Schizo's Sanctuary


Blog For Free!


Archives
Home
2005 April
2004 October
2004 September
2004 July
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2003 December
2003 November

tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images


Sponsored
Blog


Links
Woman's Reflection on Leading Prayer - by Yasmin Mogahed
04.06.05 (1:19 pm)   [edit]
"Given my privilege as a woman, I only degrade myself by trying to be something I'm not--and in all honesty--don't want to be: a man. As women, we will never reach true liberation until we stop trying to mimic men, and value the beauty in our own God-given distinctiveness."

    On March 18, 2005 Amina Wadud led the first female-led Jumuah (Friday) prayer. On that day women took a huge step towards being more like men. But, did we come closer to actualizing our God-given liberation?

    I don't think so.

    What we so often forget is that God has honored the woman by giving her value in relation to God-not in relation to men. But as western feminism erases God from the scene, there is no standard left-but men. As a result the western feminist is forced to find her value in relation to a man. And in so doing she has accepted a faulty assumption. She has accepted that man is the standard, and thus a woman can never be a full human being until she becomes just like a man-the standard.

    When a man cut his hair short, she wanted to cut her hair short. When a man joined the army, she wanted to join the army. She wanted these things for no other reason than because the "standard" had it.

    What she didn't recognize was that God dignifies both men and women in their distinctiveness--not their sameness. And on March 18, Muslim women made the very same mistake.

    For 1400 years there has been a consensus of the scholars that men are to lead prayer. As a Muslim woman, why does this matter? The one who leads prayer is not spiritually superior in any way. Something is not better just because a man does it. And leading prayer is not better, just because it's leading. Had it been the role of women or had it been more divine, why wouldn't the Prophet have asked Ayesha or Khadija, or Fatima-the greatest women of all time-to lead? These women were promised heaven-and yet they never lead prayer.

    But now for the first time in 1400 years, we look at a man leading prayer and we think, "That's not fair." We think so although God has given no special privilege to the one who leads. The imam is no higher in the eyes of God than the one who prays behind.

    On the other hand, only a woman can be a mother. And God has given special privilege to a mother. The Prophet taught us that heaven lies at the feet of mothers. But no matter what a man does he can never be a mother. So why is that not unfair?

    When asked who is most deserving of our kind treatment? The Prophet replied 'your mother' three times before saying 'your father' only once. Isn't that sexist? No matter what a man does he will never be able to have the status of a mother.

    And yet even when God honors us with something uniquely feminine, we are too busy trying to find our worth in reference to men, to value it-or even notice. We too have accepted men as the standard; so anything uniquely feminine is, by definition, inferior. Being sensitive is an insult, becoming a mother-a degradation. In the battle between stoic rationality (considered masculine) and self-less compassion (considered feminine), rationality reigns supreme.

    As soon as we accept that everything a man has and does is better, all that follows is just a knee jerk reaction: if men have it-we want it too. If men pray in the front rows, we assume this is better, so we want to pray in the front rows too. If men lead prayer, we assume the imam is closer to God, so we want to lead prayer too. Somewhere along the line we've accepted the notion that having a position of worldly leadership is some indication of one's position with God.

    A Muslim woman does not need to degrade herself in this way. She has God as a standard. She has God to give her value; she doesn't need a man.

    In fact, in our crusade to follow men, we, as women, never even stopped to examine the possibility that what we have is better for us. In some cases we even gave up what was higher only to be like men.

    Fifty years ago, society told us that men were superior because they left the home to work in factories. We were mothers. And yet, we were told that it was women's liberation to abandon the raising of another human being in order to work on a machine. We accepted that working in a factory was superior to raising the foundation of society-just because a man did it.

    Then after working, we were expected to be superhuman-the perfect mother, the perfect wife, the perfect homemaker-and have the perfect career. And while there is nothing wrong, by definition, with a woman having a career, we soon came to realize what we had sacrificed by blindly mimicking men. We watched as our children became strangers and soon recognized the privilege we'd given up.

    And so only now-given the choice-women in the West are choosing to stay home to raise their children. According to the United States Department of Agriculture, only 31 percent of mothers with babies, and 18 percent of mothers with two or more children, are working full-time. And of those working mothers, a survey conducted by Parenting Magazine in 2000, found that 93% of them say they would rather be home with their kids, but are compelled to work due to 'financial obligations'. These 'obligations' are 
imposed on women by the gender sameness of the modern West, and removed from women by the gender distinctiveness of Islam.

    It took women in the West almost a century of experimentation to realize a privilege given to Muslim women 1400 years ago.

    Given my privilege as a woman, I only degrade myself by trying to be something I'm not--and in all honesty--don't want to be: a man. As women, we will never reach true liberation until we stop trying to mimic men, and value the beauty in our own God-given distinctiveness.

    If given a choice between stoic justice and compassion, I choose compassion.

