they should look into all religious groups who have historys of becomming radicalize
KUALA LUMPUR, March 8 — An MP today suggested the setting up of a commission on the revocation of the citizenship of those Malaysians who tarnish the good name of the country.
Datuk Ibrahim Ali (IND-Pasir Mas) said such a commission was necessary in view of the tendency of certain people to raise sensitive issues and ridicule the government to garner political support and spark tension in the country.
“I propose the setting up of the commission to penalise those who smear the country’s name locally and abroad through the mass media, regardless of whether they are Malays, Chinese or Indians or whoever it is.
“What is the use of being a (Malaysian) citizen without showing loyalty and doing things contrary to the (country’s) laws,” he said when speaking during the debate on the motion of thanks for the royal address in the Dewan Rakyat.
Ibrahim also suggested that the Sedition Act be amended or a new law be enacted to prevent non-Muslims from questioning Islam and engaging in acts sensitive to the religion.
He said that of late some non-Muslims had questioned the “azan” (call for prayer), quoted verses from the Quran during political campaigns and given speeches in mosques.
Ibrahim also suggested that the basics of nationhood be included in the History subject in schools to familiarise students with the basis of the formation of the country.
He said there were citizens who did not know how to speak Bahasa Malaysia, the national language.
Muslims and Christians can work together to depose dictators and assert the power of the people. We've seen it happen on the Tahrir Square in Cairo during the 2011 revolution in Egypt, with devout Muslims and Coptic Christians protesting side by side. But can Muslims and Christians work together to build a democratic society in which rights of all are respected, the rights of minority Coptic Christians no less than the rights of majority Muslims? They can, if they have a common set of fundamental values. But do they? They do, if they, both monotheists, have a common God.
Ever since 9/11, the most common question I am asked when I speak about these two religions is whether or not Muslims and Christians worship the same God. Muslims don't push the question. But Christians do, vigorously -- in Europe, Asia and Africa no less than in North America. Maybe that's not surprising. In the manual of the terrorists who flew the planes on a suicidal mission it read: "Remember, this is a battle for the sake of God." In the name of God and with expectations of glory in this world and rewards in the next, they killed themselves and thousands of innocent civilians. To many Christians it seems obvious that the God who spills the blood of the innocent and rewards suicidal missions with paradisiacal pleasures can't be the God they worship.
The question, however, isn't mainly about the terrorists and their God. It's about Muslims generally. It draws its energy from a deep concern. To ask: "Do we have a common God?" is to worry: "Can we live together without bloodshed?" That's why whether a given community worships the same god as another community has always been a crucial cultural and political question and not just a theological one.
Here are the realities we all face:
- Christianity and Islam are today the most numerous and fastest growing religions globally. Together they encompass more than half of humanity. Consequence: both are here to stay.
- As a result of globalization, ours is an interconnected and interdependent world. Religions are intermingled within single states and across their boundaries.Consequence: Muslims and Christians will increasingly share common spaces.
- Since both religions are by their very nature "socially engaged" and since their followers mostly embrace democratic ideals, they will continue to push for their vision of the good life in the public square. Consequence: tensions between Muslims and Christians are unavoidable.
Growing, intertwined and assertive -- communities of Muslims and Christians will live together. But can they live in peace building together a common future?
At the height of the Iraq War in 2004, influential TV evangelist and former U.S. presidential candidate Pat Robertson said: "The entire world is being convulsed by a religious struggle. The fight is not about money or territory; it is not about poverty versus wealth; it is not about ancient customs versus modernity. No. The struggle is whether Hubal, the Moon God of Mecca, known as Allah, is supreme, or whether the Judeo-Christian Jehovah God of the Bible is supreme." Fighting words these are! Two supreme divine beings always means war.
The fact of the matter is this: fearful people bent on domination have created the contest for supremacy between Yahweh, the God of the Bible, and Allah, the God of the Quran. The two are one God, albeit differently understood. Arab Christians have for centuries worshiped God under the name "Allah." Most Christians through the centuries, saints and teachers of undisputed orthodoxy, have believed that Muslims worship the same God as they do. They did so even in times of Muslim cultural ascendency and military conquests, when they represented a grave threat to Christianity in the whole of Europe.
