” But what difference does it make to all those victims who lost their lives as a direct result of Islam? And what are the moderate Muslims doing to try and make amends?
skipper,
I think that while the vast majority of Muslims believe that the Quran is the earthly reproduction of the mother book which has existed since the beginning of time, they most certainly DO NOT think it has “no context, no history”. This is a ridiculous statement. No context and no history?! That is an intellectually dishonest portrayal of what Muslims believe. Every scholar who studies Islam or the Quran is extremely knowledgeable and well versed on Islamic history. You will not be able to find even one who has abandoned the study of history in the study of the Quran. The mainstream, orthodox Islam practised by the VAST majority places immense importance on Islamic history. This is simply fact.
I don’t think it’s at all accurate to say that I’m “defending this book” as you say; rather, I am only criticising ToRey’s objective claim that there are verses that explicitly justify acts of terror. Please don’t try to write me off as an apologist just because I hold a different view from you.
As for the verse you quoted, that was revealed to Muhammad at a time of conflict between the Muslims and the unbelievers; if you would dig only a little more into the Quran, you can also find plenty of verses in the Quran instructing the Muslims on how to have dealings with unbelievers. Clearly, pluralism is endorsed. I would not even say that the verse was refering to “those who were following Mohammed when he was alive”; it was referring to a specific group of unbelievers who were plotting against the Muslims. Not all the unbelievers in Mohammed’s time fit this description.
“But what difference does it make to all those victims who lost their lives as a direct result of Islam?” This is only an appeal to pity; it does nothing in the way of showing that there are verses which objectively endorse terrorism.
“And what are the moderate Muslims doing to try and make amends?”
Make amends? I hope this is just poor word choice… Why should anyone make amends for what someone else did?
I won’t be adding much to this thread anymore; I’ve already made my point that there is a sharp distinction between saying that a book explicitly justifies modern day terrorism and that a book can be interpreted (in an extremely unorthodox way) to justify terrorism. If TOC readers are unable to appreciate this difference, well then I don’t think I shall be responding to any straw man arguments.
Hi skipper, have you for a start, make yourself down to places lile Darul Arqam to present your thoughts and facts and have them explained? It helps if you try, if do, harder.
Salam and peace
Muslim Singaporean
What is the Banu Qurayza incident?
I am not sure about your take on interpreting the violent verses in the Quran as violent is “unorthodox”. It may be the case in Singapore, but again, someone else may believe their version is orthodox, not ours here. It seems, at least, that two millions Egyptians are expressing deep convictions in their beliefs, taking to the streets and chanting “To Jerusalem we are heading, martyrs in the millions”. Granted, some may say it’s just 2.5 percent of the total population, but the absolute number is huge for goodness sake!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=du5emnvGgvg&feature=player_embedded
Well, doesn’t appear surprising if you have verses such as -
Kill the Jews and the Christians if they do not convert to Islam or refuse to pay Jizya tax (9:29)
The Jews and the Christians are perverts; fight them (9:30)
- for them to “hijack”. Perhaps “fight them” and “Kill” doesn’t mean what they mean so what do these verses mean exactly? Have they been officially abrogated according to the mainstream beliefs?
Molly,
Those are precisely the type of verses that I feel too many non Muslims have gotten hung up over because they do not understand the genre of the Quran. Sam Harris has a chapter in “The End of Faith” where he’s got a list of similar verses, stripped completely of any context.
1. As I’ve said earlier on this thread, those verses were referring to a specific group of Jews/Christians/nonbelievers living during Muhammad’s time who were at conflict with the Muslims. This is something that is understood by the vast majority of Muslims globally.
2. The thing that I claim to be unorthodox is not, as you seem to think, the endorsement of violence per se; that is undeniable in those verses. What is totally unorthodox is the idea that those verses are an “instruction” from God for Muslims living in any time or place to deliberately seek out Jews and Christians and fight them till they convert. This is not only unorthodox in Singapore as you claim, but globally. This is merely fact.
