Reveller Guerrilla

And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

I received an e-mail from a reader disagreeing with what I wrote in my article Inventing new religious rituals(http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/11508/84/ ). I forwarded his e-mail to a friend and my friend so kindly replied to the points raised. My friend’s reply is in BOLD.

I thought I would share this ‘exchange’ with you while at the same time allow Syed Hamid to, again, scream that I am a ‘blasphemous Muslim of the worst kind’ and threaten me with detention under the Internal Security Act. These threats do turn me on so, and at times even gives me an orgasm, so keep them coming Syed.

In the article there was a sentence stating: “Apparently, the tudung was ‘decreed’ for only the Prophet’s wives and not for all women…” So I’ve have looked into the Quran and found some things.

1) “O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, so that they may be recognised and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.” Surah Al-Ahzab (33), verse 59.

Comment : Firstly, see the words ’so that they may be recognised and not annoyed’. This means at least the face must be visible. It is wrong to say that other women at that time (non Muslim Arabs, Jews, Christians) did not wear the tudung. The truth is that the Jewish and Christian women wore far more conservative tudung than the Muslim women.
 
Covering the body is also required of men and women in the desert. It has nothing to do with any religion. So when the verse says ’so that they may be recognised’ it actually means the women should not cover their face or head in such a way that the people cannot differentiate them from other Christian and Jewish women who also wear tudung and veils. This means there is no such thing as a tudung to cover your head and face. 
 
The verse 33:59 says the following in Arabic:  
 
Ya ayyuhan nabi : O you prophet 
qul li-azwajika wabanaatika : tell your wives, your daughters  
wa nisaa i mu’mineena : and the believing women
yudneena : to lengthen
Alayhinna : over them
min jalabeebihinna : from their garments/cloaks. There is absolutely NO mention of head or hair or face in this verse. There is no reference to tudung. The reference is to lengthen your garments over your body. This means women must dress decently.

2) “And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands’ fathers, or their sons or their husbands’ sons, or their brothers or their brothers’ sons or sisters’ sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigour, or children who know naught of women’s nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And turn unto Allah together, O believers, in order that ye may succeed.” Surah An-Nur (24), verse 31.

Comment : Again there is no mention of head (ru’usa) in this verse or face (wujuh/wajh). Please note the words ‘draw their veils over the bosoms’. The arabic is as follows:
 
walyadribna : and strike / cover
bi khumurihinna : with their outer garments 
Ala : over / upon 
juyoobihinna : their bosoms / breasts
 
Women are told to cover their chests/bosoms/breasts. That is all. This tallies with the earlier verse 33:59 above where the women are told to lengthen their clothes/garments. There is absolutely no mention of head (ru’usa), face (wujuh) or hair.

3) In order to interpret the Quran, we have to go to people who have knowledge about it. In what circumstance the verse was revealed, etc. But not just any scholar who says that they know.

Comment : We DO NOT interpret the Quran. May I suggest something much simpler? Why not we just read it? If we look at the Quran in its arabic and then look at the translated words just a little carefully, we will understand it. You DONT EVEN have to know Arabic. For example the arabic word for HEAD (kepala) is NEVER mentioned in any of the verses quoted above. Neither are the arabic words for face and hair. So how do the translators include head, face and hair? Someone must explain this.

4) There are loads more Hadeeth on women’s veils.

Bukhari (6:321) - Muhammad is asked whether it is right for a young woman to leave her house without a veil.  He replies, “She should cover herself with the veil of her companion.”

Comment : This is quite typical of the hadeeth. What in God’s name does it mean ‘the veil of her companion’? If veils are worn by women, then the companion must be a female too. Why pinjam her female companion’s veil? Then her female companion will NOT have a veil anymore. Does this mean the female companion now cannot leave the house until the girl who borrowed her veil returns home ? Read carefully. It says ’she should cover herself with the veil of her companion’. What if there is no companion?  
 
What if she has her own veil? Does she still have to borrow? What if both the girl and her female companion dont have veils? This does not make sense. I think this hadeeth has to be checked carefully for its authenticity.
 
Bukhari (60:282) - After Muhammad issued the command (Sura 24:31) for women to cover themselves, the women responded by tearing up sheets to cover their faces. 

Comment : This contradicts the meaning of the verse. As I said the verse does NOT mention face at all. As I have pointed out, the women are supposed to be identified and differentiated from the other women (who also wore veils and covered their faces like the Christians and the Jews). This means their faces had to be exposed. But the hadeeth says the women were told to cover their faces. The authenticity of this hadeeth needs to be checked carefully. 

Abu Dawud (2:641) - The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Allah does not accept the prayer of a woman who has reached puberty unless she wears a veil.
 