After the fall of Constantinople (1453), the city named after the first Christian emperor and a seat of Christendom for more than 1,000 years, Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, a towering intellect and an experienced church diplomat, affirmed unambiguously that Muslims and Christians worship the same God, albeit partly differently understood. Significantly, in response to the fall of Constantinople and the Muslim threat, Nicholas of Cusa advocated "conversation" rather than "crusade," a strategy pursued doggedly though unsuccessfully by his friend, Pope Pius II. For Nicholas believed that war could never solve the issue between Christendom and Islam.
We live in a different world than Nicholas and Pius II did, but our options are roughly the same. We should resolutely follow Nicholas. The terrorists must be stopped. As to the 1.6 billion Muslims, with them we must build a common future, one based on equal dignity of each person, economic opportunity and justice for all and freedom to govern common affairs through democratic institutions. Muslims and Christians have a set of shared fundamental values that can guide such a vision partly because they have a common God.
On Feb. 18, during the "Day of Celebration," Sheik al-Qaradawi -- one of the most influential Muslim clerics in the world, exiled from Egypt since 1961 -- addressed the crowd of over one million. He began by noting that he is discarding the customary opening "Oh, Muslims." In favor of "Oh, Muslims and Copts." He praised both for bringing about the revolution together. And he added, "I invite you to bow down in prayer together." Such prayer, addressed to the common God in distinct ways, lies at the foundation of hope for a new Egypt.
Whether Muslims and Christians worship the same God is also the driving question for the relation between these two religions globally. Does the one God of Islam stand in contrast to the three-personal God of Christianity? Does the Muslim God issue fierce, unbending laws and demand submission, whereas the Christian God stands for love, equal dignity and the right of every individual to be different? Answer these questions the one way, and you have a justification for cultural and military wars. Answer them the other way, and you have a foundation for a shared future marked by peace rather than violence.
Democracy is flawed. How else would you explain the perverted incentive system that plagues democracies? We call this plague corruption
When Anam Chaudhry, 17, sang the national anthem to several hundred protesters in Times Square on Sunday afternoon, she wore a Muslim headscarf, and around her shoulders, another garment: the American flag. "We love this country," said Imam Shamsi Ali, head of the Islamic Cultural Center here, after Chaudhry opened the interfaith rally. "We want to see America remain the most powerful and most beautiful country in the world." Faith leaders and supporters braved the rain on Sunday to protest the upcoming congressional hearings on homegrown Islamic terrorism planned for this Thursday (March 10). Protesters held signs and wore T-shirts bearing the rally's slogan, "Today, I am Muslim, too," while others said it was unjust to single out a religious group as a threat to national security. As the rally wore on, another slogan took shape in the speeches and protests. It was a cry for inclusion, an expression of patriotism: "I am American, too." "People say Islam is the enemy," said rally organizer Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who is also a co-founder of a controversial project to build a mosque near Ground Zero. "The real enemy is radicalization and extremism, and we, as Americans, are against it." Some faith leaders have encouraged Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., who, as chair of the House Committee on Homeland Security, has spearheaded the hearings, to widen its scope to include other threats to national security. "That's absolute nonsense," King told The New York Times on Sunday. "The threat is coming from the Muslim community, the radicalization attempts are directed at the Muslim community. Why should I investigate other communities?" Leaders at the rally expressed a desire to help fight against the threat of terrorism. "The threats to our country are too big to disqualify any person who 'loves freedom' -- as (former President George W.) Bush would say -- from lending a hand," said the Rev. Chloe Breyer, an Episcopal priest. Some protesters said they saw the hearings as a kind of hazing period for Muslims in America. Protesters from an array of countries waved American flags, but not everyone at the rally shared in the patriotic fever. "I don't like this country," said Muhammad Rashwan, 27, who moved to New York from Egypt two years ago. "The press is unfair to the Middle East, and people act like the words of the press come from God." Four blocks south of the rally, 50 people gathered in a counter-protest, but disbanded early on as the rain fell.
Last month, an annual fundraiser was held in Yorba Linda, Calif., to raise money for combating homelessness and domestic abuse in the local community. Sounds great, right? It's something that Christians, Jews and other faith groups do frequently, except this event happened to have been organized by Muslims.
