Followers

Friday, July 12, 2013

Can we use the term Allah to represent God’s name in the Bible?



Note: This article was written some time ago in response to the issue and became a part of my book above. Perhaps it is appropriate to re-post it today. The article concluded that the real issue is about trust, not the technicality of the word Allah. I am of the viewpoint that both sides are unwilling to deal with this ‘trust’ aspect of the concern. Why?

Peace.

I find it strange that in the discussions and debates about whether it is acceptable to use the term ‘Allah’ to refer to God in the Bible, neither the Malaysian Christians who are for using the term nor the Malaysian Muslims who are against it, considered checking the Quran’s position with regards to the issue.

While it is understandable that the Christians may miss this, for the Muslims not to do so is unacceptable. Instead of basing on the Quran, a few of our Muslim brethrens are busy trying to show that historically the Bible does not use the term Allah. They also use civil laws to present their case. Muslims must be careful not to fall into the category of people mentioned in this verse of the Quran,

“And the Messenger cried out: O my Lord! Surely my people have treated this Quran as a forsaken thing.” - Quran 25:30

Muslims and Non-Muslims who want to discuss matters of Islam must note that for a believing Muslim no evidence is greater than the Quran,

“Say: “What thing is most Weighty in evidence?” Say: “(Allah) is witness between me and you; This Qur’an hath been revealed to me by inspiration, that I may warn you and all whom it reaches. …” - Quran 6:19

For a Muslim, the Quran is the ultimate guide,

“And we sent down the Book to thee for the express purpose, that thou should make clear to them those things in which they differ, that it should be a guide and a mercy to those who believe.” - Quran 16:64

And,

“Those who listen to the Word and follow the best meaning in it, those are the ones whom Allah has guided, and those are the ones endowed with understanding.” - Quran 39:18

A Muslim who claims to follow Prophet Muhammad must firstly and ultimately be guided by the Quran,

“So believe in Allah and His Apostle the unlettered Prophet, who believeth in Allah and His Words: Follow him that (so) ye may be guided.” - Quran 7:158

And those who fail to judge by the Quran is, at the end of the day no better than unbelievers,

“If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) unbelievers.” - Quran 5: 44

The above Quranic verses should be enough to show that basing our discussion on the Quran is the logical Islamic approach. If a Muslim or Non-Muslim were to prove that the Quran suggests
that the term Allah can or cannot be used, all Muslims must follow the decree. Period!

History of religion - Islam

To put things in perspective, we must first understand the Quranic worldview about religion and Allah.
           
The Quran suggests that all religions came from Allah as He has sent messengers (Jesus included) everywhere in the course of history; a few are named in the Quran mainly those from the Abrahamic line while the rest are not mentioned at all. But definitely there were other messengers sent to other geographical areas like Asia, Europe and the Americas, etc. although the Quran strategically remains silent about the other geographicallocations so as to be all inclusive.

            Here are clear examples. I will further elaborate this when dealing with the subject of the monopoly of Allah and the Heavens.

“Of some apostles We have already told thee the story; of others We have not;- and to Moses Allah spoke direct;” - Quran 4 : 164

“We did aforetime send apostles before thee: of them there are some whose story We have related to thee, and some whose story We have not related to thee. It was not (possible) for any apostle to bring a sign except by the leave of Allah…” - Quran 40:78. Also refer to 21:25, 17:77, 43:6

In fact, the Quran is uncompromising about this all inclusive approach that it decrees that any Muslim, who does not accept even one of the messengers, named or unnamed, ceases to be a believer! Muslims also can’t make any distinction between any of them.

“Those who deny Allah and His apostles, and (those who) wish to separate Allah from His apostles, saying: “We believe in some but reject others”: And (those who) wish to take a course midway They are in truth (equally) unbelievers; and we have prepared for unbelievers a humiliating punishment, To those who believe in Allah and His apostles and make no distinction between any of the apostles, we shall soon give their (due) rewards: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful” - Quran 4:150-152. Also refer 2:136, 3:84

To stress this all inclusive approach deeper, the Quran makes it very clear that Islamic and Muslim history must not be seen as starting from Prophet Muhammad as the Prophet himself was made to declare that he follows the religion of Abraham.

“So We have taught thee the inspired (Message), “Follow the ways of Abraham the True in Faith, and he joined not gods with Allah.” - Quran 16:123. Also refer to 16:20, 2:135, 3:95, 4:125, and 6:61

From the Quranic standpoint Prophet Muhammad is not the founder of the religion. He was the seal, the final one, the prophet who came to conclude a long string of messengers from the very beginning of human history.

“Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets: and Allah has full knowledge of all things.” – Quran 33:40

To make it final that Islam must be inclusive, the Quran stressed that it is Allah – not Prophet Muhammad – who named Muslims, Muslim; long before the birth of the Prophet.