Comment : Why not? The Quran says that we must think of God ALL THE TIME. The Quran says ‘zikrulaahi-akbar’ which means ‘the constant remembrance (zikir) of God is better’. A woman (and men too) should remember God when she goes about her housework, her gardening, her driving, her swiming, her job etc.  God can accept her zikir or remembrance of Him anytime. That is why the remembrance of God (God consciousness) is greater ‘zikrulaahi-akbar’.

Looking into the comments on the articles, the person who tried to point this sentence out was ridiculed. So that is why I sent this e-mail so that I would get your attention. Thank you for your time.

Aduyai….RPK..tafsir ayat Quran bukan cemtu jer bro, ade Asbaabun Nuzul. Dalam quran bukan ajer maksud tersurat, tersirat pun ada. Kaedah fiqh pun kita gunapakai. Oh, so bro rasa bro terjemah terus dari situ, itulah yg betul…….ini bukan buku sains, ni Al Quranul Karim…

Hmph……I smell puak Islam liberal. Cancer of our true Islam.

ANTI ANTI-HADEETH

I read the news in The Star recently of some Muslim bodies including JAKIM which lodged a police report against Malaysia Today’s editor, Raja Petra for allegedly insulting the Malays, Muslim and Islam.

I was hoping that they were referring to a real insult done by Raja Petra, but much to my disappointment, the articles which are said to insult these Muslim bodies are the articles with title I promise to be a good, non-hypocritical Muslim and Not all arabs are descendants of the Prophet. If these two articles insulted these Muslim bodies, then I have nothing to say than this : you guys are being unnecessarily sensitive Malay Muslims.

That makes me think of whether those who lodged the police report really went through the articles, at least to read it entirely, or they just look at the title and jumped to the conclusion, or they actually do not understand English? Which one of the above factors is true then? In my opinion, those two articles referred to initially didn’t tickle me even a bit. I think JAKIM should find something better to do than to lodge a police report on those two articles.

Today, however, Raja Petra published another article on head cover (tudung), The Great Tudung Debate. This one does attract my attention, though I must say that it is nowhere near to being an insult to me. I am not insulted at all, as this sort of view has been around for some times, especially by those anti-hadith clan or quranist. But as a head-covering-muslim-woman, I do believe I should put some respond in my blog over what I understand it to be. I do want to stress though, that I am not at all trying to belittle any of the non-head-covering women, as I do believe that this is something personal that does not affect our aqidah, and I do respect and accept the differences in opinion. The below respond is to present another side of the view, just so some people will not take this matter lightly.

I do believe though, that Raja Petra has touched this tudung issue at a very wrong place. This should be settled at ummah level first before opening it like that for public scrutiny. Among the statement published in The Great Tudung Debate article (which was said to be written by Raja Petra’s anonymous friend) is this comment on An-Nur 31:

Again there is no mention of head (ru’usa) in this verse or face (wujuh/wajh). Please note the words ‘draw their veils over the bosoms’. The arabic is as follows:
walyadribna : and strike / cover
bi khumurihinna : with their outer garments
Ala : over / upon
juyoobihinna : their bosoms / breasts
Women are told to cover their chests/bosoms/breasts. That is all. This tallies with the earlier verse 33:59 above where the women are told to lengthen their clothes/garments. There is absolutely no mention of head (ru’usa), face (wujuh) or hair.

My response :
This depends largely on what is the interpretation of the word khumur. I am not sure whether this friend of Raja Petra speaks Arabic (which I am quite sure this anonymous friend of his has no arabic knowledge), but one thing not highlighted is the fact that khumur (the plural word of khimar) means something to cover, and what was normally referred to as head cover (tudung). The classical arabic dictionary, aqrib al-mawarid defines khimar as :
“all such pieces of cloth which are used to cover the head. It is a piece of cloth which is used by a woman to cover her head.”

Imam Abu’l-Fida ibn Kathir said: “Khumur is the plural of khimar which means something that covers, and is what is used to cover the head. This is what is known among the people as a khimar.”

So linguistically, khimar does not only mean something to cover, it is commonly used at that time to refer to head cover (tudung). So now we can see that khimar can be used as :

1. A piece that covers
2. Something specifically used to cover the head / head cover / tudung
   

While I recognise and respect the fact that Raja Petra’s friend choose to pick the first definition of khimar, we should go a step further in trying to find whether the Qur’an is referring to the first or the second definition. Common linguistic factor should be taken into consideration, at the time when the verse was sent down. Jumhur ulama’ picked the second definition as the correct one.

When the verse An-Nur 31 was revealed, the term used : walyadribna bikhumurihinna
See how it was designed : bi-khumuri-hinna : with their khumur
The khumur was designed to be ma’rifah, not nakirah. Looking at it closely, this khumur is already there on the women’s body. Before this verse was sent down, where is it that the khumur was used? Are we saying that the women of Arabia at that time march around topless that God asked them to now put on their shirt to cover their breast?

