Mahal kita

I stumbled upon Ms Dina Zaman’s writings by accident.

I was actually Googling for “berpijak di bumi nyata” to see if that phrase would be a good basis for my next poem (it turned out to be quite cliched). In the process, I came across an interesting opinion on free condoms on Encik Roime’s blog, and clicked on the link at the end of it, which led to another blog containing Ms Dina’s writings. Through a bit more Googling, I found that a more complete listing of her actual “I Am Muslim” column can be found on the Rentakini website. I’ve heard of Ms Dina before from a friend who attended her talk (or was it a book launch?) at NUS recently.

Analysis

At first, I clicked on to read some interesting-looking articles, but naturally, I later went to her earliest article entitled “I am Muslim” to get the ‘bigger picture’, so to speak. It said at the end:

This new column is not a discourse or religious book about Islam. It is a very selfish series of articles the writer wishes to do as she explores her religion and people. I see an adventure, of meeting strange, new and wonderful people who call themselves Muslims.

This is a statement by the author herself. I got very uncomfortable about the first sentence. A column clearly entitled “I am Muslim” would not be a discourse about Islam? By my standards, this already constitutes a contradiction. In addition, in the article, she did ask the question “What makes us Muslim?” To be fair, I do admit that the bulk of this article is her personal account about how she got to know Islam.

But never mind that. Let’s look at her next article: “Islam in 1,000 words“.

From the title, clearly, we have another contradiction with the statement she made in her earlier article. Read the whole article, and you discover that it is partially an attempt to summarise Islam. For most of this part, she is fairly accurate, referring to basic Islamic knowledge and citing some sources. The other part consists of her questions on current Islamic practices and rulings.

Any Muslim, practising or not, should be able to spout the trunk of Islamic beliefs in a second. These have been drummed into their heads from young, and woe behold those who cannot remember two-thirds of them. Like the recitation of the Al Fatihah, Muslim children are taught the pillars of Islam and faith the moment they can warble words.

The sarcasm in her style is evident—instances are “spout [...] in a second“, “drummed into their heads”, “woe behold those who cannot remember two-thirds of them” and “Muslim children are taught [...] the moment they can warble words” (emphases added).

There is more to come (emphases added):

You may be seeing these terms along the way. A brief interpretation of them is as follows:

The Muttaquns – the Pious. The Believers. The word ‘Muttaqun’ originates from ‘taqwa’ which means protecting one’s self from God’s punishment by obeying Him.

The Munafiks – Hypocrites. They say they are Muslims but do not behave so. There is a whole chapter devoted to them: Surah Munaafiquun.

The Musyrik – they do not believe in God; most devote themselves to idol worship.

That’s not so bad, isn’t it?

Here are more rules to abide: no pre-marital or extra-marital sex, no indulging in anything that will make you ‘khayal’ – high – such as alcohol, drugs and other substances or activities that make you forget the world. Dress modestly, and behave with utter decorum. Food fall into two categories: kosher and haram. Pork is bad, while fish is good. Chicken and beef have to be slaughtered in the proper Islamic manner before consumption.

Granted, I think her definitions of the three groups of people are fairly OK. But the following sentences—”That’s not so bad, isn’t it? Here are more rules to abide [...]“—seems to suggest a kind of dissatisfaction with Islam’s rulings.

We can already identify some hints of contempt against Islam. While behaving with decorum, by definition, is something that would be catholicly desirable, she says Islam wants people to “behave with utter decorum” (emphasis added), as if Islam is imposing upon its believers something more than what is generally quite reasonable.

“Food falls into two categories: kosher and haram,” she says. This is misleading, if not also sarcastic. “Kosher“, as any person capable of using the term should know, is a Jewish term. While it has its informal uses, it remains that the word is Jewish in origin. Islam, however, has no practical use for Jewish terminology, because clearly, it has its own term for food that is permissible: I believe the right term is “halal”. At the same time, I am also aware that there are foods that fall under the category of “makruh”, for instance, animals that can live both on land and in water. What was her intention in choosing this term? Furthermore, would “halal” be so remote to a person who knows how to mention “haram”?

She continues with what I perceive to be her sustained contempt:

Then dogs. You can keep them as watchdogs but not as pets, and you can touch them, but only when they are dry. And why is that? Dogs are dirty. What about cats? Cats lick their behinds, don’t they. And if alcohol is sinful, what about alcohol in medication and perfume? What’s the difference?

It’s not technically wrong to touch or even keep dogs in Islam. It is just that there is a ritual for cleansing oneself after touching dogs, encouraged, if not instituted, for practical health reasons. If one finds this OK and not an impediment to daily life, then one can go ahead with keeping dogs as pets. For practical reasons, it is easier to avoid dogs, especially if one has no need for them. As for why dogs are perceptibly ‘dirtier’ than cats, again, from a practical perspective, there exists medical reasons, as quoted by an article on dogs in Islam.