“And strive in His cause as ye ought to strive, (with sincerity and under discipline). He has chosen you, and has imposed no difficulties on you in religion; it is the cult of your father Abraham. It is He Who has named you Muslims, both before (and in this Revelation); that the Messenger may be a witness for you, and ye be witnesses for mankind! So establish regular Prayer, give regular Charity, and hold fast to Allah. He is your Protector - the Best to protect and the Best to help!” - Quran 22:78

If we use the Quran as its own witness, almost all of the history books on Islam, whether written by Muslims or Non-Muslims, that usually record Islam with the coming of Prophet Muhammad and make the Prophet as the founder of Islam run contrary to the Quranic stance. At best they are relating the history of the Arab people and how the Arabs impacted the world and built an empire based on their ‘new faith’, Islam. (Here is where the historian Albert Habib Hourani got it right by calling his book “A History of the Arab Peoples”.)
           
            The Quran’s version of the history of mankind started with Adam, the first civilized homosapien, one who is endowed with the power of conceptual thoughts and language: our ability to talk (Quran 2:31). As such Islam’s history is world history, not the history of the Arabs.

“When thy Lord drew forth from the Children of Adam - from their loins - their descendants, and made them testify concerning themselves, (saying): “Am I not your Lord (who cherishes and sustains you)?”- They said:  Yea! We do testify!” (This), lest ye should say on the Day of Judgment: “Of this we were never mindful” - Quran 7:172. Also refer to 7:31, 7:70, 2:33, 2:37, 7:27

“O ye Children of Adam! Whenever there come to you apostles from amongst you, rehearsing My signs unto you, - those who are righteous and mend (their lives), - on them shall be no fear nor shall they grieve.” - Quran 7:35

It is this myopic view and basic assumption of Islam’s history as beginning from the time of Prophet Muhammad, that over the years has steered Muslims to deviate from having a universal approach towards Islam and hence have grown to be more and more exclusive rather than inclusive of all the other communities and spiritual traditions. This in turn makes Muslim society monopolistic towards Allah and the Heavens, creating a clear dichotomy and an ‘us’ and ‘them’ approach negating the Quranic position that all who worship in the monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques are in essence venerating Allah. (Refer Quran 22:40 below).

On the other hand, the Quran suggests the following:

“And, verily, this community of yours is one single community, since I am the Sustainer of you all: remain, then, conscious of Me!” - Quran 23:52

Places of Worship

Since all the messengers were Allah sent; the Quran equates all calls in every place of worship must only be for Him.

And that all places of worship whether they are mosques, monasteries or churches honor Him,

“They are those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right,- (for no cause) except that they say, ‘our Lord is Allah..’ Did not Allah check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure. Allah will certainly aid those who aid his (cause);- for verily Allah is full of Strength, Exalted in Might, (able to enforce His Will).” - Quran 22:40

And those who do not allow the name of Allah to be mentioned in places of worship are considered unjust.

“And who is more unjust than he who forbids that in places for the worship of Allah, Allah’s name should be celebrated? - whose zeal is (in fact) to ruin them? ….” - Quran 2:114

And the only deity worth praising is Allah alone,

“All praise is due to Allah alone the Sustainer of all the Worlds.” - Quran 1:2

Is there a Monopoly to Allah, Religion and Paradise?

          Contrary to popular understanding, Prophet Muhammad did not seek to destroy the other ways of life/religions like Christianity, Judaism, etc., but he constantly called on the Jews and Christians to agree that we are praying to the same God, Allah.

            Ironically the Quran’s main argument against the Jews and Christians during the time of the Prophet is their monopolistic claim to Allah and paradise.

“Verily Allah is my lord and your lord: Him therefore serve ye: this is a Way that is straight.” - Quran 19:36

“Say: Will ye dispute with us about Allah, seeing that He is our lord and your lord; that we are responsible for our doings and ye for yours; and that We are sincere (in our faith) in Him?” - Quran 2:139

“And they say: “None shall enter paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian.” Those are their (vain) desires. Say “Produce your proof if ye are truthful.” - Quran 2:111

The Quran suggests the Unity of religions and the Quran was sent to confirm all the previous scriptures.

“Those who believe, and those who follow the Jewish, and the Christians and the Sabians, - any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.” - Quran 2:62. Also refer to 5:69

“And who believe in the Revelation sent to thee, and sent before thy time, and (in their hearts) have the assurance of the Hereafter.” - Quran 2:4

“It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus)...” - Quran 3:3. Also refer to 5:48

It is part of Allah’s plan to provide mankind with multiple platforms to achieve the ultimate goal that is to reach Him. How to reach Him, of rites and ceremonies, it is open.

“To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way? If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah. It is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute.” - Quran 5:48

“To every People have We appointed rites and ceremonies which they must follow: let them not then dispute with thee on the matter, but do thou invite (them) to thy Lord: for thou art assuredly on the Right Way.” - Quran 22:67

The objective of the Quran is to make faith and deed as the criteria for salvation, not religious affiliation to any particular community. This criterion is not just for those who were born since the coming of Prophet Muhammad but also inclusive of those from the very beginning of the history of man and till the end of time.

The Quran specifically identified righteousness as the best platform.

“O ye Children of Adam! We have bestowed raiment upon you to cover your shame, as well as to be an adornment to you. But the raiment of righteousness, - that is the best. Such are among the Signs of Allah, that they may receive admonition!” - Quran 7:26

And what is righteousness in the Quran?

