The radicalisation of Islam in Malaysia

UNIVERSITI Sains Malaysia political scientist Dr Ahmad Fauzi Abdul Hamid is ringing the alarm bell.

Having studied political Islam for years, he says it is time to alert the authorities that Muslims here are “surely but slowly becoming radicalised”.

“Before the situation deteriorates further to what we see in Afghanistan and Pakistan, it is better that we take the necessary precautions and do whatever we need to do – whether it is a revamp of the school curriculum – to correct the situation,’’ he says.

He says the essence of Islam as a loving, compassionate and tolerant faith is as good as destroyed in those countries and he does not want to see that happen here.

For Dr Fauzi, extremism and radicalisation in Malaysia did not happen over a short five- to 10-year period but actually germinated over more than a generation.

He says since the 1990s, the traditional Islamic theology taught in Government schools has gradually shifted to a view of theology derived from the Middle East, particularly Saudi Arabia. What this does, he says, is that it moulds a certain kind of mindset, one that is exclusivist, supremacist, with less respect for others, so minorities and dissenting voices are viewed “in a certain way”.

In 1979, the Iranian Revolution sparked an increased interest in Islam all over the world, including in Malaysia. Iran follows the Syiah tradition of Islam. So oil-rich Saudi Arabia, which follows the Sunni tradition and wanted to counter Iran’s influence, tapped into this global interest in Islam by offering many student scholarships and donating money to numerous institutions and charities in the developing Muslim world.

This helped them stamp their strand of ultra conservative Islam – commonly referred to as Wahhabism or Salafism – all over the world, including in Malaysia.

In the 1980s and 1990s, many Malaysians went overseas for their higher education. Due to the interest in Islam, many headed to the Middle East and Saudi Arabia in particular – thanks to those generous scholarships – to study religion and were exposed to the Wahhabi/Salafist way of thinking.

When they returned, Dr Fauzi says, they brought back the Wahhabi/Salafist way of thinking – and that way of thinking makes it easier to radicalise someone because it is intolerant and exclusivist.

He says some of the students who returned became religious teachers and ustaz, so they went on to instil this way of thinking within the younger generation.

And over a span of 30 years or so, he says, the students who grew up imbibing the Wahhabi/Salafist-oriented curriculum in schools are now in the work force. Some are in the civil service, some have become influential bureaucrats, scholars, academics, lawyers, others hold positions of power while some have joined politics. So they hold the levers in administration that allows them to make decisions.

“People don’t realise it but this way of thinking has now become mainstream,’’ says Dr Fauzi who recently published a research paper on “The Extensive Salafization of Malaysian Islam’’.

Shaped by history

Dr Chandra Muzzafar explains that Wahhabism is a puritanical notion of trying to restore a “pure and unadulterated” Islam.

One thing that he finds “very dangerous’’ about Wahhabism is the “takfiri” attitude.

Concerned: Dr Chandra feels people here are ‘very comfortable in their ignorance’.

Takfiri is the labelling and accusing of a Muslim of apostasy or being impure because that person does not adhere to the Wahhabi/Salafist way of practicing Islam.

“They think, ‘We are the only ones who are pure and the only ones who represent Islam’. Takfiri is dangerous because it allows Muslims to take very extreme positions. It actually legitimises killing. They might think spilling this person’s blood is halal (permissible) because he is not really a Muslim or because his wife doesn’t use a hijab (head scarf) or because he does all these things (that Wahhabis/Salafis disallow),” says Dr Chandra, who is a political scientist and the president of the International Movement for a Just World.

Dr Chandra says one interesting fact to note about the founder of Wahhabism/Salafism, Muhammad Abd al-Wahhab, is how his thinking was shaped by what he saw in Istanbul during the rule of the Ottoman Empire, which spanned 600 years, ending only in 1922.

“The Ottoman empire was actually the most important political entity within the Muslim world at that time but when Muhammad Abd al-Wahhab went to Istanbul and saw the lifestyle there, he was revolted. He saw it as the Ottoman’s corruption of Islam.’’

This led him to propagate “his version of ‘pure and unadulterated’ Islam”.

Dr Fauzi believes that what Malaysia is experiencing right now with troubled interfaith relations is the result of this exclusivist Wahhabi/Salafist thinking that has crept into the education curriculum and mindset.

He says this explains why incidents in which members of other faiths are treated insensitively keep cropping up, like Universiti Teknologi Malaysia’s use of slides demeaning Hindus in one of its courses, or school principals making Hindu students watch the slaughtering of cows (which Hindus consider sacred) in the school compound for Hari Raya Haji celebrations.

“It shows the exclusivist line of thinking. They can’t think along the lines that a particular action will aggrieve a part of the school population even though they are the minority.

“When the Holy Prophet practised justice, justice is most meaningful when it is practised on those who are not a majority,’’ he says.

Dr Fauzi also points out how the Holy Prophet engaged Christians in dialogue and this was done without agreeing with the Christian view of Jesus, which means there was tolerance during the Holy Prophet’s time.

Closing off: Dr Ahmad is concerned about the lack of debate and closing of minds.

He also notes that during the Holy Prophet’s time, when it was time for a visiting delegation of Najran Christians to pray, they prayed in the mosque.

“The tolerance of the Holy Prophet is just amazing. Can you imagine the Saudis and the orthodox Muslims of this day agreeing to this?’’

Dr Fauzi says it is of concern too when there is also a closing off of Muslim discourse, debate and the mind.

He says some respected international Muslim scholars are labelled “secular” or “liberal’’ to keep the Muslim masses from hearing them out; others who are deemed to be not toeing the establishment line are banned or find it hard to book venues in which they can speak.

All this means that only one way of thinking is allowed to perpetuate. And that, says Dr Fauzi emphatically, is not healthy.

He was disappointed when the debate on religion between Perlis Mufti Datuk Dr Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin and Home Ministry religious officer Dr Zamihan Mat Zin in February was cancelled. He says allowing such exchanges and differences of thought to come out should trigger more research, more thinking and a flourishing of ideas – but, unfortunately, this is not happening currently in Malaysia.

He also questions why when fatwas (religious edicts) are issued, no one offers an explanation and rationale for them so that people can intellectualise, argue and understand or accept.

“The religious establishment gets very irritated when they are criticised,’’ he adds.

The genie’s out already

Dr Chandra knows all about the lack of debate in Malaysia.

In 2010, he organised an international conference in Malaysia and managed to get the attendance of the Grand Mufti of Syria, Sheikh Ahmad Badreddin Hassoun, “who is 100% Sunni’’, and one of the world’s leading experts on Imam Syafie (whose Sunni school of jurisprudence Malaysia follows).

According to Dr Chandra, Sheikh Ahmad has been described as the “Mufti of Humanity” and is very much against hostility between Muslims and non-Muslims.

Since Dr Chandra thought it would be good for all the muftis here to meet with the Syrian Grand mufti, he arranged a meeting but no one turned up.

“They didn’t want to meet him. I think it’s a classic case of ‘katak di bawah tempurung’ (frog under a coconut shell, an idiom meaning to live a sheltered life).

“They are very comfortable in their ignorance. They don’t want anyone to tell them, ‘Look maybe you are not right’. They don’t want dialogue.”