3. “Fight” and “Kill” mean exactly that in the verses, to my understanding. The words that are tripping us up are actually “Jews” and “Christians”. Which Jews? Which Christians? Why was such hostility necessary towards that group of Jews and Christians? One needs to know history to understand the meaning of the verse as it was intended. Practically everyone who studies the Quran (whether they are academics, Islamic scholars, Christians or skeptics) understands this, and so do most Muslims (not just in Singapore).
4. “Hijack” is exactly what is going on when those verses are used to justify terrorism. This is what I have been saying all along on this thread; their book doesn’t justify terrorism, like ToRey claims. However, some individuals can use it to justify their acts of terror (which are in reality politically motivated, and not driven by religiosity). Active and passive forms here make all the difference.
By the way, which hatesite did you obtain those two verses from? The version you quote is a far cry from the original. Perverts?! lol.
There are many Muslims in this country that reject the dangerous doctrines taught in the Koran and throughout fundamental Islam. They don’t believe they should kill Jews or Christians. They don’t believe they will be rewarded in Paradise for such atrocities. Nevertheless, we know that the world is filled with Muslims who do attempt to follow the Koran in detail. They believe the fundamental tenants of the Islamic religion. These people are dangerous. They will commit act of terrorism and life and peace mean nothing to them. They wish to LEVEL out their perceived enemies through FEAR and act of terrorisms. We must make the voice of the majority of the Peace-loving Muslims in Singapore are heard, but at the same time we must stop the dangerous voices of extremist/fundamentalist Christians/Muslims/Buddhist/Hindus or any religion.
Freedom to live in PEACE takes priority over Freedom of religious expression where the expression can lead to DIVISION and HATRED and ACTS of VIOLENCE.
To ex-muslim,
You said:
“I think that while the vast majority of Muslims believe that the Quran is the earthly reproduction of the mother book which has existed since the beginning of time, they most certainly DO NOT think it has “no context, no history”.”
I have to take issue with you on this. If one believes the Qur’an has been in existence since the Beginning (whenever that was) and is the eternal word of God, one has to divorce it from history/context. If the Qur’an is a historically-based document with contextual background, you have to automatically dispense with the idea that it is eternal. You can’t have it both ways.
You may not be defending the book, but you seem to come across that way.
I did not “write you off” as an apologist. Please read what I wrote. I said, “you sound like those apologists”, and even then, I did not write off those apologists.
I am asking legitimate questions based on real-life issues happening around us, issues threatening the safety of many. Islam, directly or indirectly, has caused and is causing a multitude of deaths and destruction around the world. People’s lives have been devastated by these acts. Mentioning that should not be construed as an appeal to pity.
Maybe my use of the words “making amends” was not appropriate. What I did mean was, if those terrorists are committing their acts in the name of their religion and God, shouldn’t that be an affront to those right-thinking, moderate Muslims? Shouldn’t they be concerned that their religion is being hijacked in such a vulgar manner? Shouldn’t they consider that such acts are actually an insult to their God and prophet? Shouldn’t they do something positive and constructive to improve the public perception of Islam and their God instead of sitting on the fence? Where are those voices? Of course there are those religious leaders who make public statements condemning the terror and dissociating themselves and the Muslim community from such acts. Issuing statements and paying lip service is not enough. Positive action is required and where none exists, all this talk is just hollow. And that constitutes consent and approval.
Please understand those last questions were not directed at you.
Nazryn,
Thank you for your advice. Let me ask you: Have you read my latest reply to ex-muslim? What are your views on the questions I posed? As a practising Muslim, what would you do (if it’s within your power) with the terrorist issue? Will you openly condemn them as sinners who have insulted your religion? Will you issue a fatwa (again if it’s within your power to do so) to declare them enemies of Allah/Islam and bring them to justice? If not, why not?
Unfortunately, one’s belief about the nature of something doesn’t authenticate that specific nature.
We have a situation where we believe and are taught that violence, whether on believers or non-believers, has no place in Islam implies that indeed Islam will never permit the use of violence to spread Islam. In our conscience, that is the true Islam.
In reality, does Islam categorically prohibits the initiation of violence? The incident at Banu Quraiza, is that anti-Islamic? Truth and beliefs are disconnect entities.