“It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces towards East or West; but it is righteousness-

1. to believe in Allah
2. and the Last Day,
3. and the Angels,
4. and the Revelation,
5. and the Messengers;
6. to spend of your substance, out of love for Him,
            a. for your kin,
            b. for orphans,
            c. for the needy,
            d. for the wayfarer,
            e. for those who ask,
            f. and for the ransom of slaves;
7. to be steadfast in prayer,
8. and practice regular charity;
9. to fulfill the contracts which ye have made;
10. and to be firm and patient,
            a. in pain (or suffering)
            b. and adversity,
            c. and throughout all periods of panic.

Such are the people of truth, the Allah fearing.” - Quran 2:177


 The Quran and the Christians

The Quran does not reject nor accept Christianity wholesale. The Quran disagrees with Christianity’s interpretation of history mainly about who Jesus was. In the Quran, Jesus was a prophet and he is not the son of Allah and as such the Quran disagrees with the concept of Trinity (refer Quran 4:171).
           
In the Quran, Jesus did not die on the cross nor was he Resurrected. The Quran suggests that Jesus survived the crucifixion and later died just as all the other prophets before him (refer Quran 5:75, 4:157). Jesus is similar to Prophet Muhammad and all the previous Messengers (refer Quran 3:144, 21:7-8, 25:20) who came, did their job and died (refer Quran 3:185).

The Quran is also opposed to any religion be it Judaism, Christianity or any other Tradition, who suggest that followers other than theirs are doomed; that is, if Christianity seeks to monopolize Allah and Salvation (refer earlier Quranic quotes).

As for Christians, again there is no wholesale acceptance or rejection. There are bad Christians who are unjust and selfish (refer Quran 5:51-52) and good ones who fight for what is right.

“Not all of them are alike: Of the People of the Book are portions that stand (For the right): They rehearse the Signs of Allah all night long, and they prostrate themselves in adoration.” - Quran 3:113

And among the good Christians are those similar to good Muslims, men of understanding, who care about the hereafter and are not arrogant.

“Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, “We are Christians”: because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant.” - Quran 5:82

The Conclusion

It is clear that it is not only permissible to use the term Allah to refer to God in the Bible, it is exactly what the Quran wants us to do. What an irony.

I would like to thank my Christian brothers and sisters in their effort to make Allah the universal name of God and wanting the name to be the preferred reference of God in the Bible.

But, you must not stop there.

You must also strive hard to ensure that not just the Bahasa Malaysia and Bahasa Indonesia Bibles use the term Allah but all the other translations in the world regardless if they are in Mandarin, Tamil, Japanese, English, Russian or Hindi uses the same term. Malaysian Christians can lead the world of Christianity to make Allah the universal name of God with the solid support of their Muslim brothers and sisters. Anything that can bring us closer together must be supported. A shared universal name to call our God Allah seems a most appropriate place to start.

Failing to do so will create mistrust because the correct term for God in Malay is Tuhan. The Muslims will question your consistency and sincerity. Because the real issue here is Trust. Not the technicality of the term Allah, Tuhan, Elohim, Elah etc. This is where we need to focus. This is what we need to pay attention to.

There are three levels of trust missing

Firstly we do not trust each other. The Muslims perceive the inconsistency of Christians wanting to use the term Allah in the Malay Bible and not the other translations as a plot to convert Malay Muslims to Christianity. And, the Christians perceive the Muslims rejection of the usage of the term as another strategy to block the spread of the Christian faith to Muslims in Malaysia. This feeling is deep in the Christian psyche as they find the lopsided law on conversion in Malaysia to be unfair (check what the Quran says about this at 83:1-3 and 5:8).

Secondly, we do not trust ourselves. The Muslims lack confidence of fellow Muslims and feel that just by using the term Allah, their faith towards Islam can be shaken. The Christians lack confidence that being Christ-like is enough to attract others to the faith. That when you turn the other cheek, you win.

Yet the deepest rot is the lack of trust in Allah or God or Tuhan or any other name with which you want to call upon Him! Both Muslims and Christians fail to trust that Allah will be with those who are true and love those who trust Him. If we do so, we have nothing to fear and nothing to grieve. Failing to trust Him, we become weak, insecure and misguided.                           
  
“Nay, God is your protector, and He is the best of helpers.” - Quran 3:150





Thursday, July 11, 2013

TWZ - Teh Tarik, Cekodok, and Chat at zubedy





We at zubedy are currently organising the #SaySomethingNice campaign, a nationwide campaign to help heal Malaysia. It seeks to encourage truce and showcase the best side of our nation. For 17 days, the period betwen Hari Merdeka and Hari Malaysia, we want to portray Malaysia in a very positive light by getting fellow Malaysians to focus on saying (or doing) nice things to and about each other, using a medium of their preference.

With the backing of Yayasan 1 Malaysia, zubedy has managed to get corporate and social entities to join and support the #SaySomethingNice campaign. Among them are, Tropicana City Mall, Everest Distributions, Kechara Soup Kitchen, and a number of national and private/international schools.