Dr Fauzi adds that because of this closed mode of thinking, many Wahabis/Salafists have joined Umno including 40 ulama muda in 2010.

And, he says, they are already influencing the party.

Although Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak has given the assurance that Umno will not turn into an extremist party, Dr Fauzi feels there are no guarantees it will not happen some time in the future when Najib is no longer in office.

“It is like taking a genie out of the bottle. You can’t put it back in,’’ he says.

Dr Fauzi also cautions against closing the gates on discourse because this might have adverse effects.

“In this age of social media where there is easy access to all sorts of information, when you repress and people are not able to release their intellectual curiosity and youthful energy, they may gravitate towards IS and radical movements online.

“They want religion. They want Islam but they don’t want something that is identified with the establishment. Youths get fed up and this could be another cause of radicalisation.’’

Dr Chandra simply wishes people would engage.

“I hope there will be discussions of things like this rather than allowing one particular stream of thought to establish a monopoly and say that everyone else should keep quiet.’’

Netherlands: Muslims attack non-hijabbed Muslima as “infidel whore”

A tremendous amount of social control is often exercised in Muslim communities to ensure Sharia compliance. Ostracism and brutalization and worse all too often await those Muslims who don’t go to mosque or abide by Sharia norms. This is a key reason why we don’t see larger numbers of Muslims backing up their pro-forma condemnations of jihad violence with genuine action against jihad terror: those who stand up against the dominant views are risking losing their families, their communities, and even their lives.

“Tunisian discriminated against by fellow Muslims,” a translation of “Tunesische gediscrimineerd door mede-moslims,” by Istvan Kovi, AD.nl, June 3, 2016 (thanks to Susan):

Muslim parents berate the integrated Tunisian Radia Laabidi, 38, regularly as “infidel and unclean.” The Amersfoort mother experiences this in the schoolyard. “I do not wear headscarves, but a skirt, and do not go to the mosque. So some may consider you an infidel whore.”

Laabidi believes that her children have been for some time a target of discrimination from other Muslims in their primary school in Amersfoort. A liberal Muslim woman, she was scolded recently at the school and even attacked. “She called to me and ran her nails across my face.” Radia defended himself fiercely. The brawl, in the sight of many children and parents, was ended by single fathers. Several parents witnessed and confirmed Radia’s account of events….

Afghanistan: No Country for Women

Al Jazeera

In war-torn Afghanistan it is not the Taliban that poses the greatest threat to women - it is their own families.

Thirteen years after the fall of the Taliban, women in Afghanistan continue to suffer oppression and abuse.

Research by Global Rights estimates that almost nine out of 10 Afghan women face physical, sexual or psychological violence, or are forced into marriage.

In the majority of cases the abuse is committed by the people they love and trust the most - their families.

While shelters are trying to provide protection and legal help to some, many women return to abusive homes because there is no alternative. Unable to escape their circumstances, some are turning to drastic measures like self-immolation to end their suffering.

Has enough progress been made on women's rights in Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban? Share your thoughts with us @AJ101East

By Karishma Vyas

'Mariam' was seven months pregnant the last time her husband almost killed her. She doesn't remember what triggered the attack. What she remembers is being slammed to the floor, and her husband's foot crushing her neck.

"I started bleeding," she said. "All the cushions on the floor were wet with my blood."

Mariam, which is not her real name, has been hiding in a secret women's shelter in Kabul for the past two months. She lives with around 20 women who have travelled here from across Afghanistan, each with their own horrific story of abuse.

Some have left violent husbands. Others have been raped or are fleeing forced marriages arranged by their parents. All of them are terrified that they will be killed by their families.

War-torn Afghanistan is ranked as one of the most dangerous places in the world to be born a woman, according to a survey by the Thompson Reuters Foundation.

Under the Taliban women were banned from going to school and working. They were not allowed to leave their homes without a male relative or be seen in public without a burqa. For defying the regime's repressive laws, women were openly flogged and executed.

But 13 years after the fall of the Taliban, and despite the influx of billions of dollars in development aid, many Afghan women are still living in terror.

A report by Global Rights estimates that almost 90 percent of women experience physical, sexual or psychological abuse or forced marriage. Overwhelmingly, it is their families who are committing these crimes.

"It's a question of control and power," said Sima Samar, a prominent women's rights activist and chairperson of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. "You use religion, you use culture, you use tradition, you use gender to keep the power, to keep control."

When Mariam, 25, got married five years ago, she never imagined that she would end up in a shelter.

"When I first saw my husband I thought he was the right man for me," she said, sitting on the floor of the shelter with her head covered in a black scarf.

"I thought I'd have someone to share my pain and my secrets with. I'd have children and live a happy life."

But she says the abuse began almost immediately. Without warning, her husband would erupt into violent rages, at times threatening her with a loaded gun or dragging her by her hair through their home.

When she tried to seek help from the police, they released her husband after a few hours. Even her parents refused to help her, returning her to her in-laws after assurances that she would not be beaten.

Mariam says her husband was diagnosed with a mental illness and prescribed medication. But the torment continued.

"I thought about killing myself but I couldn't go through with it because I was pregnant. I was so tired. Most of the time I didn't even have the energy to defend myself and nobody was there to defend me," she said, showing no emotion.

Mariam and the other women at the shelter are the lucky ones. For now, at least, they are safe. But there are only 14 protection centres across Afghanistan and most are in urban areas. Many women simply cannot reach them.

But even these few shelters are under threat. Foreign governments and donors are cutting back on funding as the international community pulls out of Afghanistan. And the national government is not filling in the gap. There are also powerful leaders within the country who want the shelters to close.

"These so-called 'safe houses' are very bad," said Nazir Ahmad Hanafi, a popular member of Afghanistan's parliament representing the western city of Herat.

"They protect people who are doing wrong things and give them immunity. They open the gates to social problems like AIDS."

Hanafi and other lawmakers have also fought legislation that increases punishment for crimes against women.

The 2009 Law on the Elimination of Violence Against Women (EVAW) banned and set new penalties for underage and forced marriage, rape, forced prostitution and other abuses. But it was only passed into law through a presidential decree.

"It's a male conservative, selfish mentality," said Samar. "They believe that they have the superiority of being men and having a long beard. They are not there to think that every human being is equal," she said.

Back at the shelter, Mariam is torn between standing up for her rights and securing a future for her children. Her one-year-old son still lives with her husband and she is now nine months pregnant with her second child.
Her husband admitted to beating her, and tried to justify it by saying the abuse was never serious.

"My wife is so stubborn," he said. "She was always arguing with my father, my mother and sisters. So one day I hit her."

Without an income or a place to live, Mariam's lawyer at the shelter says a court is likely to grant custody of the children to her husband despite his violent history.

Her parents have refused to take her in, and she has no other options. It is a problem that almost all the women at the shelter face. They may have had the courage to leave their abusive families, but where will they go now?

For Mariam, it is a grim realisation that is only now sinking in.

"I have never lived a good life here," she said. "Not as a girl, not as a woman, not even as a mother."

