Did you manage to get Today's Weekend publishing on 18th Aug?

This caught my eye








I have read several of his written articles on the papers frequently addressing issues relating to Islam and the Muslim community


Who is he?
"Nazry Bahrawi is a journalist who regularly comments on socio-political and cultural issues in South-east Asia in a personal capacity"


I do have my utmost respect for him as an editor for The Muslim and a journalist who has proved himself to be more than capable into engaging issues with regards to religion tied with the Muslim communities.


Without a doubt, the Sept 11th episode woke the world that no place should be judged as safe.
That was also the beginning of Islam's reputation was at stake.


With continuous spewing misinterpretations and misunderstandings, Muslims had to continuously & individually fight through discrimination. At the same time, the world became more aware of the radical Islamic teachings, generally through media.


There is a reason for the existence of the Quran and I have come to terms that Islam needs to evolve according to time. We can't expect to see religious war still on horses and transportation by camels.


But I believe basics are still basics.


Let's not talk about the current issue about "Muslims — like other Singaporeans — included automatically in the Human Organ Transplant Act unless they opt out, thus reversing a 20-year rule."

This fatwa was implemented, furthering that "Muslims here have taken a progressive approach when it comes to implementing Islamic laws."


Hmmm progessive approach? I agree but on the basis that culture over-rules religion?


In the article, I couldnt point the finger as to what the writer was focusing on. Was it....?
Divorce rates vs Hukum Fara'id?
Hukum Fara'id vs Salary?
or was he simple addressing the social issue on legal marriage age and increasing divorce rates?


The idea of "refining Muslim laws" to suit "with the changing lifestyles and the needs of the Muslim community" is pretty subtle approach in my opinion.

By looking at it deeper, it would mean changing the criteria of the laws imposed.

Inheritance

For example, by the writer looking at the increase of percentage of female graduates in the country today, how would salary scale be solely sufficient to revise hukum fara'id. It is true that the rationale of inheritance that "Men are considered the family breadwinner, and thus the natural head of the household. As such they have to shoulder a greater burden than their dependents, the women and children."


Their question now is whether the "the inheritance law fair?" especially when men today may not necessarily be the sole breadwinner in the family. Thus, the standpoint that the responsibilities shouldered are not as great today compared to yesterday.


"A progressive approach", standing up for the Muslimmahs?


For every girl that is borned, they have been promised to be taken care of by her parents.
For every boy that is borned, they have been shouldered of the responsibilities to take care of his parents.


The inheritance law is still fair and valid to the new millenium. A son does not only shoulder responsilities of putting bread on the table at the end of the day.

He is one who will head the family after his father.
Not the women.

He is the one responsible to uphold the family honour after his father.
Not the women.

It is very obvious to see that men lead prayers in masses. Not the women. And for every prayer he leads, he shoulders the responsibility of his fellow brothers and sisters.


Shouldering responsility for the male gender in Islam context comes from many avenues.


Of course there are some, if not many, who are irresponsible and overlook their roles as sons or fathers. But Allah SWT would have forseen this wouldn't He?

So if the basis is made on women drawing higher income than men, not having to depend on their husband to provide them with maintenance support, strengthening their grounds to seek for a divorce, and inheritance proportion should be looked into, then why haven't the women been providing men with maintenance support instead.

If it was about women's rights, then this would probably be the optimum period to fight for our rights.

WALI

"it should also allow a Muslim woman to have the final say on who she wants to marry without needing the permission of a wali — notwithstanding the fact that, currently, a Muslim woman can appeal against her wali's decision to the Syariah court if she can prove that it was made on "unreasonable grounds"


Probably this is more suited for those parents who prefer to have their daughters or sons marrying them off from people of the same clan/family tree.
This is largely probably trying to address the Arabs society.


But what would qualify a person to be the wali to the bride?
The father? No. The brother? No. The uncle? No.
That is the preference but if only all other criteria are met.

Should the wali hold any biased judgements, would that be the qualifying mark?


I am not challenging the Islamic law. What I am more concerned is by aligning the current laws, making it seem to be a progressive move, it would change the root of understanding what Islam is all about.

When a fatwa is made, do we have the right person, with the right principles to start the ball rolling before getting the consensus from the citizens?

What I am thinking next is, "Are we going to progressively change the 5 pillars of Islam?"

It is true that "there are no easy answers"

Which is why it is very crucial to go back to basics. Go back to the Al Quran followed by the Hadith. Not the other way around.

We have seen evolution in Christianity.
For example, the progressive change in the Bible, segregating believers.
Catholics & Protestants.

Will Quran share the same fate too?

Just like in M.Nasir's song,
"Tujuh puluh tiga pintu
Tujuh puluh tiga jalan
Yang sampai hanya satu jalan"

Wallahualam


Sources:
www.rrg.sg
The Straits Times, 24 September 2005
Today Weekend, 18th August 2007