To be honest, the only way I can consistently practice the faith is to look away from these verses. Honestly, when someone asks me to explain what they are all about, I’ll get trapped in a corner. I cannot answer them directly, yes or no. For this reason, you may criticize me if you wish, I really don’t like to engage in dialogs.
The article suggests a rosy outlook on religious harmony in Malaysia. Lets take a good look.
After a violent conflict in Penang between Hindus and Muslims in March 1998, the government announced a nationwide review of unlicensed Hindu temples and shrines.
In Malaysia, between April to May 2006, several Hindu temples were demolished by city hall authorities in the country, accompanied by violence against Hindus. On 21 Apr 06, the Malaimel Sri Selva Kaliamman Temple in Kuala Lumpur was reduced to rubble after the city hall sent in bulldozers.
On 11 May 06, armed city hall officers from Kuala Lumpur forcefully demolished part of a 60-year-old suburban temple that serves more than 1,000 Hindus. The “Hindu Rights Action Force”, a coalition of several NGO’s, have protested these demolitions by lodging complaints with the Malaysian Prime Minister. Many Hindu advocacy groups have protested what they allege is a systematic plan of temple cleansing in Malaysia. The official reason given by the Malaysian government has been that the temples were built “illegally”. However, several of the temples are centuries old.
On the 5 Nov 06, a group of Muslims gathered outside the Church of Our Lady of Lourdes, Silibin, in the town of Ipoh, Perak to protest an alleged conversion of Muslim Malays out of Islam. The allegation was spread via a text message that claimed the church would baptize a group of Muslim Malays. The message proved to be false as the church celebrated only a Holy Communion service for 110 Indian children. The message further alleged that a famous Malaysian sportsman Azhar Mansor was leaving Islam to embrace Christianity. The police had traced the message to a lady who had met Harussani Zakaria, mufti of the state of Perak in a meeting. He has stated that the message was to remain within the confines of the meeting but had made no attempt to verify the authenticity of the message nor report it to the police as converting Muslims is illegal under Malaysian law.
The Metro Tabernacle, an Assemblies of God church in Desa Melawati, Kuala Lumpur was set on fire on 8 Jan 10. While in Malacca, black paint was splashed on the outer wall of the Malacca Baptist Church in Durian Daun.
In Jan 2010, two separate prayer halls (surau) in Muar became targets of arson attacks. And as recent as Aug 2010, another prayer hall in Seremban was subjected to vandalism. The prayer hall was defaced by red paint and littered with alcohol bottles.
On 10 Dec07, Malaysian authorities banned the Malay-language section of a Catholic weekly newspaper, The Catholic Herald due to its use of the word Allah, the name for God which Christians had used for hundreds of years in the country. Their reasoning is that the word Allah by Christians would confuse Malay Muslims. The Catholic Church filed for a judicial review. And Madam Justice Lau Bee Lan ruled in favour of the Catholic church.
The Sabah Evangelical Church of Borneo also took legal action after the authorities banned the import of Christian books containing the word Allah. In Jan 2008, children’s Christian books with illustrations of prophets were confiscated from several bookstores around the country.
Please do not advocate us towards mirroring the policies and situation of “religious harmony” in Malaysia.
I have more confident in MUIS in Singapore stopping any potential misguided followers within their flock from violent acts.
I also have confident int he different reliogious leaders in Singapore stopping porential misguided individuals from violent acts then in Malaysia.
I have more confidence that Singapore will be safer in terms of religious harmony than Malaysia. It is advocates who politicise religious issues which start to shake my confidence in the continued peace here.
On the one hand, i do agree that Singapore government’s approach to muslims is very centralized and is one based on fear. On the other hand, the article’s authors speaks of democratization of the muslim voice because in the current model, only the Islamic Council of Singapore (MUIS) can speak on behalf of Islamic laws and opinions and that I feel is correct. Are any of us sure that we can afford to have multiple clerics or madrasahs speak for the muslims when some of them may have fundamental views even if I believe most of them will be moderate voices? I do not know the internal politics of MUIS and its relations to the madrasahs and mosques. If it is true that they discriminate by only funding madrasahs and mosques that they favor then shame on them. But i still feel a centralized institution is right for muslims just like there are centralized institution for other religions.