Leave King out of Zakir Naik controversy

The Teluk Bahang assemblyman who is demanding P Ramasamy apologise to the King for calling Zakir Naik "satan" is only engaging in a cheap publicity stunt to gain political mileage for himself.

I write in response to a news article titled “Apologise to King over Zakir Naik insult, Ramasamy told” published on May 18 by FMT.

It was reported that Teluk Bahang assemblyman, Shah Headan bin Ayoob Hussain Shah, in his motion of thanks to the Yang di-Pertua Negeri, had demanded Deputy Chief Minister II of Penang, P Ramasamy, to apologise to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong for calling Dr Zakir Naik “satan.”
Shah Headen was of the view that insulting a person who has received an award from the King is tantamount to insulting the King himself.

First of all, let there be no confusion that Ramasamy used the word “satan” as a figure of speech. Certainly, he was not testifying that Zakir is Satan.

The controversies surrounding Zakir are not unknown to the public. According to a news article published on Dec 10, 2012 by Hindustan Times, the globally renowned Islamic seminary, Darul Uloom Deoband in India, slammed the religious views of Zakir in a fatwa and at the same time urged Muslims there to ignore his teachings.

The same fatwa also states that Zakir is a “ghair muqallidin”, a term used to describe those whose teachings are not directly based on any one of the four accepted schools of Sunni Islamic thought.

Last year, Mangalore City Police issued a prohibitory order banning Zakir from entering the city in Karnataka, India due to his radical thoughts and disparaging remarks on other religions.

The president of Vishwa Hindu Parishat, MB Puranik, argued: ‘Dr. Naik has been making derogatory speeches by mocking Hindu gods. He has been speaking against Hindu religious practices including idol worship. Moreover, he has shown disrespect to an Indian patriotic song ‘Vande Mataram’ and called upon the Muslims in India not to sing it.”

If a person is ignored and not welcomed by the religious and legal authorities of his own country, then there is certainly no reason for that person to be invited into ours. It is for this very purpose that Ramasamy opposed Zakir’s public talks in Malaysia.

Now, whether or not Ramasamy has any right to insult Zakir is beside the point. The point is, however, by no stretch of the imagination can we conclude that calling Zakir “satan” is equal to having gone, in the words of Shah Headen, “against the spirit of the Federal Constitution and affected the credibility of the King.”

If the above is a possibility, then what about the shameless incident of doing butt-exercises in front of Ambiga Sreenevasan’s house? Is not that also an insult to the Perak royalty since Ambiga was conferred a datukship by the Sultan of Perak?

Ramasamy categorically said in his press release dated April 12 that his Facebook posting was not against Islam or Muslims in general but against Zakir specifically.

Before making frivolous demands and wild accusations, Shah Headen should have taken note of the facts that Ramasamy fought for the Muslims in the troubled Aceh in the early 2000s and further acted as an adviser during the signing of the Helsinki MoU between the Indonesian government and Free Aceh Movement.

Consequently, Aceh was bestowed with a special territory status while Ramasamy’s contract as a professor of political science at UKM was sadly not renewed. He paid the price for advocating a noble cause.

Therefore, I see no reason for Ramasamy, with all due respect, to apologise to the King for what he said about Zakir.

On the contrary, I call upon Shah Headen to apologise to all Malaysians for using the King’s name to earn political mileage for himself through the use of cheap publicity stunts, like the one mentioned here.

Shamsher Singh Thind is legal adviser to P Ramasamy and publicity secretary to DAP Chai Leng Park Branch.

With a firm belief in freedom of expression and without prejudice, FMT tries its best to share reliable content from third parties. Such articles are strictly the writer’s personal opinion. FMT does not necessarily endorse the views or opinions given by any third party content provider.

A confused Muslim, yet again

A heated debate on the alleged extremism Islam promotes, gets Fa wondering if being a self-professed moderate but willing to tolerate "nonsense" makes her just as bad as an extremist.

I found myself sucked into a debate while having breakfast at a mamak restaurant recently. It all started with a friendly chat about the call by Penang Opposition Leader, Jahara Hamid to remove a Taoist shrine from Armenian Park in Georgetown.

“You are a Muslim. Tell me why Muslims do this?” asked an uncle who joined me for my morning nasi lemak.

“Apparently they are confused,” I replied with a chuckle.

“I don’t think so. This is something they are doing on purpose. You should know – you are a Muslim.”

Getting somewhat defensive, I blurted, “Not all Muslims are the same.”

“So you don’t practice your religion?” the uncle shot back.

Realising the conversation had taken a serious turn, I tried explaining: “I do practice my religion to the best of my ability. But that is not what we are talking about here.”

“It is precisely what we are talking about. The lady who wanted the shrine to be removed; the man who wanted ‘No Pork’ signs to be banned, the group who wanted the cross taken down – you all have the same faith. You all read the same Holy Book…”

“I disagree. You can’t judge everyone based on the conduct of a small group of Muslims. I do not go around persecuting people. I do not go around telling people how to live their lives. I support freedom and human rights. I am no extremist. Most Muslims are not extremists.” I was clearly upset by now.

“Girl, you follow your Holy Book and so does the confused Muslims and the extreme Muslims. If all Muslims accept the one and only Holy Book and live by it, they are no different from one another. They are all extremists – including you.”

“I disagree. I do not condone discrimination, violence and terrorism. Islam is not a religion of violence. Islam is a religion of peace,” I argued, as the uncle had gotten on my nerves with his blanket judgements.

“Your Holy Book promotes violence. There is even a verse saying: ‘Go and kill.’ Now how can a religion which promotes killings be a peaceful religion?”

“There are more than six thousand verses in our Holy Book – why emphasise on the negatives? Why aren’t you talking about the messages of kindness, love and compassion in most of the verses?” I countered, not realising that I had raised my voice in the process.

The uncle laughed, “Girl, religion is not like a plate of mee goreng you order at a mamak shop. You don’t get to tambah pedas or kurang pedas; tambah taugeh or takdak taugeh; tambah telur or tambah ayam. You can’t be selective of which content suits you and drop those you disagree with.”

The uncle got me thinking. If a good Muslim accepts every single verse in the Holy Book without any argument, does that make me, a cherry-picking liberal Muslim and a moderate, a bad Muslim?

I went home that day, quite confused.

There are approximately 30 million people in Malaysia, 60% of whom are Muslims. If a mere 1% of Malaysia’s 18 million Muslims are extremists, why is it that we haven’t witnessed violence or crime perpetrated by some 180,000 extremists?

Clearly, that could mean only one thing – extreme Malaysian Muslims don’t even make up 1% of our Muslim population. That makes me wonder – why then did the uncle get so worked up over a tiny number of people?

More importantly, if 99% of Malaysian Muslims are non-extremists, why haven’t we seen even 1% of the 17,820,000 non-extremists fighting against extremism in our country?

Maybe that’s what makes us – the non-extreme, moderate ones – bad Muslims. We do not fight injustice and cruelty. We are after all, moderates – in thinking and behaviour. We can talk for hours about Arabisation, Islamaphobia, Zakir Naik, Zionist and Shariah law.

But when it comes to fighting extremism and terrorism, we hide behind our moderate robe. That’s the problem with being a moderate Muslim. We tolerate nonsense.