Guests of the 'Teh Tarik, Cekodok, and Chat' session wrote something nice about themselves, their hometown, work, and a friend they just met.
There are also some enthusiastic individuals who have agreed to be involved in the campaign like Hasnul Hadi (from Rhythm & Hues, the Malaysian animator for the Academy Award-winning film Life of Pi) who is spearheading the #teesomethingnice project. The contest was recently judged by renowned figures like Datin Paduka Marina Mahathir, Ahmad Izham Omar of Media Prima, and former 3R-host Low Ngai Yuen who now heads Kakiseni. Zalina Abdul Aziz, an accomplished folklore writer has also agreed to join in the campaign with her 'A Hikayat A Day' project.

In conjunction with the campaign, zubedy hosted friends and supporters of the #SaySomethingNice campaign who took time to gather at zubedy's office in Taman Tun Dr Ismail. The 'Teh Tarik, Cekodok, and Chat' session was held on Sunday, 7 July 2013.
Mr Saw Teong Hin having a conversation with Mr Shiro Tan from Chaserz, Ms. Syiqqin Azwan of zubedy, and Ms. Zalina Aziz of Pustaka Alam Nusantara.
Mr Saw Teong Hin (left) having a conversation with Mr Shiro Tan, Ms Azinurasyiqqin Azwan, and Ms Zalina Abdul Aziz.

The idea for the 'Teh Tarik, Cekodok, and Chat' session was mooted in order to gather supporters of the #SaySomethingNice campaign as well as other inquisitive minds who are interested in the campaign. We wanted to provide a platform for all of them to network and brainstorm on how best to proceed with the #SaySomethingNice campaign.





Kartika Sri Tun Ghaffar Baba (middle) and her mother Toh Puan D. Heryati Abdul Rahim engaging with Mr John Ng.
We managed to host enthusiastic and positive Malaysians from all walks at the 'Teh Tarik, Cekodok, and Chat' session. Mr Saw Teong Hin, the filmmaker and director of the epic film Puteri Gunung Ledang and Kartika Sri Tun Ghaffar Baba who came together with her mother - the Chairperson of Foundation Kartika - were there at the event in support of the campaign.

Also in attendance were representatives from Yayasan 1 Malaysia, International Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies (IAIS), Tropicana City Mall, Nikon Malaysia, niche groups like Chaserz and Pustaka Alam Nusantara, Denaihati.com, and several other keen individual persons.

Guests listening intently to the presentation by Anas Zubedy.


During a presentation by Anas Zubedy, he talked of how ordinary Malaysians at the ground level should also get involve in setting the Unity agenda to unite fellow Malaysians. And the 17-day period between Hari Merdeka and Hari Malaysia - the day when Tanah Melayu, Sabah, and Sarawak became one - provides us with the best platform to bring all Malaysians together.

The #SaySomethingNice campaign can be the start of a yearly affair. And in 10 to 15 years time, we at zubedy envision that Malaysia could be known for the time segment of 17 days where tourists and travellers from all over will come in droves to experience the best of Malaysia, where they get to experience the rainbow that is our country.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

zubedy invites all interested and like-minded Malaysians to join in the #SaySomethingNice campaign. Both organisational or individual participations are welcomed.


To join us in this endeavour or simply to know more about the campaign, please do not hesitate to contact Hidayah Mazlan for more information. She is contactable at 03 7727 0758 / 019 233 0758 or you may email her at the following address: hidayah@zubedy.com