Families who had given up a relaxing Sunday evening at home to attend their community's chicken dinner fundraiser were forced to walk past an angry mob that had gathered hours earlier in protest of their banquet. Shouts of "We don't want you here! Go back home! Go back home! Go back home!" and awful insults to the Prophet Muhammad were yelled as Muslim parents and their children entered the community center. Local news covered the protest, and a video was made of the ugly scene. Please take a few moments and view it here.
In the last year there have been quite a few anti-Muslim demonstrations around the country -- in front of mosques, at city council meetings, in marches around small towns, and other places -- but watching adults screaming, "Terrorists!" at children made me cry. Local Orange County residents shouted at the Muslim families, "You beat your women and you rape your children!" And, "Take your sharia and go home, you terrorist lovers. Your hands are bloody! Your money is bloody! Get out!"
This protest included elected officials standing in front of American flags spewing intolerant rhetoric aimed at their Muslim constituents. Deborah Pauly, local Councilwoman & Vice Chair of the Orange County GOP said, "I know quite a few Marines who would be very happy to help these terrorists to an early meeting in paradise." To the surprise of many, two United States Congressmen stood and spoke in support of the protests at this rally as well.
Things may get worse, Rep. Peter King (R-NY), Chair of the Homeland Security Committee of the House of Representatives, is holding McCarthy-like Congressional hearings beginning this Thursday on the "Radicalization of American Muslims." Quite a bit of the proposed witness list has looked like a who's who of Islamophobes, and we Muslim Americans are holding our collective breath waiting for the fallout from these hearings. We wonder: will we see more hate mobs outside our mosques or events due to hysteria being whipped up by these hearings? It's certainly possible, and Muslims around the country are strategizing on how to respond to protect our faith community from more bigoted protests, or even dangerous attacks on our places of worship and individuals.
Many have commented on the poise and dignity displayed by the Muslims at the Yorba Linda event. They marvel at how those children and teenagers walked through that line of screaming maniacs without responding in kind. I think I know why they were able to do it so gracefully.
Muslims have the Quran and the example of the life and words of the Blessed Prophet Muhammad. Like all of God's Prophets, he suffered greatly while delivering God's Word to the people in the early days of being a Messenger of God. The Quraish of Makkah, Muhammad's own friends and relatives, turned on him after he began to receive divine revelations of monotheism. Muhammad had been a well-respected member of one of the society's most prestigious tribal families, but when he declared that God forbade idol worship his place in society disappeared. Many people in the city turned on him with spite and malice. People threw rotting offal onto his back while he was prostrated in prayer; they threatened his life and those lives of his followers. He eventually had to flee from his oppressors in the night to save his life.
His early companions suffered greatly as well. One well-known example is of Bilal, a young Abyssinian (from modern day Ethiopia), who was tortured and dragged through the streets and then laid out on the hot sands while heavy rocks were piled on his chest in the effort to get him to renounce his belief in One God. It didn't work. Bilal was a constant companion to Muhammad thereafter, and he was Islam's first muezzin, the one who calls the faithful toprayer. The early Muslims remained strong, and did not compromise their beliefs, nor did they respond to the hate from the lowest depths of their character. Instead, they held strong to the words of God and drew their resolve from His message, and His Messenger. The accounts of persecution are many; we relate them to our children as they learn about Islam.
We teach our children that if those early Companions of the Blessed Prophet Muhammad could withstand physical torture, exile from their homes, and severe condemnation from family and neighbors, we can withstand a few idiots with signs and a bullhorn. We talk about how the early Muslims were a small minority among a majority of people who didn't understand them, and who often hated them. We celebrate the stories of those faithful who stood firm in their belief in One God.
When teaching our faith we also use contemporary examples of Muslims who struggle for justice through peaceful and dignified ways. The Egyptian Revolution is a prime example of Muslims standing strong for justice through nonviolent means. Our children watched the young people of Egypt peacefully win their freedom from oppression with love for each other -- Muslim and Christian both. We talk about how it's our obligation to God to continue this noble legacy of peaceful living and worship despite adversity.
My husband and I don't shield our children from harsh realities like this hate rally-it would be pointless to do it. They have experienced bigotry in small, insidious ways on many occasions. They've been called a terrorist out of earshot of teachers, they've felt the disdain from various people in public places, they've been shunned when it's time to pick teams in gym, or give out party invitations; they've heard people tell us, "go back home," when we are home.