Perhaps that is also why we moderates like to insist that Islam is a peaceful religion – it allows us to justify our laid back attitude. In response to any extreme movement, we, the moderates peacefully make a peaceful statement, clarifying how peaceful Islam is, so we can get back to our peaceful lives, sipping kopi O at Kedai Kopi Ahmad.

In conclusion, although I do not agree with the uncle on most counts, I believe he got one thing right – we are not good Muslims. As long as we tolerate nonsense, the moderates are equally as bad as the extremists.

First Muslim Miss USA converts to Christianity

The woman who was believed to be the first Muslim to win the title when she was crowned Miss USA in 2010 has converted to Christianity.

By Ruth Gledhill

Rima Fakih gave her life to Christ last month in the run-up to her marriage in Lebanon next week to Wassim Salibi, a wealthy music producer who is a Maronite Christian. Canadian singer The Weeknd, who is managed by Salibi, will perform at the wedding.

Fakih recently tweeted a verse from Philippians:

Philippians 4:13 I can do all things through him who strengthens me pic.twitter.com/RSTZ9IJD3Z

— Rima Fakih (@RimaFakih) March 30, 2016

Fakih's faith was Shia Muslim but she attended a Catholic school.

In a Huffington Post interview in 2010 she said: "We're more of a spiritual family. Religion really doesn't define me or my family. My family's been very liberal, and we appreciate all different kinds of religions."

She added: "My brother-in-law is Christian, and he (and my sister) baptised their two sons. I have an uncle who converted to Christianity, and he's a priest now."

She said: "We'd go to church on Easter. We always had a Christmas tree and every year we go the Radio City Christmas Show, and watch Miracle on 34th Street. But we celebrate some of the Islamic holidays as well."

According to Albawaba, It was only when she went to university in the US that Fakih connected with her Muslim roots: "When I went to the University of Michigan, because there's more of a Muslim community, my dad wanted me to learn more about Islam," she said. "I didn't know much about Ramadan and other holidays, and my dad wanted me to take that opportunity and learn."

On social media, most responses have been supportive of her conversion.

After she won the top beauty pageant, Fakih was quoted as saying: "I'd like to say I'm American first, and I am an Arab-American, I am Lebanese-American, and I am Muslim-American." Some Muslim scholars at the time criticised her for entering the competition in the first place.

Al-Ḥajar al-Aswad (Black Stone)

Now minister wants Islamic teams at varsities

After claiming world-class status, Idris wants teams to spread Islamic understanding.

FMT

IPOH: Education Minister II Idris Jusoh, who recently courted controversy by claiming world-class status for Malaysian universities, is now stepping into another possible quagmire.

In the midst of a raging public debate about Islamic prosleytisation and the distribution of free copies of the Quran, Idris has now proposed that Islamic understanding teams be set up at colleges and unversities “to monitor and provide a thorough understanding of the religion to students”.

He said the team was also aimed at preventing the spread of extremist ideology, especially those of the Islamic State militant group, among university students.

“The ministry will ensure the spread of tasawwur Islam and wassatiyah as promoted by the prime minister,” he said, according to Bernama. “Actually, the prime minister has implemented the wassatiyah concept by using a shariah index so that we fully understand Islam,” he said at a Chinese New Year event here.

Idris also urged university vice-chancellors to constantly monitor their students to ensure they were not influenced by Islamic State ideology, Bernama quoted him as saying.

Two weeks ago, Idris found himself in the midst of controversy by claiming that the rising number of foreign students showed that Malaysians were on par with universities in the west. After being taken apart by opposition politicians, among others, he held to his remark by pointing out to the new rankings of Malaysian universities on a higher education index.

His latest suggestion puts him squarely in the midst of the debate about the place of Islam among the multi-racial communities of Malaysia.

NGO Islam edar Quran terima ugutan, kutukan

Teach non-Muslims to reject free Qurans ‘politely’, interfaith body told

BY YISWAREE PALANSAMY

KUALA LUMPUR, March 1 — Despite denying any hand behind the alleged distribution of free Qurans to non-Muslims, an Islamic evangelical group said non-believers should be taught to politely reject the holy texts instead of responding aggressively.

The Multiracial Reverted Muslims (MRM) said the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST), the country’s largest interfaith body, should not have taken such a combative stance when reacting to the free Quran project by another Muslim group.

Instead, the MCCBCHST should have focused on mending strained ties between Muslims and non-Muslims here, and encouraging the latter community to learn more about Islam and issues pertaining to the religion, MRM president Firdaus Wong Wai Hung said.

“My suggestion is that the council should instead advise the non-Muslims and the public that they should talk to each other politely, even if say they do not want it (Quran).

“It’s fine if they do not want the holy book, but they should understand the religion,” he told Malay Mail Online.

Wong was criticising MCCBCHST’s recent outcry over the free Quran project mooted by the Islamic Information and Services (IIS) Foundation.

In a statement on February 9, the interfaith council dismissed the project’s purported objective to remove misconceptions of Islam, labelling it instead a disguised propagation of Islam that it said was in “bad faith”.

The council said the intended distribution of the translated copies of the Quran to non-Muslims was obnoxious, as a similar right is not given to non-Muslims.

It also insisted that the Quran should not be distributed so freely as the copies might be disrespected, and some Muslims might find it blasphemous to see non-Muslims owning those translated copies of Quran.

The group then listed down several instances of alleged efforts to convert non-Muslims, including the involvement of evangelical groups such as Hidayah Centre Foundation (HCF) and MRM, as well as federal and state religious authorities.

MRM, however, later denied its involvement in the project, as well as other claims that it has been covertly amending the official religious records of those receiving the free copies of the holy text.

IIS has also defended its project as an attempt to help non-Muslims understand Islam, and demanded MCCBCHST issue a public apology.

Wong, in enforcing MRM’s position on the issue, pointed out that although the organisation is not involved, it still believes that owning a Quran does not automatically mean the individual is forced to read the holy book or embrace Islam.

“Now it’s (MCCBCHST) implying that we are using force towards people to read the Quran. Even if I force you to take the Quran, it’s up to you whether you want to read it or not,” Wong added.

He said he believes that despite possessing good intentions, the MCCBCHST has been using the wrong approach to keeping interfaith relations harmonious.

“They know who is IIS, so they should have spoken to them (IIS) before they issue such a statement.

“It’s like the saying, don’t wash your dirty linen in public. If you have problems pertaining to interfaith issues, then talk to the concerned parties,” Wong said.

As such an important body, the MCCBCHST should be seeking to breach the gap between non-Muslims here and followers of Islam, the religion of the federation, he added.

“Go approach them (IIS) and don’t suddenly issue such statements. What is your intention? I do not know,” he added.

Racial and religious tensions have simmered for the past few years as Muslim groups accuse Christians of trying to convert Muslims with their insistence on referring to God as “Allah”, while Christian groups complain of Bumiputera Christians in Sabah being duped into embracing Islam.

The proselytisation of non-Islamic religions to Muslims is an offence in Malaysia, but not vice-versa.

- See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/teach-non-muslims-to-reject-free-qurans-politely-interfaith-body-told#sthash.XEmIlp3Y.dpuf

What will it take to stop Isis using rape as a weapon of war?

