Shock. Shock. Horror. Horror.

My job at Commonwealth Policy Studies Unit (CPSU) is becoming very exciting. Initially there was a lot of reading to do. It was not easy trying to learn about the whole Commonwealth and its agencies in a very short time. And over the last two weeks, things became even more exciting. I have met with top officials from the Commonwealth Foundation, Commonwealth Secretariat, International Business Leaders Forum, Institute of Business Ethics, World Bank, Commonwealth Business Council etc. And that is not to mention people from some major companies like British American Tobacco, Shell, Barclays, etc. Work-wise, all are going extremely well. On the other hand, last week I was asked a question I have been expecting for quite a while. The question was, what is PAS’ stance if its member joins a British political party that is not based on Islamic principles. And, as expected, a clause was quoted from PAS’ constitution as thus: “Seseorang ahli PAS boleh berhenti atau diberhentikan daripada menjadi ahli apabila memohon atau mengisytiharkan diri keluar daripada PAS, dipecat atau menyertai mana-mana parti politik lain” Hmmm…. I say these are expected because for years, we all have been trained to believe in central command and control (under the pretext of al-wala' and 'amal jama'i) to an extent that it is unthinkable for anyone to do things that have not been prescribed centrally. The notion that individuals have an inherent right to choose is alien to many who grew up in the more "traditional" system of Islamic movement education. But I think I am going to let those who ask, continue asking. I do not yet have the time to write about this "not-based-on-Islamic-principles" issue. (Although I do intend to write something on this topic in the future). The things that are really buzzing in my mind are: 1. if someone has decided that he will stay outside Malaysia for an extended period, why should he stay as a member of PAS? 2. is it appropriate to create a community of PAS members in the UK? Is this not another case of self-segregation which is slowly destroying plural Britain? 3. what can be done to address the issue of Malaysians living in the UK but remaining ignorant of British realities? The "not-based-on-Islamic-principles" argument can only be expected and is a symptom of utter ignorance. I am also keen to see how far these people will go in trying to get me expelled from PAS. Go for it, guys!!! I wonder what colour they will turn into if they know that from 1 May 2006, I will start at the Conservative Research Department (shock! horror!) working on trade and industry policies (gasp!). Don’t forget to breathe, chaps, otherwise you will turn even greener. Apologies for the wikipedia link. I know wikipedia is not that reliable. But it is a reasonable place to start.

Disappointing

The second picture in this report is disappointing. It shows political immaturity. Some actions may be politically popular. But they are not necessarily right.

I love fish

The trout. The whole trout. Nothing but the trout. So help me cod. .

Freedom?

Looking at what has been happening over the last few days, I must say that I am very disappointed because some Muslims (over)reacted right on cue. Yes, the publication of those pictures of the prophet was wrong and must be condemned. But the (over)reaction of some Muslims must be condemned too. We Muslims in the West must appreciate that we live in a society that does not (yet) subscribe to our code of moral conduct. We must not impose our values to those who are not even Muslims. I condemn the depiction of the prophet as a terrorist because I believe it is an abuse of freedom. Freedom must not be knowingly used to offend others. But I will not say that they have no right to publish such pictures, for indeed they do. The papers have the right to publish the pictures, just a much as Muslims have the right to protest. But the newspapers should not have published the pictures because they know it will spark a huge row, just like Muslims should not have behaved the way they did because it will make matters worse. People have the right to sin, but does that mean they should sin? No. They should not. And the way Anjem Choudry behaved in last night's Newsnight was even more disgraceful. But Tariq Ramadhan's comments are excellent. I agree that what we need continous intra-community dialogue in Muslim communities. Islam, and Muslim organizations, must be seen as a broad church (or should I say a broad mosque?) encapsulating diverse schools of thought. If one Muslim cannot tolerate the opinion of another Muslim, what hope do we have that opinions of non-Muslims can be appreciated?

Of offensive cartoons

For the first time in my life, I applaud the Hizb at-Tahrir rep on Newsnight tonight. He was eloquent, and his points were direct and truthful. But who the heck is that Munira what-ever-her-surname-was? Rubbish. As for the editor who insists on printing offensive pictures under the pretext of freedom of speech, I wonder what they would say if someone prints a picture of a dog shagging his mother (wait until his mother is dead to avoid libel action), also under the pretext of freedom of speech? Apologies for my outburst. But freedom brings with it responsibilities. These blatant abuse of freedom by some idiotic editors will only make it more difficult for the concept of individual liberty to be accepted in the Muslim world.

Tariq Ramadhan in LSE

Last week Tariq Ramadhan gave a talk to the City Circle on the need for a “feminist movement” in the Muslim community but I was then in Granada. But last Monday, at last I managed to attend a talk by him at the LSE. The talk was entitled Muslim Democrats in the West and Democratisation in the Muslim World: prospects for engagement. I came out from the talk with these thoughts: - Democracy has six main principles: 1) rule of law; 2) equal citizenship; 3) universal suffrage; 4) accountability; 5) separation of power; and 6) distinction between public life and private life. - It is not possible to compare “models” of democracy between nations. The above six principles are perhaps universal, but the way they are implemented may differ. So, one nation cannot be directly compared to the other. - The concept of maqasid al-shariah (purpose of shariah) was formulated hundreds of years ago. Perhaps it is time for the concept to be looked at again? And Prof Ramadhan stated that he believes more should be added to the existing list of five purposes. - Compared to many other Muslim majority countries, many elements of the maqasid al-shariah are better achieved in the West. Several examples were given. - According to Abu Hanifah, a Dar al-Islam is one in which a Muslim feels safe to worship and practise Islam. If we were to use Abu Hanifah’s view, then would you say Britain is a Dar al-Islam, or Egypt? - Many Muslims are obsessed with the Middle East and ignore domestic issues. Many seems to feel that Palestine is the root cause of Muslim problems – if the Palestine issue is resolved, then all predicaments facing Muslims will be resolved too. - Prof Ramadhan believes that Palestine is not the cause of problems. Rather, it is the symptom, the outcome, of other unresolved issues. - Muslims cannot continue to blame the West for their predicaments. The Muslims themselves are part of the problem. The West is doing something to resolve the Middle East problem. But what are the Arab countries doing? What are being done by other Muslim countries? - Muslims in the West must stop seeing themselves, or asking to be treated as, ethnic minorities. We should see ourselves as equal citizens, no more and no less. Any attempts at self-segregation (eg: faith schools!!!) must be avoided. Throughout his lecture, Prof Ramadhan kept referring to a set of “Western values” and a different set of “Islamic values”. He seems to suggest that somewhere in the middle the two value systems overlap, and he calls that the “common universal values”. I have a slight problem with this notion. What happen to “And We did not send you (Muhammad) other than as rahmah to the whole universe”?