    And if given a choice between worldly leadership and heaven at my feet-I choose heaven.

 
US praise for Malaysia criticised
04.06.05 (9:02 am)   [edit]

Former Malaysian deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim has attacked the United States for endorsing Malaysia as a moderate Muslim democracy, when it actually enjoyed little freedom.



The rebel politician on Tuesday said there were no free and fair elections in Malaysia and complained of a lack of freedom of speech, which hindered exposure of corruption in the country led by Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
  
"How do you have free and fair elections when the views of the opposition are not heard?" Anwar asked in his first public address in the United States since being released from prison in September last year.


"The entire media is controlled by the ruling party and you have free and fair elections?"


US ignorance


"I mean it is mockery, it is mockery even when Washington, for example, approves this sort of exercise because it just portrays your utter ignorance or inconsistency in dealing with such countries," he said at the Johns Hopkins University's Washington-based School of Advanced International Studies. 


Anwar had enjoyed close ties with the US government before the heir-apparent to then-premier Mahathir Muhammad was sacked and later jailed on corruption and sodomy charges, which he says were trumped up to prevent him challenging Mahathir for the premiership.
  
He was freed from nearly six years in prison when Malaysia's top court overturned his sodomy conviction. But the court refused to allow an appeal against his corruption conviction, effectively barring him from active politics until 2008 under regulations governing convicted criminals.


Improving ties


Malaysia is often cited as a moderate and model Muslim country by the Bush administration. Bilateral relations have flourished since Abdullah took over from Mahathir, an ardent critic of the West, in October 2003.


Anwar said the United States and other Western nations were willing to look the other way if countries supported their "war on terror".


"They are so gullible. As long as you come out openly and publicly condemn terror, then you get away with murder," he said.
  
Apprantly backing his claim that there was little freedom in Malaysia, the 57-year-old Anwar said he was prevented from speaking to university students.
 
"I am not in a position to speak to students in any university in the country. And you are talking about a moderate Muslim country with democracy as being claimed".
  
"If you want to be a moderate Muslim country, you cannot condone corruption," he said.

 
Former Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia Joins SAIS, Gives First U.S. Public Address<
04.04.05 (1:12 pm)   [edit]

Presenting his first public address in the United States, Anwar Ibrahim, former deputy prime minister of Malaysia, will speak at SAIS at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 5. Anwar's talk is titled "Reflections: The Asian Economic Crisis and Political Transitions in Southeast Asia."

The SAIS Foreign Policy Institute last week appointed Anwar as a distinguished senior visiting fellow.

Anwar was recently released from prison in Malaysia after serving six years on charges of corruption and sodomy; he won his appeal on the sodomy charges in September 2004. His arrest in 1998 was a defining moment in contemporary Malaysian politics.

After a record of student activism at the University of Malaya, Anwar entered politics in the 1970s, joining the ruling United Malays National Organization in 1982. He served as minister of youth, culture and sports; minister of education; and minister of finance. In 1997 he published Asian Renaissance and emerged as a strong advocate for civil society, economic liberalization, moderate Islam and democratic governance.

As a distinguished senior visiting fellow, Anwar will present seminars on contemporary Southeast Asian politics, economic reform, Islam and democracy and, in general, join in SAIS activities. He is currently working on his prison diaries, to be published later this year, and a project examining democratization in the Muslim world. He also will counsel students who wish to learn more about Southeast Asia and the Muslim world.

The event will be held in the Kenney Auditorium of the Nitze Building. To attend, non-SAIS affiliates should RSVP to sea-sais@jhu.edu or 202-663-5837.

http://www.jhu.edu/" title="http://www.jhu.edu/" target="_blank"http://www.jhu.edu/~gazette/2005/04apr05/04d eputy.html

 
Mixed feelings about guest labor - by Thomas Fuller
04.04.05 (1:09 pm)   [edit]

Over the past decade, this relatively prosperous country has tried just about everything to keep illegal workers away: The government built a concrete wall along part of the jungle-covered border with Thailand, it staged a series of police crackdowns including one called Operation Nyah - literally "go away" - and since 2002, it has arrested and whipped more than 18,000 foreigners living in the country illegally. The most recent crackdown, which began in March, appears more definitive than previous ones, with nearly half a million foreign workers said to have returned home, mainly to Indonesia.


But with relations with Indonesia now severely strained and businesses here complaining about worker shortages, many Malaysians are wondering whether the cure is worse than the disease. The government says it will now diversify the sources of its labor away from Indonesia. Among its plans is the recruiting of 100,000 people from Pakistan. But these plans have frightened some who fear that Pakistanis could bring a more militant form of Islam with them and would not adapt as well as Indonesians, the majority of whom are ethnically and culturally very similar to Malays, the largest ethnic group in Malaysia.