The Guardian

Noor (not her real name), a 14-year-old girl from a small village in northern Iraq, was sold 15 times, passed from one Islamic State (Isis) fighter to the next. Each time, she was raped. Noor managed to escape and made her way, mostly on foot, to a refugee camp. There, she met Yanar Mohammed, an Iraqi women’s rights activist, who told me Noor’s story. “The worst moments,” Noor said, “were when one man would sell me to another. And I would have to hear them debating what my life was worth.”

I heard many more stories like Noor’s at a recent gathering of Iraqi and Syrian women’s rights activists in Istanbul. Some of the women had never met before, but they shared a common purpose: to end the scourge of rape unleashed on them by civil war and the ascent of Isis.

But how to do that? No soldier in a war will hold on to a weapon that does not work. So what will it take to disarm rape as a weapon of war?

A glimmer of an answer shone through the women’s harrowing stories. Activists from Syria and Iraq spoke of a subtle but critical shift in their communities to end the stigma surrounding sexual violence.

As recounted by the women in Istanbul, Isis has used rape to exert control and spread terror through communities. It has imposed draconian limits on women’s freedoms to work, speak or be seen in public, policing these controls through violence. Isis has abducted women and girls, sometimes by the busload, and sold them into sexual slavery.

Ordeals like Noor’s are neither random nor rare. Rape is useful for Isis: it traumatises individuals and undermines their sense of autonomy, control and safety. It triggers mass displacement when word reaches people.

But the most destructive power of rape as a weapon of war lies in the deep-rooted stigma attached to it. Survivors are ostracised, even blamed for the attacks. Families fear being tarnished by the stigma and banish wives, mothers and daughters. In the worst cases, people adhere to distorted notions of “honour” and kill rape survivors. In short, rape tears at the fabric that binds families and communities.

But something different is starting to happen in some of the Isis-controlled zones of Iraq and Syria. There, the sheer number of women who have suffered sexual violence seems to be creating a potential tipping point. The women I met, both Syrian and Iraqi, reported that with rape occurring on such a huge scale, some families are choosing not to reject their mothers and daughters returning from captivity by Isis. As Mohammed said: “It’s harder to blame a woman for having been raped when it’s happening to so many.”

We saw this change in Rwanda, where rape was a systematic weapon of genocide. Afterwards, the critical mass of survivors triggered a new national conversation on sexual violence, on the morality of ostracising survivors and on women’s human rights more broadly.

A similar shift may be possible now. If Iraqi and Syrian women’s rights advocates can uproot the community response that stigmatises and isolates rape survivors, the utility of rape as a weapon of war is diminished. It will not work to unravel communities. The strategic opening could be transformational for women and for warfare – but only if women from within affected communities can act now, while deeply rooted social norms around rape are in flux.

Grassroots activists in Iraq and Syria are already mobilised, reaching out to survivors and their families with aid and counselling. Some have set up emergency escape routes to activist-run shelters. Many regularly visit refugee camps, not only to bring relief supplies but to listen to women’s stories carefully and without judgment.

One woman whom Mohammed met in a refugee camp said that the first time she was raped, she asked herself whether she would survive to tell anyone about it. Speaking to Mohammed gave her hope, she said.

Activists like Mohammed have begun to change the conversation; in Istanbul, they referred to alliances forged with other activists and local officials, including prominent men. One Iraqi activist spoke of a local authority figure who has become an ally. At great personal risk, he condemned honour killing at a gathering of tribal heads. His brave act of solidarity opened a community dialogue in support of women’s rights.

All these are vital interventions, modelling a way for communities to stand by survivors and begin to render rape obsolete as a weapon of war.

As Mohammed said: “We want Noor’s community to see her not as a ruined, raped girl, but as a prisoner of war who was strong enough to survive weeks of torture and brave enough to escape.”

Number of ‘Muslim’ children in Britain doubles in a decade

Landmark study shows number of children under five being brought up as Muslim rose 80 per cent in a decade while three quarters of Muslims in UK identify themselves solely as British

By John Bingham, Religious Affairs Editor

The number of children growing up as Muslims in the UK has almost doubled in a decade in what experts have described as an “unprecedented” shift in Britain’s social make-up.

One in 12 schoolchildren in England and Wales are now officially classed as Muslim after a decade which saw the number of followers of Islam surge by just over 1.1 million, according to the most detailed study of its kind ever published.

The report, presented to Parliament, concludes that Muslims could play a decisive role in the coming general election, expected to be the closest in recent times, making up a significant share of voters in some of the most marginal seats in the country.

But the study of official census data by the Muslim Council of Britain also concludes that the Muslim population will continue expanding for “many decades” to come – something experts said could transform everything from social attitudes to foreign policy.

Although immigration has driven growth in the past, it is the dramatically younger age profile of the Muslim population which could have the biggest impact in the future.

At a time when the wider population is ageing rapidly, half of British Muslims are under the age of 25 and a third are under 15.

Overall 2.7 million people living in England and Wales on census day in 2011 – and another 81,000 across Scotland and Northern Ireland – described themselves as Muslim.

That is up from just under 1.6 million in 2001 – a 75 per cent jump.

Among children under the age of five the rate of increase was more than 80 per cent.

Strikingly, although just over half of Muslims living in Britain were born abroad, almost three quarters identifed themselves exclusively as British in the census.

Significantly, Muslims make up more than a fifth of the population in 26 parliamentary constituencies and around 50 per cent in some areas. There are also 70 council wards with a Muslim population of 40 per cent or more.

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11406700/Number-of-Muslim-children-in-Britain-doubles-in-a-decade.html

Council upset over 'Quran for non-Muslims'

 

A non-Muslim interfaith council is deeply concerned over plans by a Muslim foundation to distribute a million copies of the Quran in various languages to non-Muslims.

Islamic Information and Services Foundation and its patron former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad announced this plan, which is aimed to counter Islamophobia, last month.

The Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST) said it is Muslims who should be exposed to the true teachings of Islam, given the rising involvement of Malaysian Muslims in global terrorism.

"We have to emphasise that non-Muslims have not carried out any acts of terrorism in the name of Islam and thus are not confused," the council said in a hard-hitting statement.

The council also fears that the distribution of the Quran could be a way to propagate the religion to non-Muslims and induce conversions.

When contacted, MCCBCHST said it is releasing the scathing statement with careful consideration following rising complaints of "covert conversions" of non-Muslims to Islam.

In the statement it said there have been complaints of such activities in tertiary colleges and state-backed Muslim organisations are setting targets for Muslim converts.

"The non-Muslims have every right to protect their religion and to alert their children and members of their family of the advances made by the Islamic Information and Services Foundation," it said.

Creating ill-will

Among examples cited is the Hidayah Centre Foundation, which is supported by the Prime Minister’s Department, and reportedly has a target of 3,000 converts this year.

"The role of Jakim, Perkim and Jabatan Agama is well known," it said, noting Jakim's RM800 million budget.

While Article 11(4) of the federal constitution bars propagating to Muslims, it said, but it is no free ticket for Muslims to subject non-Muslims to uninvited propagation.