Forgive me because i am not malay nor muslim so i do no wish to offend anyone by this additional comment i want to speak. I understand that being Malay is so intricately linked to being muslim as well. When one speaks of being a malay, he/she is automatically representative of a muslim as well. But for Malay political members, that really should not be the case. I strongly believe in seperation of church and state (in this case, mosque and state) so in the interests of advancement of the malay community, the malay leaders should first and foremost be supportive of policies that benefit their community and yet be harmonious with Singaporean society as a whole. Yes, they should have more democratic views and opinions expressed than through the centralized institutions but only when it relates to political or social commentaries and not touching on the religion. I find it interesting only because for example, when you think of an indian person, you don’t automatically think of the indian person being representative of the hindu religion even though most likely he/she is hindu.
blacktryst,
Allow me my $0.02.
Islam is as much a political ideology as a religious one. (The difference between the two main Muslim sects, namely Sunni and Shi’a, are political.) Which is why your suggestion of separation of mosque and state cannot work. Democracy was founded on the principles of equality for all citizens. Islam does not recognise such equality. That’s one of the reasons why Islam and democracy are strange bedfellows. Which is also the reason why Muslim-majority democracies like Malaysia and Indonesia are facing all those problems.
Islam is compatible with democracy, but is democracy compatible with Islam?
Zulfikar Mohd Shariff is a joke, coward, and a hypocrite. Lest we forget that this is the same person who founded Fateha.com, and when it was clamped down, he took flight and sought refuge in Australia. Coward. Fateha.com challenged and denigrated the Malay political leadership, and now Zulfikar wants to champion dialogue to build a multicultural society in Singapore. Hypocrite. I would urge all readers to take what he has written with a pinch of salt.
masterservant
” Let us not forget, Islam WAS taught 300-500 years after christinianity and all its religious books contents were TAKEN from the Jewish TORAH(Old Testement) and the New Testement (Bible)and changing the names to arabic sounding ones does not mean anything, only to fool the illiterates and poor in knowledge. ”
Beg to differ on your statements and to be corrected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an
Muslims regard the Qur’an as the main miracle of Muhammad, as proof of his prophethood, and as the culmination of a series of divine messages. These started, according to Islamic belief, with the messages revealed to Adam, regarded in Islam as the first prophet, and continued with the Suhuf Ibrahim (scrolls of Abraham) the Tawrat, (Torah or Pentateuch) of Moses, the Zabur (Tehillim or Book of Psalms) of David, and the Injil (Gospel) of Jesus. The Qur’an assumes familiarity with major narratives recounted in Jewish and Christian scriptures, summarizing some, dwelling at length on others, and, in some cases, presenting alternative accounts and interpretations of events. The Qur’an describes itself as a book of guidance, sometimes offering detailed accounts of specific historical events, and often emphasizing the moral significance of an event over its narrative sequence.
Muslims hold that the Qur’an is the verbal divine guidance and moral direction for mankind. Muslims also consider the original Arabic verbal text to be the final revelation of God –the Final Testament.
Muslims believe that the Qur’an was repeatedly revealed from Allah to Muhammad verbally through the angel Jibrīl (Gabriel) over a period of approximately twenty-three years, beginning in 610 CE, when he was forty, and concluding in 632 CE, the year of his death.Followers of Islam further believe that the Qur’an was memorized, recited and written down by Muhammad’s companions after every revelation dictated by Muhammad. Most of Muhammad’s tens of thousands of companions, called Sahabas, learned the Qur’an by heart, repeatedly recited in front of Muhammad for his approval or the approval of other Sahabas. Muslim tradition agrees that although the Qur’an was authentically memorized completely by tens of thousands verbally, the Qur’an was still established textually into a single book form shortly after Muhammad’s death by order of the first Caliph Abu Bakr suggested by his future successor Umar.