The larger issue for the region, experts say, is the sustainability of a "guest worker" system in which foreigners, illegal or not, are sometimes tolerated and at other times expelled. "You end up having a very unstable labor pool," said Vivian Wee, the associate director of the Southeast Asia Research Center at the City University of Hong Kong. "Your businesses go up and down every time you decide to kick out the illegal labor. It affects the whole economic planning."


The alternative is an immigration policy like those of Australia, Canada, the United States and to a lesser extent European countries, where there are regulated quota systems for immigrants. But despite the obvious long-term needs for labor in many Asian countries there is very little discussion about immigration programs, mainly because of fears that it could upset delicate racial balances.


In the meantime experts are recording large migration flows throughout the region: Wee estimates that in recent years about 3 million Chinese have moved into Myanmar; Singapore relies heavily on foreign construction and service-industry workers, Hong Kong on Filipino maids and Thailand on Myanmar laborers. The Japanese government announced last week that it would increase its intake of skilled and unskilled foreign workers to make up for a labor shortfall anticipated as of 2007.


The Malaysian case is significant because the country remains one of the largest importers of foreign labor in Asia. An estimated quarter of the work force - 2.5 to 3 million workers out of a working population of 9 million - is foreign, according to P. Ramasamy, a political science professor at the National University of Malaysia.


Much of modern Malaysia was built by foreign labor, including the administrative capital of Putrajaya, where the first person buried in the cemetery was an Indonesian construction worker who died on the job. The government's plan to dilute the Indonesian presence by recruiting Pakistani workers has been questioned in the mainstream press.


"As Pakistan is facing some serious security problems at home due to the threat of terrorism, there is understandable concern that some of the troublemakers may be coming over here posing as workers," wrote V. K. Chin, a columnist of the Star newspaper. The government said over the weekend that the first Pakistani workers would arrive sometime in late April or early May. It says it is screening them for terrorist links.


Ramasamy predicted that the plans to tap Pakistani workers would "backfire" because they would not blend in as well as Indonesians. "You've had minimal social problems with Indonesian workers," Ramasamy said. "They came and they brought their families."


Nearly 14,000 children of illegal immigrants, many of them Indonesians, were registered in Malaysia between 2001 and August 2004, according to government figures. There is also the larger question of whether any government is able to break time-honored migration patterns. Indonesians have traveled to the Malay Peninsula for centuries, long before countries like Indonesia and Malaysia existed.


"They will come anyway," Ramasamy said of Indonesians. "They are not going to go through the legal channels." Joseph Chinyong Liow, a Malaysia specialist at the Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies in Singapore, says the earliest Malay writings show the ancient migration patterns.


"Migration from the Indonesian Archipelago to the Malay Peninsula has long been a feature of the interaction and exchange that defines the identity of the Indo-Malay world," he wrote in a recent paper on the subject. Today, Indonesians have a mixed reputation in Malaysia. Managers at rubber and palm oil plantations say they are hardworking and able to withstand arduous conditions.


Others blame Indonesians for a perceived increase in crime - although official figures do not entirely bear this out: Last year the internal security ministry said illegal immigrants were responsible for 6.9 percent of crimes, a relatively small percentage. Estimates of their numbers before the crackdown went as high as 1.2 million in a country of 25 million people. The current crackdown in Malaysia was preceded by an amnesty and postponed several times, partly because of the tsunami that struck last year in Sumatra, where many of the foreign workers come from.


But after Malaysian security forces began what they called Operation Tegas, or "firm," rounding up thousands of illegal workers, Indonesians reacted angrily. Coupled with a dispute over rights to oil off the east coast of Borneo, the crackdown led to flag-burning protests in Jakarta and created a general feeling of resentment among the Indonesian elite over Malaysia's harsh treatment of captured illegal immigrants, including the policy of whipping them.


"The jailing and the caning is very barbaric," said Anwar Ibrahim, Malaysia's former deputy prime minister. Caning, a practice that dates to British colonial times, involves using a wet rattan stick to whip the prisoner on his buttocks, often splitting the skin and leaving scars.


"This is what causing anger in Indonesia," Anwar said. "It's not that they are being repatriated. It's the way that they were treated." Among the 18,607 illegal immigrants who were whipped over the past three years, 11,473 were Indonesians; 2,786 Burmese, 1,956 Filipinos and 708 Bangladeshis, according to figures released in December by Malaysia's Home Ministry.


The Indonesian minister of manpower, Fahmi Idris, accused the Malaysian government last month of being one-sided in its crackdown. He questioned why workers were being whipped but not the Malaysians who had hired them. Four days later the New Straits Times, the leading English-language daily in Kuala Lumpur, carried an official announcement that 24 employers had been charged with hiring illegal workers and would face caning if convicted.


http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/04/04/n ews/malaysia.html" title="http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/04/04/n ews/malaysia.html" target="_blank"http://www.iht.com/articles/2...

 
March 2004
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31