"Article 11(1) gives every person the right to profess and practise his religion. Therefore he has every right to reject the propagation of other faiths to him…

"MCCBCHST is of the view that the intended distribution of the translated copies of the Quran to non-Muslims is obnoxious as a similar right is not given to non-Muslims."

It also raised concern of "inducement" ,which include monetary support by the state to new Muslim converts which is an offence under Section 298A.

The Section criminalises acts causing ill-will and disharmony on grounds of religion.

Further, it said, non-Muslims may be open to prosecution if copies of the Quran distributed contained words which most states ban non-Muslims from using.

The Bible Society of Malaysia was under investigation for housing copies of the Bible in Bahasa Malaysia and Iban which use the word 'Allah', which a Selangor enactment bans non-Muslims from using.

The law does not state whether non-Muslims can use these words if they are printed in an Islamic text like the Quran.

Najib should not don Hindu attire, garlands, says Perlis mufti

Datuk Seri Najib Razak's advisers should be stricter in enforcing the rules set by Islam when the prime minister attends non-Muslim celebrations, the Perlis mufti said.

Datuk Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin said the prime minister's advisers should be firm with the event organisers to protect the sanctity of Islam.

"The prime minister's advisers should also inform the organisers not to present a garland to Najib or request that he wear Hindu attire when celebrating a religious festival," he told Malay-language daily Sinar Harian.

"They should be firm in this matter and inform the organisers of the Thaipusam celebration in Batu Caves that Najib will attend on the condition that he not take part in any Hindu ritual.

"This is what Islam forbids. Muslim leaders are not prohibited from attending other religious festivals, but there are rules and limits," he said.

He said Najib could attend the Thaipusam celebration in Batu Caves, as part of his duty as the prime minister, but should not participate in any religious ritual as it was against Islamic teachings.

"Najib can appear there dressed in a suit. There is no harm in that. What matters is that Najib attends the Hindu religious festivals because he is the Malaysian prime minister and he cares for all Malaysians," said Asri.

As an example, Asri said the Muslim police officers on duty in Batu Caves for the Thaipusam festival were not necessarily celebrating it.

"The police are protecting the public and ensuring the celebrations go on peacefully. They are not celebrating the festival, but only carrying out their duty of maintaining public peace and security."

He added that as the prime minister who cared for the interests of all race and religions, Najib should attend the religious celebrations of non-Muslim faiths.

Two years ago, Perak Mufti Tan Sri Harussani Zakaria claimed Najib had "sacrificed his faith" by attending the Thaipusam celebration, and said he advised the prime minister each year not to attend such events as it was an "idolatrous act".

But Harussani later back-pedalled on his criticism after Najib spoke to him personally, and said the prime minister had not flouted Islamic doctrine as he was not involved in a religious procession nor did he enter the cave where the main religious activities are conducted. – February 6, 2015

- See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/najib-should-not-don-hindu-attire-garlands-says-perlis-mufti#sthash.Xt7Ply0B.dpuf

Mutual friends: secularism and Islam

The Middle East will only be convinced by Islamic arguments for a secular state

By Brian Whitaker

On the first page of his book, Islam and the Secular State, Abdullahi an-Na'im writes: "In order to be a Muslim by conviction and free choice, which is the only way one can be a Muslim, I need a secular state."

He explains that he is not advocating a secular society but a state which is neutral with regard to religion – a state whose institutions "neither favour nor disfavour any religious doctrine or principle", a state that has no enforcing role in religious matters.

The object of state neutrality, an-Na'im says, is to facilitate "the possibility of religious piety out of honest conviction" and allow individuals in their communities the freedom "to accept, object to, or modify any view of religious doctrine or principle". States that take sides in such matters become an obstacle to religious freedom.

To some readers, this may be little more than a statement of the obvious. But to many Muslims, especially in countries where the state poses as a "defender of Islam" and an enforcer of "Islamic values", it is not only an unfamiliar argument but one that sounds dangerously mad, even heretical.
Last week, in an article for Cif, I discussed the shutting-down of debate about Islamic secularism in most of the Arab countries and posed the question: how can it be re-opened? I'd now like to suggest an answer.

The idea of states enforcing correct "Islamic" behaviour is based on a presumption that such behaviour can be clearly and indisputably defined. But we have only to look at an issue such as female circumcision, where scholarly opinions range from saying it is obligatory to forbidden, to see that this is anything but the case.

In practice, the "Islam" they are seeking to enforce is nothing more than the prevailing local orthodoxy – modified, where necessary, to suit the political needs of the regime. Conveniently, this allows them to invoke religion to justify all manner of abuses that cannot be defended by rational argument.

In 2000 Saudi Arabia, which is probably the world leader in institutionalised discrimination, signed up to the international Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) but added a reservation saying it did not consider itself bound by any part of the convention that conflicts with "the norms of Islamic law". In effect, it was claiming the right to choose which bits of the treaty, if any, it would implement. As Denmark noted in an objection at the time, the Saudis' references to the provisions of Islamic law were "of unlimited scope and undefined character".

Abuses of power are often dressed in a religious gloss which helps to win acceptance from Muslims but doesn't stand up to much serious scrutiny. Saudi Arabia, besides its achievements in the field of discrimination, also has the most comprehensive system of internet censorship in the Middle East and it cites verses from the Qur'an in support of this practice. The passage it quotes is about resisting sexual temptation and the verses (12: 33-34) imply that God will protect those who seek His help. If this has any relevance to internet use its point, surely, is that the temptations of the internet are a matter for users to sort out between themselves and God. So there is no reason for the state to become involved – unless the Saudi authorities are saying they don't trust God to do His job properly.
The central illusion here is that states can determine the one "true" voice of Islam, regardless of the diversity of Islamic thought through the ages, and also have the right to impose it on the public.
The question "How do they know their version is correct?" is what starts to undermine this edifice. Of course, they don't really know but they have power on their side, and might is right. The need here is not to categorically refute their religious arguments but to neutralise them by pointing out that other interpretations are possible. In that way a space is created where people can confront the underlying moral issues themselves and feel free enough to make their own choices.

To begin the process of separating states from religion, secularists have to be prepared to engage with religious arguments – something they are often reluctant to do. Human rights activists, for example (even those in Muslim countries) often fail to address the religious dimension, with the result that their arguments cut little ice among the public. Kecia Ali writes:

For the vast majority of Muslims worldwide – not only extremists or conservatives, but also those who consider themselves moderate or progressive – determining whether a particular belief or practice is acceptable largely hinges on deciding whether or not it is legitimately "Islamic".

Increasingly, feminists and others in Muslim countries are finding that if they want to make headway they have to present their case in terms that people can perceive as compatible with Islam. That means studying the scripture and exploring its various interpretations. Once the possibility of multiple "Islamic" interpretations is acknowledged, rational debate can begin.
 
