Another fallacy in SIS’s cause
- Dapatkan pautan
- X
- E-mel
- Apl Lain
Recently the feminism activists and especially the top-ranked members of Sisters in Islam (SIS) expressed their heartfelt outrage for the understanding of the role and relationship between men and women according to Islamic teachings and values hold on by ISMA and Wanita ISMA, as well as among PAS leaders which are contrary to what SIS and the fellow feminists are struggling to deliver.
The desperation for attention and to be seen as a righteous cause – feminism – makes Marina Mahathir (MM), their Board of Directors and the most prominent figure for feminism in Malaysia, fall very fond of awards and went down to the lowest level by labelling one particular suggestion – to have working women with less working hours as a way to accommodate women’s roles at work and home – as stone age mentality.
The fallacy at the beginning SIS may claim that their cause is to fight for the rights of women regardless of their religions and beliefs. By this they may even further claim that SIS fights unselectively and in a liberal sense, evident by the sharing of an article recognizing liberalism by MM.
But the fallacy crystallizes even at the beginning of their cause or the establishment of SIS itself – there is no way you, as a Muslim, may be able to fight unselectively and in a liberal sense without regards to their religions and beliefs WITHOUT depriving any Islamic teachings and values to accommodate the non-Muslim women’s wants and expectations.
For instance, Muslim women, as how Wanita ISMA believe, should be focussing on their role as the rabbatul bait and queen of the family, the caretaker of the children upbringing and the families’ welfare.
Muslim women should also believe that women’s role at home is important to ensure a harmonious and successful society and thereafter the entire nation.
But in this liberalized age, majority of non-Muslim women would not want to sacrifice their working hours for their families.
They may believe that all they need is an equal pay with that of men working the same hours.
This, in their consideration, would be one of the just and objective cause to put efforts into and to focus on.
Aside of socio-economic aspect, consider the word Islam in SIS itself which portrays the biggest fallacy of SIS’s cause.
In Islam, there is no way you could forge one particular cause without bringing in together the rest of the cause.
Otherwise, your cause will be uneven, imbalanced and cripple the rest of the cause which are left unattended.
SIS may be focussing on the rights of women, but without attention to the rights of men and their roles and responsibilities, SIS may have a misled perception and be misleading to the public as if men are not doing enough for women when actually women – SIS and the likes – are demanding too much.
MM mentioned about their struggle even to get an equal pay to that of men with the same working hours, but as a Board of Director for Sisters in ISLAM, is that all you are concerned about? What about the part where sisters – women – in Islam are the wives, mothers and daughters? What about the roles of mothers to care for their families first and not neglecting their duties to the husbands and children, and the daughters to be obedient to their fathers when being taught to wear headscarves?
SIS’s cause is too much concentrated on women that it defeats Islam as a way of life in all aspects! That is why the fallacy precipitates even at the beginning and we could see how SIS is questioned by ISMA and Wanita ISMA, even being declared deviant by the religious authorities.
Another fallacy after the establishment I would like to emphasize a few issues.
First of all, the liberals inclusive of SIS – similar to the transgender case – closely follow the progress of the Indira case through their representatives for watching briefs and backed up by the left media for reporting to the public.
It is a one time opportunity to have Islam and Muslims be disgraced and defeated under the law and the justice system because this is the only way.
I notice just recently that the left media report on the case of Indira in which the court has ordered for the arrest of her husband, a Muslim convert, for not obeying the custody order.
As far as the court order is concerned, I, as a legal person myself, could not say anything but to affirm the order.
However, I should note. I believe SIS and other feminist groups are there because of Indira, the non-Muslim mother.
Here, the fallacy from the beginning is evident once again. As Muslims, don’t they have the feeling that their Muslim children should be raised by and put into custody of the Muslim father?
Why SIS keeps looking at the rights of the mother without looking at the right of the Muslim father throughout the progress of the case? Just because Indira is the mother, does it make her right any superior than that of the father? How is this a just and righteous cause of SIS and in the name of Islam?
Secondly, SIS applauds the judgment of the High Court of Sarawak in the case of conversion of a Muslim man into Christianity through their press statement dated 28 March 2016.
SIS alleges that the judgment reaffirms the supremacy of the Constitution under Article 11 which protects the freedom of religion, including for Muslims to change one’s religion into another.
In the press statement, SIS mentions about Islam being a religion of compassion and tolerance, but SIS fails to see the other side of the coin.
How is SIS being compassion in letting one Muslim becomes Christian and thinking that there is nothing that SIS, or Muslims could do or should do. And here we thought SIS is interested in the cause for freedom of religion.
The liberals, and SIS being liberals itself, may agree and applaud the judgment but what happens when Dr. Zakir Naik, by the will of Allah, manages to invite new brothers and sisters to Islam? Here is what the liberals say and SIS keeps silence about it notwithstanding there is/are new sister/s in Islam; an article saying “public conversions during Zakir Naik’s talks is inappropriate” is published by the Malay Mail Online.
Following the court case in Sarawak, one theme is promoted; National Registration Department (NRD) has no right to refuse the application to strike out ‘Islam’ from the identity card and NRD has no right to interfere with the religion of the citizen as it is a private matter and should not be dictated and governed by the State and government.
This idea is supported by SIS in its press statement which reads”SIS welcomes the judgment by Datuk Yew Jen Kie allowing Rooney Rebit to change his religion from Islam to Christianity, because faith cannot be imposed through enforcement.”
One point to note, the liberals and SIS claim that freedom of religion is everyone’s right. Here I wish to put these words back into their stinky mouths.
If they say a Muslim may become a Christian in the Sarawak case, how is it inappropriate for non-Muslims to become Muslims with all the cheers and tears for the new Muslim converts?
Another point to note, isn’t it familiar? Yes, it is a secular view and not to mention without respect for law and the authority.
What is the law? This is an extract of the judgment of the honourable Judges rejecting Lina Joy’s appeal to have Islam removed in her identity card, quote: “a person who wanted to renounce his/her religion must do so according to existing laws or practices of the particular religion.
Only after the person has complied with the requirements and the authorities are satisfied that the person has apostatised, can she embrace Christianity…. In other words, a person cannot, at one’s whims and fancies renounce or embrace a religion.”
According to a senior official in the NRD, for the NRD to change the religion on her identity card would mean that the department would be officially declaring her an apostate, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Shariah Court.
Therefore, the settled law is for one to appear before Syariah Court and obtain a declaration that one is no longer a Muslim and only then the word ‘Islam’ may be removed. Not to mention, apostasy is a sin under the Islamic law and SIS appears to have COMPLETE disregard.
SIS for Islam or Feminism?
With all these being said, do SIS – and the liberals – in fact have any respect for the law and the Constitution which provides for the establishment of Islam and Islamic authorities? No, they don’t seem like it.
Truly, if SIS were defending Islam and Muslim women which are mothers, wives and daughters, why would you focus on the losing side and let the liberals triumph at the expense of Islam and religious authorities?
I notice MM shared an article quoting few sentences: “Feminism wants justice for women. Where Muslims aren’t doing justice for the women, these movements will come.”
Dear SIS and MM, this is not the way. Muslims, not Islam, are doing injustice for the women, only if that is in fact the case. And the way to rectify this injustice is to turn to Islam, not feminism.
Danial Ariff bin Shaari
I-Peguam
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of, and should not be attributed to, Isma or Ismaweb.
Ulasan
Catat Ulasan