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

The TPP — Be Cautious! BY Dr. Chandra Muzaffar

The proponents of the Trans Pacific Partnership argue that the TPP would bring huge benefits to Malaysia “with as much as US $ 40 billion (RM 128.4 billion) in annual export gains and US $ 25 billion in annual income gains by 2025.” Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in particular will reap a bonanza. The TPP, it is said, will also “give Malaysia preferential access to a US $ 15 trillion economy, which means access to the US $ 500 billion in US government tenders.”
As against these projections, there are issues of tremendous significance pertaining to the TPP that have been raised by a variety of citizen groups in almost all the 12 countries (Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, United States and Vietnam) that are currently part of the negotiation process. These issues have emerged as a result of leaks since no officially sanctioned draft has been placed before the public. The negotiations — the 18th round of which will commence in Kota Kinabalu( Malaysia)  on the 15th of July 2013 — are shrouded in secrecy though representatives of major corporations such as Monsanto, Walmart, Bank of America, JP Morgan, Cargill, Exxon-Mobil, and Chevron, among others, it is alleged, have had full access to the draft and have been “suggesting amendments.”
One of the issues that has caused grave concern is a set of rules in the TPP which apparently would empower foreign corporations to bypass domestic laws and courts and challenge government policies and regulations aimed at protecting the public interest via tribunals linked to the World Bank and the UN. If this is true, it would be an affront to national sovereignty.
The TPP also prohibits governments and central banks from imposing capital controls or banning risky financial products. Central banks would have diminished capacity to regulate the entry and exit of speculative capital. Countries that are part of the TPP would be compelled to create an even more conducive environment for casino capitalism. Given Malaysia’s relative success in developing regulatory mechanisms during and after the 1998 Asian financial crisis, this aspect of the TPP would be particularly galling.
The adverse impact of this trade pact upon national sovereignty and the economic well-being of countries such as Malaysia is underscored by yet another provision which questions our procurement policies. Apart from seeking to rectify economic imbalances, government procurement policies have also attempted to expedite technology transfers to local industries, enhance export capabilities and curb foreign exchange outflows. These are goals that do not conform to TPP objectives.
The TPP also allows pharmaceutical corporations to increase the price of medicines and to limit consumer access to cheaper generic drugs. Monopoly patents would be better protected and the purchase of generic drugs would be made more difficult. At the same time, by designating a whole spectrum of policies, regulations and practices as “trade barriers” the proposed agreement undermines some of the people oriented measures associated with different TPP countries. For instance, the TPP, it is alleged, upbraids the Malaysian government for “requiring that slaughter plants maintain dedicated halal facilities and ensure segregated transportation for halal and non-halal products.”
While some of the provisions of the TPP may be set aside at the behest of individual countries, it is obvious that the US which is the driving force behind the pact is determined to use it as its vehicle to strengthen its economic position in the Pacific region in the face of the rise of China. It explains why China itself — economically the most dynamic nation in the region — has not been invited to join the TPP. This is why it would be naïve to view the TPP as a mere economic and trade arrangement. Its underlying motive is clearly political. It is a critical weapon in the US arsenal for curbing and containing the emergence of a power which has the potential of shaping the future of the entire Pacific in the decades to come.
The US will not allow this to happen. It knows that in order to remain as the world’s sole superpower it has to ensure that it is at the helm of that one region with the greatest economic viability and vitality. The US already has 320,000 troops in the Pacific region. That is the military arm of Pacific Power. The TPP is designed to secure the economic dimension of Pacific Power.
As a nation committed to harmonious relations among states, Malaysia should be extra cautious about participating in any venture by any power, be it the United States or China, to enhance its hegemony over the Pacific — a region whose very name signifies peace.

Monday, July 8, 2013

Egyptian Army Coup Topples Islamist President Mursi By Johannes Stern & Alex Lantier

The ouster of Egyptian President Mohammed Mursi, following four days of nationwide mass protests, has placed power in the hands of a military junta which is committed to the defense of the economic interests of the country’s ruling class and to the geo-political aims of American imperialism.
The removal of the hated Mursi regime has evoked jubilation. However sincere and deeply felt this sentiment may be, the fact is that Mursi’s overthrow has placed the army, not the masses, in power. None of the essential demands that motivated the mass protests—for decent jobs, livable wages, adequate social services, and democratic rights—will be met by the military regime.
The military has intervened for one overriding purpose: to pre-empt and suppress the growing political movement of the Egyptian working class. The coalition government that it unveiled last night is in no way a genuine expression of the democratic strivings of the working class. Rather, the new ruling structure is a sinister coalition of reactionary forces, which includes long-time henchmen of Hosni Mubarak, various Islamic politicians, and several liberal politicians with close connections to the US-based International Monetary Fund. None of the individuals and organizations has either a mass social base or advances a popular social program.
After seizing control of Muslim Brotherhood (MB) television stations and reportedly arresting Mursi, the head of the military junta, General Abdul Fatah Khalil Al-Sisi, unveiled a political “road map” that includes the immediate suspension of the constitution and the formation of a so-called “national technocratic” government.
The term “technocratic” is being bandied about to evoke the image of politically neutral experts who stand above partisan class interests. In reality, the so-called “technocrats” are steeped in the reactionary nostrums of the international banks.
The anti-working class character of the government emerges clearly from examining the list of reactionaries who flanked al-Sisi as he announced his “road map” yesterday evening. These included several generals, Coptic pope Tawadros II, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Ahmed Al-Tayyeb, and opposition politicians including National Salvation Front (NSF) leader and former UN official Mohamed ElBaradei, Younis Makhioun of the far-right Salafist Al Nour Party, and Mahmoud Badr of the opposition Tamarod (“Rebel”) coalition.
Each one of these figures was selected to create the impression of broad support for the new regime across key political and religious divides in Egypt.
The army chose the head of the Supreme Constitutional Court, Adly Mansour, as president. Mohamed ElBaradei has been named prime minister. There are vague promises of early elections.
Mansour had long ties to the old Mubarak regime. ElBaradei, who worked for years as an official of the United Nations, has close ties to the economic and foreign policy establishment of the United States. ElBaradei supports austerity measures worked out in talks with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which favors cuts to subsidies for basic goods such as grain and fuel.
In the political maneuvers that set the stage for the military coup, a key role has been played by the Tamarod coalition. This is a thoroughly pro-capitalist political movement. Founded at the end of April as a campaign to collect signatures against Mursi, it quickly became a rallying point for a range of opposition parties—liberal, Islamist and pseudo-left alike—and remnants of the former Mubarak regime who oppose the MB. Its supporters include El Baradei’s NSF, the Islamist Strong Egypt Party of former MB member Abdel Moneim Aboul Fotouh, the April 6 Youth Movement, and the pseudo-left Revolutionary Socialists (RS). The movement also accepted an endorsement from General Ahmed Shafiq, the last prime minister under Mubarak.
Although the United States had been backing Mursi, the Obama administration entered into talks with the Egyptian military once it became clear that the regime could not be saved. The Egyptian army launched the coup after intensive discussions with General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff.
In a statement yesterday evening, US President Barack Obama backed the removal of Mursi, while taking care to avoid the word “coup.” Using vague language that imposed no restraints on the military, Obama sanctimoniously requested that the army “move quickly and responsibly to return full authority back to a democratically elected civilian government as soon as possible, through an inclusive and transparent process.”
Once again, the Revolutionary Socialists—the most prominent of the pseudo-left groups in Egypt—has adapted its rhetoric to the political maneuvers of the bourgeoisie. In February 2011, the RS backed the military junta that came to power after Mubarak’s ouster. In 2012, as the military faced mounting popular opposition, they hailed Mursi’s election as a victory for the revolution. Now that the working class has moved into struggle against Mursi and the MB, they have aligned themselves with a coup to bring back the army and elements of the old Mubarak regime into power.