Official discrimination against the Baha'is in Egypt is one example of a problem that cannot be tackled though secular arguments alone, because of the claims that it is sanctioned by Islam.
"One scholar after another, one government official after another, would insist that under Islam only three religions are allowed – Islam, Christianity and Judaism," Hossam Bahgat of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights recalled when I spoke to him about this in Cairo last summer. He continued:

When we started doing research we realised there is no basis in the Qur'an or the Sunna to support their claim that Muslims may only coexist with "people of the book" – and we started saying so.
I was once in a televised debate with the former president of al-Azhar university who was one of the chief jurists of the Islamic Religious Council and we were talking about the Baha'i faith. He started stating the usual position that Islam only allows adherents to the three Abrahamic religions. So I challenged him on this and said: "What's your evidence?"
I think he was stunned … I cited all the evidence about how the Prophet Muhammad in Madina never discriminated between people of the Book and others who adhered to other faiths – like the Zoroastrians, for example. He couldn't argue with my evidence because my evidence came not from fringe opinions but from major books that are selectively avoided by scholars because they don't give them the cover they want for their bigotry.
So immediately he shifted. He said: "Yes, but they [the Baha'is] have their headquarters in Haifa in Israel and they work against the fabric of our society, their presence is against national unity," etc.

Once the religious cover has been blown or neutralised, the way is open for a reasoned debate based on facts and logic rather than what someone in authority claims to have been told by God.

Ex-MI6 Boss Warns West Not To Insult Islam

Those who insult Islam should expect to be attacked, suggests ex-MI6 boss as he agrees with the Pope's Charlie Hebdo comments.

By Alistair Bunkall, Defence Correspondent


The former chief of MI6 has warned that anyone insulting Islam can expect to provoke a reaction and that "there will be another terrorist attack in this country."

Sir John Sawers was delivering his first speech since leaving office. He stepped down as 'C' in November 2014 after five years at the helm of the Secret Intelligence Service.

Sir John picked up on comments made by the Pope in reference to the provocative cartoons published in the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, where 12 were killed in a terror attack. Al Qaeda said the attacks were revenge for the depiction of Mohammed.

Pope Francis told crowds in The Philippines that a friend who had cursed his mother could "expect a punch" in return.

Sir John said: "There is a requirement for restraint from those of us in the West.

"I rather agree with the Pope that, of course, the attacks in Paris were completely unacceptable and cannot be justified on any basis whatsoever, but I think respect for other people's religion is also an important part of this.

"If you show disrespect for others' core values then you are going to provoke an angry response. That doesn't justify anything, but I think we just need to bear it in mind."

Sir John praised the work of the intelligence and security agencies but reiterated the threat to the UK from terrorists: "If I was to sit here and say will the goalkeepers of the security services and the police keep every single attempt to get the ball into the net, out? No. At some point these threats will get through and there will be another terrorist attack in this country."

Sir John said there cannot be any "no-go areas" either in the physical or virtual world and said there cannot be a trade-off between security and privacy.

"If the technology companies allow to be developed, areas that are simply impenetrable, you're inviting problems," he warned.

How to end ‘insult to Islam’ claims

If someone screams “insult to Islam”, the media should take out the Quran and ask him to point out the verse that supports his claim.

FMT

It can be said at the very outset that there’s only Islam and no such thing as the “real Islam” or “political Islam” or any other Islam. As the late Ayatollah Khomeini said: “The Quran, not a word more, not a word less.”

It’s said that the Charlie Hebdo cartoon, swearing by the right to free speech, had a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad lamenting, “Why are so many of my people extremists?” Three individuals apparently decided that this, and caricaturing the Prophet, was “an insult to the Prophet” and allegedly went on a murderous rampage there instead of taking advice on what remedies were available for them within the French system.

Probably, the system does not allow for any remedies because none are possible in a society that thrives on individualism to nurture inventiveness, innovation and creativity. The copycat culture is one that’s frowned on even if made more palatable by using the euphemism “reverse engineering”.

One issue with Muslims in the west is the right to free speech, one of the many sacred cows in western civilization. Westerners believe in defending someone’s right to free speech even if they disagree with what is being said. Those who can’t reconcile themselves with this mindset obviously cannot continue to stay in the west if they want to keep their sanity. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. If you can’t beat them, join them.

The west will not buy into quelling criticism on the grounds that something can be deemed “an insult to Islam”. Nearer home Lawyers for Liberty executive director Eric Paulsen raised this issue in the media.

Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin, uncharacteristically energetic, has urged authorities to investigate Paulsen for a statement in which he claimed that the Department of Islamic Development Malaysia (Jakim) promotes extremism through Friday sermons. If that’s happening, no one would be surprised because the public perception of religious authorities cannot be any worse. Between Paulsen and Jakim, there are no prizes for guessing who the people will believe.

So, we have “insult to Islam”, “extremism”, “political Islam”, “fundamentalism”, “militancy”, “terrorism”, “preaching hate” among the terms being bandied about around the globe with reference to Muslims.

In secular nations, wedded to the rule of law, some of these terms wouldn’t normally be on the agenda for a dialogue between the government and the people or among the people. It’s dialogue, and a continuing one at that, that would prevent people taking the law into their own hands, whether it’s call terrorism or comes under some other label like “preaching hate”, for example.

It’s disingenuous to say that westerners have nothing better to do than to sit around every day, thinking up ingenious new ways to “insult Islam”. The fringe media, with an eye on the bottom line, is not the sum total of western civilization. Still, it’s the “outrageous” actions of the few that grab headlines, not the quiet work of many good people.

Silent majority

However, a solution must be found so that the silent majority – here we are talking about the Muslim silent majority – would not feel trapped between their own “timidity and ignorance”, for want of better terms, on Islam and a vociferous minority which is willing to risk all and run amok at the drop of a hat whenever the word Islam is mentioned in an allegedly derogatory manner. It seems that they are willing to sacrifice the ummah (the community of the faithful) for no rhyme or reason just to flex their political and “religious” muscles in somebody’s else’s land which has welcomed them with open arms.

The solution lies in non-Muslims in the media, the west in particular, arming themselves with a copy of the Quran.

If someone screams “insult to Islam”, the media should take out the Quran, point at it, and tell those screaming, “look at the Quran and point out any verse which supports your claim”. The media should take the lead.

If they say, “It’s not in the Quran, but in the Sira – the biography of the Prophet – or the hadiths (the sayings of the prophet) or the syariah”, or some fatwa from somewhere, the media can politely decline to accept the claim and sources cited.

Only the Quran, Muslims will agree, is “from God”. So, the media does not have to entertain sources which are not from God.

The media lost an opportunity when Muslims took to the streets in Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya to claim without an iota of proof that “Allah was exclusive to Muslims”, a line apparently taken by the Home Minister when he directed the Herald, a Catholic weekly, not to use the term Allah in Malay print to refer to the Christian faith. The directive was ostensibly on “security grounds”, a point noted by the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court.

It’s syirik (blasphemy) in Islam to concede that there’s more than one God. In fact, to say that there’s more than one God is the biggest sin in Islam.