However, it's our duty to God as Muslim parents to teach our kids to recall the child who befriended them when they were new in school, or the daily smile from the driver as he opens the yellow school bus doors, or our neighbor who told them they were the best behaved children she had ever met. It's all a matter of how you look at life, and what you choose to focus on. My kids are doing their best to stay strong in their faith, ignore the insults, and to cherish the love they get from friends and family-just as those families in Yorba Linda did.
My family wants to tell the Orange County Muslim families that we, and America's Muslim community are proud of them for showing the world what true Muslim character is all about.
Over the past month, there has been some speculation among members of the global Tamil community on whether Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa visited Texas to obtain cancer treatment in secret. The story in itself is not particularly interesting, but it does have relevance for the post-conflict situation in Sri Lanka. Many reacted to the news not with sadness, but with a sense that cosmic justice was being meted out. Some argued that Rajapaksa, responsible for mass human rights violations during the final months of the Sri Lankan civil war, was now getting his just desserts. Although many nationalist Tamils profess to be atheist or secular, the reaction to the news was always framed in Hindu and Buddhist notions of karma, popularly defined in the West as "what goes around comes around."
For Sinhala soldiers as well, the notion of karma was ever-present throughout the war with the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), which came to a bloody conclusion in May 2009. As Daniel Kent's recent research makes clear, Buddhist monks blessed Sri Lankan soldiers before they went out for training, preached at their funerals, and counseled soldiers and their families about the conduct of war and its justification.
For many years, scholarship on Buddhism, and Eastern religious traditions generally, was often guided by a crude assumption that Western religions held a monopoly on violence, while the East was largely peaceable. Over the last several years, research into conflict in Buddhist societies has forced scholars to rethink our assumptions. According to Kent's research in Sri Lanka, for example, there is real debate within the Sri Lankan army about notions of karma and intention in the killing of enemy soldiers. While there are many different aspects to the discussion, I focus here on one important question: whether religion, particularly discussions of karma and intention, restrict genuine reconciliation between Sinhala and Tamil communities in post-conflict Sri Lanka. I rely heavily on Kent's research on the Sri Lankan army, but much of what follows can likely be applied to the Tamil community as well.
Karma may complicate moves toward reconciliation in Sri Lanka, firstly, by assigning causal explanations to events that are largely inexplicable. Kent recalls interviewing a Sri Lankan Corporal, named Specs, at Panagoda army camp near Colombo, who told the story of narrowly escaping a blast from an improvised explosive device. His friend, who was not so lucky, was blinded and had both of his hands blown off. For Specs, his survival is explained with reference to karma. "That sort of thing must occur as the result of merit," he says, "one becomes disabled like this because of some sort of negative karma, but one's life is saved because one has done some sort of merit. That is what we think. It must be that. It is the way of karma." Not only do karmic explanations bring a spiritual rationalization to bear on worldly events, but these justifications often tend to be self-serving. In other words: I survived because I am good.
Perhaps more important for our present purposes is the way in which karma is linked with intention. Kent interviewed one monk, the Venerable Pilassi Vimaladhajja, who pointed out that negative karma does not accrue when an enemy is killed. "Vimaladhajja is not giving soldiers a blank check to kill whomever they wish while fighting the enemy," writes Kent, "He stresses that if a soldier has the intention to kill, a negative karma occurs. If a soldier's intention is to fight the enemy in order to protect the country and religion, however, their actions do not produce negative consequences." As Kent observes, those who hold this belief look at killing as secondary with the primary intention being the protection of the country.
As with the example above, however, it is assumed that karma, as a cosmic force, is supremely capable of discovering one's underlying intentions. Depending on how the soldier's life subsequently turns out, his ideas of karma and intention may have to be re-evaluated. As one soldier told Kent: "Honestly it is possible to rape and pillage during war without being caught. However, if you do that, nothing will ever go right for you ... there was one incident when we were in Trinco ... the Tamils had cultivated a field and left it. Our guys went and harvested the rice. They harvested the rice, sold it and took the money ... there were 21 guys who did that. All 21 of them were killed on the same day at the same time."
Such faith that karma will mete out punishment with mathematical certainty may work against the potential for remorse, regret or reconciliation. The very fact that some soldiers are still alive and living a life of health, wealth and happiness, is, with profound circular logic, seen as evidence of just conduct during war. This, in essence, is the problem with karma.
No comments:
Post a Comment