Shot Dead Because She Did Not Cover Her Head

Times Online February 20, 2007:

A Pakistani minister and woman’s activist has been shot dead by an Islamic extremist for refusing to wear the veil.
Zilla Huma Usman, the minister for social welfare in Punjab province and an ally of President Pervez Musharraf, was killed as she was about to deliver a speech to dozens of party activists, by a “fanatic”, who believed that she was dressed inappropriately and that women should not be involved in politics, officials said.
Mrs Usman, 35, was wearing the shalwar kameez worn by many professional women in Pakistan, but did not cover her head.

My Comments: Another sad story which happened 2 months ago, only knew about it today from Star Newspaper...definitely this is not the teaching of Islam

Cover your head please...

I was having a little chat with my fellow workmates when suddenly a topic on “Maya Karin” popped out. As usual the main topic of the discussion was her beauty. Then I mentioned about my husband’s visit in Terengganu where he saw a shampoo billboard featuring Maya Karin but she was with a head scarf. Suddenly one of the guys passed a comment that for guys to look at me was already a sin because of the way I dressed (description of the way I dressed at that time: long pants, body fitting top, and jacket outside and without headscarf). I was annoyed and irritated but at the same time I felt it was a compliment. Gosh…I was able to turn him on even by wearing a full pants suit.
I have my own reservations on the issue of headscarf. To me everyone has the right to choose what they want to wear as long as it is not indecent. But what irritates me is the fact that Muslims in this country have certain expectations towards Muslim woman. When she wears a headscarf then she is considered decent, respectful and has dignity. Many also said that women who cover their head will be protected from rapist or molesters. A friend of mine had to resign from her working place because she was isolated, simply because she did not wear a headscarf. Oh…not forgetting the Kelantan State Government wanting to impose wearing of headscarfs as part of the dress code for woman in Kelantan (is it because the existing restrictions still drive the people to serve the internet for pornography and Kelantan successfully hit no. 1 spot in this area).
I was attracted to Marina Mahathir’s write up in her blog on rape cases. When she searched the star on line, she discovered weird cases of rape in Terengganu.
1. 73 years old lady was rape while washing her dishes
2. 34 years old lady was rape while recuperating from her recent childbirth
And not forgetting the famous case of a man raping a goat in Kelantan. The two most conservative states in Malaysia but has weird incidents. I believe that when something normal is forbidden people will become abnormal. In Terengganu, simple case of Maya Karin’s advertisement. Although she put on the headscarf, but people there can still have assess to her other pictures in magazines, tv and the internet. For me such a rule is just a big “mockery”. I mean if you are trying to prove a point then better do it all the way….why only billboards (maybe because the man gets turned on only when they look at the billboards…what a sad story).
Again I have nothing against people wearing headscarf but to force one to do it is obviously not right and it is not the only way to distinguish one respectful woman from another.
A phrase in the Quran clearly shows that the real veil is in the eye of the man. This somehow has never been emphasized to the Muslims especially to the males. I did asked some of my guy friends in the University what kind of girls they prefer “with or without headscarf”. The majority of them prefer girls with headscarf, as according to them they are nicer to look at. Now if it has become a form of attraction, where is the aurat then? But I don’t blame people if they do not agree with me. I believe in freedom of expression.
Whatever it is, making it compulsory for ladies to wear headscarf at events, schools or University should not be imposed. For example the sports event for Muslim Woman organized by the Kelantan Government where the participants were required to wear headscarf. Special guest Ruqaya was invited as she won 200m race at the recent Asian Games. Her winning attracted the media since she covered her head (specially designed by a sport designer). But the media in this country wanted to show that the reason for her winning was because she covered her head instead of her discipline and effort. Well people, look back at her full attire…yes she did cover her head but she was wearing tight fitting pants…this is obviously not Islamic aight! One thing for sure…most of us want to see what we want to see.