The only consistent element of the RS’s reactionary politics has been their opposition to the emergence of an independent political movement of the working class. They speak for sections of the upper middle class, closely connected to the Egyptian bourgeois establishment and its imperialist backers.

Sunday, July 7, 2013

A rose by any other name? by Lisa Goh - The STAR

Human rights and legal experts share their views on whether the Emergency Ordinance, in any form or name, should remain as it is – gone.
THE Emergency (Public Order and Crime Prevention) Ordinance, thought to have been put to bed in 2011, may now be waking up from its short nap.
Just three days ago (Thursday), Home Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi announced that the first draft of a new special preventive law, similar to the Emergency Ordinance (EO), had been sent to the Attorney-General’s Chambers for consideration.
The draft was announced less than two weeks after criminologist Assoc Prof Dr P. Sundramoorthy of Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) urged the Government to consider a new preventive law to tackle violent crime, which he claimed had “surged” since the EO was repealed two years ago.
In his letter to the press (published June 25), Dr Sundramoorthy said USM’s research team on crime and policing had anticipated that “the country was going to see a surge in violent crimes, especially those involving gangs and recidivists (repeat offenders), based on our research on this matter.
“Although it has been criticised as draconian, inhumane and undemocratic, it cannot be denied that the EO served its purpose in dealing with terrorists, secret societies, gangs, recidivists and organised crime members since its implementation in 1969.
“Most of the detainees under the EO in the last three decades were alleged to have been involved in gang activities, extortion, kidnapping, gaming and executing operations for crime bosses.
“Almost 2,000 criminals were released after the repeal of the EO last year,” he wrote.
He even posed a question to Malaysian citizens: “To what extent are we willing to give up safety for the sake of liberty and democracy?”
Dr Sundramoorthy’s suggestion has been received both ways. While some laud the move, believing it will make Malaysia a little safer, others dread the possible resurrection of the draconian law.
“What we’re advocating is for a law similar to EO, but not identical to EO, to be established. Unlike the EO, it can have safeguards to prevent abuses by the authorities... even provisions to allow for a detention to be reviewed. But we must have a law to allow police to detain habitual repeat offenders.
“I’m not saying that EO was a perfect tool, but it was able to deal with this small group of people who proved extremely difficult for the authorities to successfully prosecute and obtain a conviction against,” he tells Sunday Star.