No, they didn’t march around topless. They wore their khimar on their head. This is not suprising, that’s the tradition at that time. In fact, we know that the Christians used that as well, as they are required to do so in the Bible via Corinthian 11. The difference is that :

Imam Abu Abdullah Qurtubi said: “Women in those days used to cover their heads with the khimar, throwing its ends upon their backs. This left the neck and the upper part of the chest bare, along with the ears, in the manner of the Christians. Then Allah commanded them to cover those parts with the khimar.” 

The practice to wear khimar to cover hair is already there within the society, but now this verse commanded that it is extended to be used to cover breast to make it more meaningful in the modesty business. Why such a hassle to ask the women to cover breast once again using another piece? Then ask a woman to stand wearing a baju kurung, and another using baju kurung with tudung to cover their breast. See the difference.

That is if we want to rely solely on Qur’an. There are other hadith explaining this as well (though some might just refuse to accept it) .

The article further quote this statement :

We DO NOT interpret the Quran. May I suggest something much simpler? Why not we just read it? If we look at the Quran in its arabic and then look at the translated words just a little carefully, we will understand it. You DONT EVEN have to know Arabic. For example the arabic word for HEAD (kepala) is NEVER mentioned in any of the verses quoted above. Neither are the arabic words for face and hair. So how do the translators include head, face and hair? Someone must explain this.

My Response :
I beg to differ. There are times when we don’t even have to mention something specifically in order to refer to something. If I ask my husband to wear an underwear, that means I want him to cover his private part, no? Should I then have to specifically say this “Darling, please use this underwear to cover your penis (pardon me for the word)” instead? If I just say “Darling, please wear this underwear”, would he then use the underwear to cover his feet or head instead? Do I need to mention the private parts when I ask him to wear it, when underwear is already known to be used as something to cover the private parts?

This is where the knowledge in Arabic is important in interpreting things. When we understand khimar to be something covering our hair, whether or not it mentions head and hair, it does not matter anymore. Do not take lightly of the importance of Arabic language in explaining the Qur’an. Those who don’t speak arabic might not realise the efficiency of arabic language that even its grammar is vital in interpreting it correctly. Remember how did some people failed to realise that arabic grammatical aspect of the verse in Hud : 114 is important, that they wrongly came to the conclusion that there should only be 3 prayers in a day?

And for those who left their comments on that article in Malaysia Today accusing Muslim women with head-cover as oppressed or that sort, please learn to respect other people’s belief. I wrote something on this quite some times ago inMuslim Women Dress Code and Oppression.

Hmm? aku akan carik  post asal the great tudung debate. nak tgk betapa liberal diorg nih.

Muslims do not know how to be Muslims. Muslims do everything Islam is against. Muslims are hypocrites. That is what ails Malaysia. That is the sickness of our society.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

I promise that, under a Pakatan Rakyat government, Malaysians will never again be subjected to such gross abuse of executive power as we are again witnessing today (7 August 2008). Arbitrary arrest and detention, frivolous investigation and malicious prosecutions shall be a thing of the past. Police officers and prosecutors who launch conspiracies to defame and humiliate the innocent will be severely punished. The use of police powers as well as that of the office of the Attorney General to persecute political opponents will be criminalised so as to ensure a healthy and vibrant democracy where dissent is not only tolerated but also nurtured.  
 
In this regard, every Malaysian’s fundamental liberties will be treated as sacrosanct and safeguarded by a truly independent judiciary guided by principles of utmost integrity and an adherence to the spirit of the federal constitution.  
 
The politically motivated trial launched against me will, Insha’Allah, be the last of its kind. No Malaysian will suffer from this cruel injustice ever again.  
 
Yesterday’s events confirm my innocence from the charges that recently surfaced. The medical report and Statutory Declaration by Dr. Osman Abdul Hamid of the Pusrawi Hospital that surfaced on Thursday shatter lingering doubts as to whether the alleged act ever took place.  Dr. Osman’s statement also confirms what we have already stated regarding deplorable actions by the police to fabricate evidence in a manner identical to the manipulation of my case in 1998. Anything short of a thorough investigation into the mishandling of this investigation would further tarnish the credibility of the police.  
 
The doctor’s personal safety is a matter of deep concern to us. Material witnesses in high-profile cases in Malaysia, such as the PI Balasubramanian, have gone missing in the past. I applaud those brave individuals who have demonstrated their commitment to freedom and justice by coming forward with important evidence and I call upon the authorities to ensure their protection.  
 
