THE VEIL OF RACISM AND IGNORANCE KNOW NO NATIONALITY

A mass rally called by Bersih in the capital in April (protesters are pictured above) attracted tens of thousands of people, including many opposition leaders. The event ended in riots and violence. Ever since, UMNO and its underlings have been demonising the leaders of BERSIH, which may have cheered some from the majority Malay population but could also backfire against the government.

When it started in May, the harassment of Ms Ambiga was almost farcical. A posse of traders turned up outside her door frying burgers to protest about their lost earnings on the day of the rally; silly stuff, though still offensive to a Hindu vegetarian. Sillier still, a group of ex-soldiers marched on her house and shook their buttocks at it, calling her a subversive.

Then things turned nasty. Several hundred men handed over a petition saying that she was anti-Islamic (in a Muslim-majority country) and should leave Malaysia. Ms Ambiga says that these protests were “either sanctioned or supported by the state”. Finally, on June 26th, a veteran UMNO politician, Mohamad Aziz, said in parliament: “Can we not consider Ambiga a traitor…and sentence her to hang”.

This has caused a storm. Quite apart from the overt threat, the MP lit the touchpaper of Malaysia’s highly flammable racial politics; this was a Malay MP insulting a prominent member of the Indian community.

The country’s 2 million Indians are normally a divided lot, but they quickly rallied behind Ms Ambiga. Even the leaders of the BN-aligned Malaysian Indian Congress party denounced the MP, ostensibly their political ally. Mr Mohamad issued a limited apology to Indians in general, but not to Ms Ambiga personally.

Ms Ambiga believes the attacks on her, all by Malay men, are racist. She points out that her Malay co-leader of BERSIH a famous writer called A. Samad Said, has never been targeted.

It is as yet unclear whether the souring climate could turn Malaysia’s Indians against the BN. They make up only 8% of the population. Traditionally they have mostly voted for the BN, but some may now change their minds, especially in urban areas where Ms Ambiga is respected. After the BN’s Indian vote fell at the last election in 2008, Mr Najib worked hard to court Indians. Now, that may have been to little avail.

Mr Najib may also be personally tarnished. He portrays himself as a liberally mindedchampion of multiracial politics, yet critics say he has done little to rein in the racist attacks. When under pressure, the “warlords” of UMNO who constitute its nationalist backbone have often drawn on racial politics, playing up to Malay voters the supposed threats that Chinese and Indians pose to their institutionalised privileges in jobs and education.

Under Mr Najib people had hoped for something better. Ms Ambiga accuses him of being “wet” for failing to take a stronger stand. His belated rebuttal to Mr Mohamad merely urged MPs not to say things that might “hurt the feelings of other races”.

Meanwhile, Ms Ambiga and other BERSIH co-leaders (not the Malay one) have been issued with a bewildering demand for compensation from the Kuala Lumpur city council for costs incurred during the April rally. This includes a claim for “damage to trees” ($5,246) and “food and drink” for staff.

The government has also brought charges against Anwar Ibrahim, the leader of the opposition, and several of his colleagues for a variety of offences arising from their participation in the April rally. Their cases go to court in the next few months; if they are convicted, they could be banned from standing in the election.

Political analysts argue that such tactics are a sign of nervousness—though the BN is very unlikely to lose the election. Since May, surveys suggest his (Najib’s) support among Chinese and Indian voters has fallen, though that of Malays has increased a bit. It is all likely to make for a more acrimonious election when one is at last called.

. In fact, it is Islam which liberated women from the brutality of patriarchal society and the shackles of cruel customs that had usurped their basic and fundamental rights of living. It is Islam which provided them several rights — right of inheritance, right to own property, right to education, right to trade and business, right of selection of the husband by free will and right of remarriage in case of his demise and right of divorce.

It is Islam which elevated women while they were degraded to the status of property and buried alive in the grave at the time of birth. It is Islam which regarded them as a blessing of God and made them equal partners of men in the form of wives and kept the heaven beneath the feet of mothers and commanded them to wear hijaab without covering the face in order to protect their dignity and chastity and commanded men to respect and treat them well. As Prophet Muhammad clearly declared, “the best man among you is he who treats well the female members of his family and a bad man among you is he who misbehaves with the female members of his family.” (Bukhari)

However, the sad part is that a section of Muslims has deprived women of their basic and fundamental rights, including the right to education and the selection of a husband by free will and usurped their liberties and rights which were granted to them by Islam and that too under the pretext of Islamic veil or hijaab. These sections of Muslims first deprived their women of discovering their face under patriarchal, skewed interpretations of the Islamic veil; then usurped their basic rights; they were even prevented from offering prayers. Nowadays, Islam is the only religion on earth with its patriarchal skewed interpretation, which bars its women believers from the mosque. Despite the fact that Prophet Muhammad not only encouraged Muslim women to attend the mosque but also commended Muslim men that “they should not prevent their wives from attending them to mosque for their prayer.” (Bukhari) This type of patriarchal ideology has resulted a distorted version of Islamic teaching of veil of which Nazia Jassim herself became a victim and advocated the veil (for covering the face) to encourage men to enslave women. This precisely made me write this brief clarification.

In fact, the face is not included in the veil, as there are a number of Koranic verses and statements of the Prophet which clearly prove that covering the face is not required in Islam. As the Koran says: “Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them, and God is well acquainted with all that they do and say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty, that should not display their beauty except what appear from their beauty.” (S: XXIV: Verse, No: 30, 31).

This verse clearly indicates that the face is not required to be covered under the veil, otherwise what is the use of lowering the gaze? Secondly, and importantly, most of the authentic commentators of the Koran of the medieval and modern periods interpreted the portion of the verse “that should not display their beauty except what appear from their beauty” with the face and feet, the most prominent among them are “Tafsir-e-Jalalain,” included in the syllabus of Deoband and “Tafseer-e- Usman” I, written by Shabbir Usmani of Deoband.

This interpretation of the veil is supported by the statement of the Prophet which was narrated by Aisha, his brilliant wife. According to her, “once her sister Asma visited her at the Prophet’s home in transparent clothes from which her body shined. When the Prophet saw her, he turned his face to another side and said: “O Asma, when a lady reaches her adulthood, she should cover her body except face and feet.” (Ibn Majaa)

readmorehttp://muslimjournalmalaysia.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-veil-of-racism-and-ignorance-know.html