Saturday, July 6, 2013

Egypt 's Islamist Project On The Brink By Yasmine Fathi

@ Ahram Online
Despite decades of planning for Egypt 's eventual transition into an Islamic state, only two years of post-revolution politics appear to have put paid to the Muslim Brotherhood's longed-for Islamist renaissance
As Egypt 's first freely chosen president took the stage last summer, the thousands arrayed in Cairo 's Tahrir Square roared their approval. After a knife's-edge vote, the Muslim Brotherhood's Mohammed Morsi had clinched the country's most powerful civilian position – the secretive Islamist organization's goal for over eight decades. Now, surely, an Islamic state was within its grasp.
But one year on, Morsi's unofficial inauguration in downtown Cairo seems more like the pinnacle of the Islamists' power then the emergence of a Sharia-compliant Egypt .
In fact, the Muslim Brotherhood's dream of establishing an Islamic state in Egypt is nowhere close to becoming a reality. Some experts believe that, not only has Morsi's first year in power tarnished the image of the 85-year-old group, but that of all Islamists.
Following Mubarak's downfall in February 2011, the Islamists – and specifically the Brotherhood – were expected to effortlessly climb to power. They were the largest opposition present at the time and had the sympathy of many average Egyptians. Their selling point was Islamic Law and the establishment of an Islamic state that would take Egypt back to the glory days of Islam.
The Brotherhood quickly established its political leg, the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP).
Meanwhile, members of Egypt 's Salafist Call – the country's largest Salafist movement – established the Nour Party. During the Mubarak era, Salafists had refused to participate in opposition politics on grounds that it was sinful to oppose a Muslim ruler.
Parliamentary, constitutional travails
The two competed in the first post-Mubarak parliamentary and Shura Council elections, winning majorities in both. Despite their lackluster performance in parliament – in which they were accused of ignoring pressing matters, such as Egypt's failing economy, while focusing on trivial issues – they remained popular with many Egyptians.
"Their performance in parliament had a negative impact," explained political analyst and former MP Emad Gad. "But when Morsi came to power, most people still had a positive view of the Islamic project. But during his first year in office he managed to destroy this image in the eyes of most Egyptians."
He points out that Morsi has made many promises that he never kept and that his regime has tried to 'Brotherhoodise' the nation by taking over many of the country's top institutions, including the Ministry of Interior and the judiciary.
However, Gad adds that the turning point came when he passed a constitution that was rejected by most political forces in Egypt .
The constituent assembly tasked with drafting Egypt 's new constitution saw numerous squabbles, along with accusations that Islamist assembly members were forcing their opinions on the non-Islamist minority. This led most non-Islamist members to withdraw from the constitution-drafting body, leaving only the Islamists to conduct a final vote in a 14-hour marathon session.
"After this, he confirmed to the public that the Islamic current is undemocratic and does not like dialogue," said Gad.
Morsi's refusal to fulfill his promises, including the creation of a coalition government that would include Egypt 's diverse political forces, also hurt his popularity, say critics.
"His lack of commitment to democracy made people not trust him," explained Khalil El-Anani, senior fellow at the Middle East Institute in Washington . "Secondly, it showed that the Islamists are fascists, and don't have a democratic ideology."
Additionally, many Egyptians began to realize that what is said and what is done are two different things.
"He talked about the Islamic project, but did not apply Islamic Law, which is one of the main sellers of the Islamic project," said El-Anani.
El-Anani pointed out that Morsi agreed to take a loan from the IMF at interest, which is forbidden by Islamic Law.
However, Ahmed Sobie, a leading member of the FJP shoots down these accusations.
“The Islamic current has actually proven to be much more democratic and more serious about pushing Egypt into a democratic path then the other currents,” he said.
He pointed out that it is the Islamist current that has fought to keep the parliament and Shura Council in place. The Supreme Council of Armed Forces (SCAF) that was ruling Egypt after the ousting of Mubarak had dissolved the parliament in June after a ruling by the Supreme Constitutional Court (SCC) found fault with laws governing the assembly's elections.
One of Morsi's first actions after becoming president is to reinstate the parliament. When the SCC suspended his decision a few days later, the Islamists began a yearlong fight to keep the Shura Council, which was threatened with a similar fate.
“We did this to protect Egypt . We had to make sure that all its important institutions were working,” Sobie added.

He also said that it was the Islamists who fought to draft a new constitution for Egypt . He also denied that the Islamists controlled the constituent assembly.
“Let's not forget that it was the Islamist ultra conservative Building and Development Party that decided to give up their seats in the constituent assembly for the liberals and leftists,” Sobie said. “They did this in order to give them a voice,” stressed Sobie.
He also pointed out that it was Morsi who turned Egypt from a military state to a civil state.
“I doubt either the liberal or Nasserists would have been able to do this amidst all the criticism we received,” explained Sobie.
Alienating the Islamists
However, it is not just the liberal and leftists forces that are at loggerheads with Morsi. The Islamists themselves have also felt let down by him.
“I believe that Morsi's first year in power, had a negative impact on the Islamic project,” said Nader Bakar, spokesperson of the Salafist Nour Party.
He accused Morsi and the Brotherhood of marginalizing and alienating anyone who is not a member of the group. Then he points out that shed a bad light on the Islamic project.
“The Islamic project does not say that you discriminate between the citizens of one country; it does not say promote authoritarian rule, it does not tell us to ignore those who have opposing views,” explained Bakar. “The stubbornness of the Brotherhood and the unprofessional manner in which they dealt with all the problems of the country has had a negative impact on the way average Egyptians view the Islamists.”
The Islamists also had other gripes with Morsi including his decision to license liquor stores and his lack of support to officers wanting to sport Islamist-style beards. He also opted to smooth relations with Iran thus paving the way for Shia tourists – often seen as a threat by Sunni Muslims – to enter Egypt .
"He also allowed security forces to pursue jihadists, which turned even more Islamists against him," said El-Anani.
He adds that several other factors have led to the Brotherhood's failure to lead the country, one of which is the lack of experience in running a populous, diverse and complex state like Egypt .
Mubarak's iron-fisted rule and repression of the Islamists also resulted in their being excluded from working in government bodies and gaining needed experience.
"Another is the secretive character of the Brotherhood," said El-Anani. "They know how to work under pressure, but not openly."
Nor did Egypt 's January 25 Revolution provide the group sufficient time to go from repressed opposition to ruling power.
El-Anani cited the example of Turkey , where the Islamists were gradually drawn into politics allowing them to develop their ideas and moderate their political discourse and approach.
In Egypt , by contrast, the Brotherhood was faced with what El-Anani calls "sudden inclusion."
"They couldn't strike the balance between being an opposition movement and a responsible political force or ruling party. So they now hover between both," he explained. "They still think of themselves as an opposition movement, staging protests, strikes and sit-ins; the mindset has not changed."
On a more practical level, Morsi's government has failed to provide Egyptians with much needed services. During the past year, there have been frequent power cuts, along with shortages of diesel fuel, gasoline and bread, among other vital commodities.
"These shortfalls are what bother people the most," says political analyst Amr Hashem Rabie. "In terms of other issues – concerning politics, judicial independence, human rights and civil rights – Mubarak repressed the Egyptians in all this, too. But he, at least, offered these services to the people, so they were patient with his rule to a certain extent."
Islamist disunity
What's more, the Islamists' united front after Mubarak's downfall did not last long. Within months, cracks appeared, as electoral rivalries heated up.
Hostilities climaxed when the Salafist Nour Party split in early 2013, after party president Emad Abdel-Ghafour defected and announced the formation of a new party, the Watan Party. There were reports that the Brotherhood had played a role in the falling out.
"The Brotherhood encouraged the differences between the Salafists to split and weaken them," explained El-Anani. "This is what used to happen under Mubarak; it's the same old game played by Mubarak-era leaders to divide the opposition in order to manipulate them."
Another issue is that inter-Islamist divisions have always been present. Their unity in the days following the revolution, says El-Anani, was only temporary.
"There has always been historical tension between them," he explained. "They never trusted each other. This dates back to the end of the 1970s and early 1980s, when they clashed in Alexandria University ."
Tarek Osman, author of ' Egypt on the Brink,' added that the revolution had brought together different Islamic forces to fight a common enemy.
"The revolution brought together these forces behind a very clear objective: defining themselves as 'Islamists' against the old regime and against the liberal current in Egypt ," he said. "The more they delve into the details of the country's legislative, political and economic transition, the more the fractures appear."
Many Egyptians are now discontented with the Brotherhood's performance. The group's seeming confusion has prompted a popular joke: "The Brotherhood fought to control Egypt for 80 years but had no plan what to do when it actually achieved it."
It remains unclear how much damage this last year has done to the Islamists' popularity.
"In this struggle about the country's social identity, the shape of the future, the loudest voice – the key determinant – will be the 45-million Egyptians under 35 years old," said Osman. "Their preferences, ideas and views will be the deciding factor," he asserted. "At the end of the day, it is a fight over the hearts and minds of this generation."