Yesterday, in court, we learned that the prosecution’s case has, in a manner similar to the botched trials of 1998, shape-shifted from a charge of assault to one of a consensual act. The conspiracy launched against me in the final week of June 2008 is falling apart. There is a hasty attempt by some to patch up glaring holes in the complainant’s testimony. This will certainly fail given the preponderance of evidence confirming my innocence. 
 
The Prime Minister has actively involved himself in this matter in an attempt to derail the process of transformational change in Malaysia and stave off his own political demise.  But in soiling his hands with this sordid matter he has deepened the crisis within his own administration. His most ardent supporters among the Malays have also expressed their disgust with the matter. Furthermore, Prime Minister Badawi now faces investigation by the Anti-Corruption Agency for his involvement in corruption and money politics.   
 
The shadow of corruption and mismanagement of the economy darkens the legacy of his Premiership.  Prime Minister Badawi has still offered no convincing explanation over the huge profits reaped by his family in the Oil-For-Food scandal at the expense of dying Iraqis.   
 
I advise those around him to leave the sinking ship of his leadership while there is still a chance to do so.   
 
Pakatan Rakyat’s reform agenda is firmly back on track and the New Dawn for Malaysia is well within reach.  We will mount a unified campaign to win in Permatang Pauh with a solid majority encompassing that constituency’s diverse population.  I look forward to entering Parliament on August 27th with the support of my friends in the coalition.  
 
ANWAR IBRAHIM

That was Anwar Ibrahim’s statement yesterday. It did not come with any heading. But if it did it could have been appropriately headlined: I promise to be a good, non-hypocritical Muslim.

Yes, that short sentence — I promise to be a good, non-hypocritical Muslim — which I have chosen as the title of this piece, aptly describes what Anwar’s statement could have been called had he chosen to give it a heading. This is the crux of the problem. This is what ails our society. This is the root cause of the breakdown in morality and lack of values prevalent amongst those Muslims who walk in the corridors of power.

Corruption, exploitation, abuse of power, political persecution, arrogance, racial discrimination, no respect for fundamental liberties and human rights, and much more, are not the problem. These are merely symptoms of another problem. These are just the end-result of the real problem. The problem that breeds all these symptoms of what ails this country is that Muslims do not know how to be Muslims.

Sure, I know, you are going to now scream, “Why target just the Muslims? There are also bad Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and whatnot. So why just target Muslims for criticism? Why not also whack the Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and whatnot?”

The Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and whatnot do not run this country. The majority of the 1.2 million leaders and civil servants are Muslims. The policies and direction of this country are charted and guided by the Muslims. It is the Muslims who practically have absolute say in how this country is run and in what happens in this country. At best, those not of the Muslim faith are merely running dogs of the Muslims. These running dogs lie to their people by claiming that they are looking after the interest of their community whereas they are really selling their community down the drain and subjecting their community to the whims and fancies of the Muslims who are running this country.

Listen to how Muslims talk. They foam at the mouth in defence of Islam. They slander and defile other religions. They declare all other religions as false and their holy books as fakes. They profess only Islam as the true religion, Muhammad as the final and legitimate Prophet, and the Quran as the only authentic book still in existence. Then they do everything that Islam is against without blinking an eyelid as if this is what God Himself prescribed.

No, the non-Muslims do not moralise like the Muslims do. The non-Muslims are not patronising like the Muslims are. The non-Muslims do not talk down to those of other religions like the Muslims do. The non-Muslims do not preach that those not of their religion are the enemies of God who should not be taken as friends the way the Muslims preach.

Yes, there are good Muslims and there are bad Muslims. There are also good people of the other religions and there are bad people of the other religions. But only Muslims pretend to be good when they are actually bad. Only Muslims talk about their religion non-stop while going against everything their religion stands for. 

Anwar described at great length what ails our country. Anwar described in great detail what ills our society is suffering from. But all that could have been explained in just one sentence. Muslims do not know how to be Muslims. Muslims do everything Islam is against. Muslims are hypocrites. That is what ails Malaysia. That is the sickness of our society. And that is why Malaysia is a lost cause as long as we have the majority 1.2 million leaders and civil servants coming from just one faith, the Muslim faith.

Aduhyai Raja Petra……anda bukan raja petra la. You are King Peter. Kenapa x yakin dengan agama sendiri? Anda tak dalami Islam, lalu mengutuk Islam. Saya dengar anda juga pernah kuar Islam dan masuk balik? Dakwah meme la wajib oleh setiap Muslim. Bulan posa ni, RPK, meh turun mesjid Kg Baru. Kita semayang terawih, saya buleh gak ajar alip ba ta…

Nak kata munafik……..aih, saya tak berani la nak tuduh org munafik2 nih. hmm…RPK ni nak kena luku dengan aku.