Where change comes from

WHEN news came of today's appalling terrorist attack in Paris, I was in the middle of drafting an Erasmus post with some thoughts on the question: can we expect Islam to undergo its own version of the Reformation, or to produce its own Martin Luther? The subject is addressed, in quite an intelligent way, in the latest issue of Foreign Policy, an American journal, and it is a topical one because various modern figures, from the Turkish preacher Fethullah Gulen to Egypt's military ruler Abdel Fattah al-Sisi have been described, however improbably, as Muslim answers to Martin Luther.
Today's ghastly events in France make the question even more pressing, because some people will undoubtedly say: this is proof, if proof were needed, that Islam is incorrigibly and by its very nature violent, intolerant and incapable of accepting the liberal ideal of free speech. And if that view gains traction, many Muslims will in turn conclude that in the face of such unremitting hostility, there is no point in even trying to explain their faith to others or seeking accommodation with their neighbours.  So the stakes are very high. 

Nick Danforth, the Foreign Policy writer, does a decent job of deconstructing the “Luther” question and showing how posing it reflects a linear, Anglo-Protestant view of history. According to this view there is a single-file march towards secular modernity, with reforming Protestants out in front, Catholics being dragged along a bit reluctantly, and Muslims far behind. “For most of American history, it would have been self-evident to the majority of American Protestants that the celebrated separation of church and state in the United States became possible because the Protestant Reformation tamed the Vatican in the 16th century.” You don't have to be a Protestant to argue for this sort of view; you could say, as many do, that the Reformation's real merit was that it reduced the importance of religion in general, and ushered in a more rational world. In fact, the article counter-argues, every religion has it own trajectory and its own way of negotiating the boundary between revealed truth and changing reality; it's not helpful to imagine a single track along which people travel at different speeds.

Here are some of my own thoughts on the subject. They have to do not with the merits, attractiveness or truth-claims of any religion, but with the way that religions in general work.
Martin Luther raised his voice against the abuse of clerical power by the Catholic authorities of his time: the ways in which sacraments (in other words, rituals which require a priest) were manipulated for cynical or venal purposes, doctrines were distorted, and ordinary people denied the opportunity to seek religious truth for themselves. He spoke with the authority of a well trained Catholic monk, versed in the Bible and in early church history. He wasn't rejecting all religious authority, or the idea of a sacrament as a ritual in which God was present; if he had taken that uncompromising view, he probably wouldn't have found many followers. 

In my experience, Muslims' first response to Luther's protests is usually something like: the abuses that he addressed are never likely to arise in Islam, because Islam has no equivalent of sacraments or priests who come between man and God and monopolise certain rituals. Islam has imams or prayer leaders, but no bishops or father-confessors.  (Shia Islam does have a tradition of powerful clerics, but the power they now enjoy in Iran is, arguably, a historical aberration.)

At the same time, many Muslims would stress that the "reform" or "renewal" of their religion, in the sense of cutting away unwanted accretions and getting back to Islam's original inspiration, has been a recurring theme in their history; and they would probably agree that some reform is badly needed now. But it's worth stressing that in neither Christianity, Islam, Judaism nor any other major religion can "reform" be equated with moderation or emollience. A stripped-down, minimalist religion can be more violent and intolerant than an elaborate one; just ask Oliver Cromwell or the Pakistani Taliban.

At this point, many non-Muslims might say, "we don't really care whether Islam is elaborate or stripped-down, we only care whether its followers can be persuaded to renounce terrorism, beheadings, and the pursuit of political power." Well, passionate arguments against all these things are being heard within the world of Islam, although they get less publicity than the violent voices. Look, for example, at the personally courageous stance of Hamza Yusuf, an American-born scholar with a wide following in the Islamic heart-land, in denunciation of Islamic State, its aims and methods. In recent weeks some 300,000 people have used the internet to hear him condemn, in rigorously Islamic terms, the claim of IS to be authentic representatives of the Sunni creed. His voice comes from deep inside scholarly, traditional Islam, just as Luther's came from deep inside sacramental, episcopal Christianity—and many people are listening.

Islam will not be scolded, scorned or aerially bombed into reforming by outsiders; it is deeply immune to external pressure. But it can and will change from within, as the founding texts and traditions are reread and refracted by successive generations. Nobody can predict which way that change will go—and there is not just one, single historical path along which it will or won't progress.

'Insane man' also destroyed Hindu deities

The man who destroyed deities at Wat Chataram in Bukit Mertajam, Penang last Friday had also attacked Hindu deities the next day, police said.

Police nabbed the man after a police report was lodged on the destruction of the Hindu deities on Saturday and sent him to the Perak Road Psychiatric ward on the island.

The man was seen hitting four deities with a machete at the Kaliaman River Side temple at Kampung Pokok Machang, Tasek Gelugor at 8.30 am that day.

He fled on his motorcycle when a local tried to stop him.

A Saundarajan, 53, lodged a police report over the incident at about 10.30am.

Another native of the village, R Thangaletchumy, 47, said the man went on a rampage and attacked a home which had two elephant idols at the porch after attacking the temple.

Visiting the Hindu temple today, Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng  expressed hope the incident would not recur as the culprit is now in custody.

"This is definitely not the culture of Malaysians and I thank everyone who condemned such acts," he said.

The temple, which is under construction, is a replacement for a 50-year-old shrine but building works were slow due to lack of funds.

Lim said the state government was prepared to provide some financial aid to help in restoring the deities.

Deputy Chief Minister II P Ramasamy said such incidents should not happen against any place of worship.

He urged the temple committee to write to the state government for financial aid to restore the deities.

"Religion is a sensitive issue and nobody has the right to destroy a church, mosque or temple no matter what their political ideology," he said.

Last year in January, molotov cocktail was thrown in the Church of the Assumption on Lebuh Farquhar.

In February, a slab of pork meat was hurled into the compound of the Cherok Tok Kun Atas Mosque.

No arrests have been made for the two incidents last year.

Scandal: Dutch police paid Salafis to help patrol The Hague during New Year’s Eve

Dutch police has capitulated: they can no longer uphold law and order in Muslim dominated areas, and is now hiring Salafi sharia-patrols from the local mosque to patrol the streets. This is not only in complete conflict with secular principles, it also lends authority to people who follow a doctrine that preaches destruction of democracy and death upon the very people that the police is supposed to protect.

Translated by Thomas from DenHaagfm:

The Dutch member of parliament Joram van Klaveren and Louis Bontes of the Party for the Netherlands (VNL) are upset about the cooperation during New Year’s Eve between The Hague police department and the Salafist As-Sunnah mosque.

Volunteers of the As-Sunnah mosque were patrolling the Transvaal and Schilderswijk districts of The Hague during the New Year’s Eve in order to prevent young people from causing trouble. The mosque also organized some activities for young people in the old school building “Het Startpunt”.

The volunteers of the mosque were rewarded with tourist vouchers.

The Party for the Netherlands finds it inappropriate that the Dutch government “should be represented on the streets by a Salafist mosque.” The former Freedom Party MPs said that “it is a misguided development” because “a fundamentalist Islamic institution, whose spokesperson said that it does not believe in universal human rights and that Dutch society is built on a godless foundation, should not be a partner for our secular government.”

Leon de Jong, the leader of the Freedom Party in The Hague’s city council has asked the city council written questions about what he calls the “sharia police” of the As-Sunnah mosque. “This kind of Islamization undermines the authority of the police,” he says. “The police should control the streets. For that reason, there should be no room in The Hague for any kind of Islamic law enforcement whatsoever.”