© 2010 Ahram Online

Thursday, July 4, 2013

Conversion Of The Child : The Quest For A Just Solution by Dr. Chandra Muzaffar

In the midst of the on-going discussion on the question of the conversion of a child to Islam, it is important to pay serious attention to an objective and balanced Policy Paper on the issue produced by the International Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies (IAIS) based here in Kuala Lumpur in December 2012. The Paper entitled “Conversion in Malaysia: Issues and Reform Proposals” was researched and prepared by a group led by IAIS Chairman and CEO, Professor Mohammad Hashim Kamali, widely recognised as one of the world’s most outstanding  Islamic jurists.

A response to a Bill presented to the Dewan Rakyat in April 2009 which was subsequently withdrawn, the Paper notes that “there is difference of opinion over the religion of the child when only one of the parents embraces Islam.” The majority position represented by various schools of Islamic jurisprudence and jurists is that “the child follows the religion of the parent who has converted to Islam, be it the father or mother.”
However, in line with the Islamic public law doctrine of siyasah shari’yyah, which authorises the government to “issue ordinances, and enact rules and procedures, including legislation and policy measures, that serve the cause of justice and good governance,” with the higher goals and purposes of Shari’ah in mind, the maqasid al-shari’ah,  the Paper argues that it may be necessary to review the “ hitherto prevailing pattern of legislation that Malaysia has applied to conversion cases”  which “ has evidently fallen short of finding satisfactory solutions to conversion-related cases…”       
  
The primary concern of State and legislation, the Paper points out, “should be the welfare of the child…” This means that the custody of the child should take precedence over “the determination of the child’s religion.” The religion of the child “would depend on which parent is the guardian or has custody of the child.”  In both Islamic law and civil law, the Paper emphasises, “the interest or welfare of the child is paramount in determining the custodial rights over a child.”

The Paper then lays out various options on how the question of the custody of the child could be resolved. The first option is to amend section 51 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 and make the “civil court the court of jurisdiction in conversion cases.”  A shar’iah court can also play this role since a “non-Muslim challenging a conversion could appear in a Shariah Court to set aside any order.” A second option is to set up a special bench of mixed jurisdiction “where both Shari’ah and civil law judges sit and adjudicate in disputed issues of conversion and religious identity of the child.”  A third option is to establish a Judicial Committee under the Conference of Rulers.       
    
Whatever the chosen mechanism, the Paper makes it explicitly clear that “upholding justice should be the concern of the protectors of Islam in this country. The religion is built upon a set of principles. Surely the larger and more significant battle would be to defend Islam’s integrity as opposed to manoeuvring a purported “victory” by insisting that minors automatically become Muslim when either parent converts to Islam. Is this firstly in the child’s best interest? Secondly, are we not concerned that we may hurt the sensitivities of non-Muslims in multi-racial Malaysia and betray what Islam stands for as a result? Would the Ummah benefit from this in the long run?        

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar,
Chairman,
Board of Trustees,
Yayasan 1Malaysia.

(Members of the public interested in the Policy Paper referred to in the above letter can write to www.iais.org.my)