Syariah Court.....where do we draw the line

Malay Mail, Tuesday, April 2007 - Subashini, a Hindu housewife who was compelled to go to Syariah Court to fight for her matrimonial rights will now have a final battle in the Federal Court to decide whether the High Court has jurisdiction to grant a civil divorce to couples, where one spouse has converted to Islam.
If you have read Malik Imtiaz explanation of Article 11 of the Constitution, then you may understand what is the big “hoo-ha” about. I strongly agree with Malik on his stand on Article 11 that the Syariah Law should not be imposed on non-Muslim. A simple case of “khalwat”, if a non-Muslim man is caught with a Muslim lady, the punishment would only apply to the Muslim. So what is so exclusive about Subashini’s case?
Well, I’m not going to discuss on the law here. Please visit www. http://malikimtiaz.blogspot.com/ for a better understanding on the legal aspect of this issue. Putting aside the law, let’s go back to our commonsense. Law after all is not about logic but commonsense. Now…if a couple is married under the civil law, why seek divorce under the Syariah law? I mean the couple was married in a temple and registered under the civil law but divorced under the Syariah Law. Ok let say if this case goes to Syariah Court. In Islam once a spouse does not believe in Islam (whether that person formally converts or not- just trying to be technical here…) the marriage will be invalid in the eyes of God (that was thought to me during my marriage course). So if this couple did not go to Syariah Court, is the Syariah law trying to say that they are legally married although one spouse has converted (hmm....commonsense people).
Now let’s move on. If the Syariah Court decides that the marriage is no longer valid, how about the issue on “talak”. Since she’s a non-muslim, there should not be any issue on it. So I don’t know why the Syariah Court should interfere when one of the main purpose to go to Syariah Court is to get the declaration that the husband actually divorce her as based on an Islamic marriage & the number of ‘talak’ involved. As in Subashini’s case, she is trying to get a declaration that the civil marriage is no longer valid.
Property wise, how should the couple divide their property? Based on the law of “harta sepercarian”? But Subashini is a non-muslim and the law only applies to marriage valid under Islamic law (again people commonsense…)
A friend said to me after we read the news about Subashini “Senang sahaja, to satisfy both side, go to both courts”. Well, I didn’t reply to his statement since I didn’t want him to sound idiotic. It will of course create another series of chaotic moments when both courts decide differently and we will go back to square one. Which decision should prevail (by the way that friend is a law graduate…sigh!?).
In my opinion, since the marriage was a civil one then they should get divorced through the civil court and get the property divided based on the civil law. Subashini’s husband converted after their marriage, it will be unfair to impose the Syariah Law on her when the marriage was not an Islamic one. It makes the Syariah Law seem draconian. Unless they are married as a Muslim couple and one spouse converted to another religion, then it makes sense that the couple should refer to the Syariah Court for the divorce.
The most complicated issue I feel is on the conversion of the children. This is a sensitive issue for both religions as I believe that one religion should respect the other. Legally I’m not clear about it. As a human being, I believe that religion is about a person’s faith. If a person is born as a Hindu then let him or her one day decide if they would like to be a Muslim, Christian or remain as a Hindu. I’m a Muslim and I’ve always held to the teaching of Islam that they should be no force in religion. People may say I have no right to say this, but there could be a possibility that the child may decide to change religion. It’s a common scene in Malaysia for Hindus and Christians to voluntarily convert to Islam. If one’s faith is strong in Islam, one should not fear. Sadly, the beauty of Islam has been tarnished by such technicalities created by our own Muslim people.

Moral Police?

The recent news about a girl being harrassed by our so called "moral police" was publicised in the front page of a Malaysian newspaper. The girl during the raid was naked when these enforcement officers pulled her blanket away and she only had a small towel to cover herself. I am so sad to say that our moral police are well trained that they themselves are so immoral. Do we need "moral police" who come in different names JAWI...JAIS. This is definitely not new to us.For many years men and women of the Muslim faith were targetted and subsequently suffered serious acts of ill-treatment, abuse and humiliation in the hands of the these enforcement officers. The fact remains that such raids in the name of religion goes against the spirit of the Federal Constitution, in which fundamental liberties such as the presumption of innocence, freedom from arbitrary detention and torture are enshrined.
These rights are inherent, regardless of one's religious beliefs, ethnicity, gender and class background. The very existence of such laws, even if they are not enforced, already violate our fundamental liberties. It is so sad that some section of our society agreed that we should be policed by such archaic and unfair laws which are enforced by these enforcement officers. Morality as long as it doesn't interfere with the public, should be a private matter. In other words, it should be between that particular individual and God. We have criminal laws which governs our conduct which at the same time protect the public. In this day and age, there is no place for moral policemen to control our society.