Her question on alcohol puzzles me. It does not take great intelligence to distinguish between the effects alcohol that is consumed orally and alcohol that is present in (topical) medications and perfumes. If I might take the liberty of explaining, alcohol placed on skin such as topical medications and perfumes evaporates almost immediately, whereas alcohol that is consumed orally has an intoxicating effect. Why then does she question such an obvious thing? Or am I assuming too highly of her as an educated person? Again, only for practical reasons is alcohol prohibited, as the Quran says that al-khamr (commonly translated as “wine” but can be used to refer to intoxicating sustances) has greater harm than good (2: 219).

Another question that was lobbed my way: if you can’t have pre-marital sex, then what about masturbation? Which is better, solo sex or real sex? The former is not encouraged as it has been said that it is the Devil that performs the deed, and may make you go blind, while the latter is a no-no, you will go to hell, but in this day and age when marriage is no longer such an attractive option, and you know you can’t have pre-marital sex, what on earth are you to do?

I assume that Ms Dina is referring to Islam when she wrote “it had been said that [...]“, since this article is, after all, a sort of her own ‘primer’ to Islam (in 1,000 words, I might add). But where exactly in the Quran or hadith has it been said that “the Devil performs the deed” or “[masturbation] may make you go blind”? In my readings on the subject, I have not found these, so perhaps Ms Dina could enlighten us. Next, she said that “in this day and age [...] marriage is no longer such an attractive option”. This claim is baseless and unsubstantiated, and she seems to have generalised it to fit everyone. I cannot accept this. As for “what on earth are you to do”, Islam already has the answer, if she bothered to look for it. Overall, even if these questions have been “lobbed [her] way,” what is her intent in asking it again, in the light of the considerations that I have raised?

And she ends off this article with:

So how do you go about being a Muslim?

This question must be interpreted in the light of what she has portrayed as the ‘tricky’ questions in Islam. As I have shown wherever possible, the questions are not in themselves ‘tricky’; they just need further study and understanding. But it remains that her writing gives the reader the impression that Islam is a religion that is hard to understand and bogged with ‘tough’ rulings. As I have shown again, such ‘tough’ rulings actually have sound, practical justifications for the benefit of mankind. Other than these, I am dissatisfied with her sarcasm, baseless claims and bad word choice (”kosher”).

There is another example of her writing which I happen to be able to remember. From “Missing Europe“:

It’s ingrained in almost every Muslim that when it comes to all matters pertaining to the swine family, it’s beyond haram. You can drink, do drugs, sleep around, kill, go to bomohs and keep a toyol in your toilet, but you don’t have anything to do with all things swine. For all our progress, there are some things we don’t do. Better to eat the flesh of a man, than the rump of a pig.

Firstly, where does she get the confidence to say that “[it's] ingrained in almost every Muslim [...]“? Secondly, where is it in Islam that “[you] can drink, do drugs, sleep around, kill [...]“? I am utterly shocked. Thirdly, by “[for] all our progress, there are some things we don’t do”, is she implying (by logical contradiction*) that, within Islam, if we have progressed, we should eat pork? (*This might need a longer discussion covering some logical theory.)

Conclusion

I would like to give you an analysis of all her articles and convince you of what I am about to conclude, but unfortunately I have neither the time nor incentive to do that. Rest assured, I have read more than just the articles I mentioned above to arrive at my conclusion.

Let me first take you back to ‘Islam’. ‘Islam’ means ’submission’. By ’submission’, we mean total submission to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds, rabbul ‘aalamiin. To submit to Allah, we must first believe in Allah. We must first believe in Allah before we see the signs of Allah around us. If we do not believe in Allah, no amount of questioning, no amount rigorous thinking, no amount of scientific observation will make us see the signs of Allah. Within this framework, all knowledge is pursued to get us closer to Allah with the necessary precondition that we already believe in Allah, and not the other way round (i.e. pursuing knowledge before believing or in order to believe in Allah)—because all knowledge indeed comes from Allah. That is why, Islam begins with the syahadah: belief in Allah and His Messenger Muhammad (peace be upon him) is the most basic assumption in Islam.

Ms Dina’s general style of writing and questioning seems to indicate a lack of belief, and certainly, her sarcasm did not help. Yes, she aptly brings to light some of the issues that are faced by Muslims today, but she writes as if Islam has not figured out the answers to those issues yet, as if Islam, despite its long history, is not well-equipped to solve the problems faced by society today. In other words, it is her impression that Islam is deficient. Does she really believe, then, I question? I am not inclined to believe so.

But I am not surprised by her attitude, for she does confess in her earliest article (”I am Muslim“) of an ‘erratic religious upbringing’, and how she got struck by the ‘real world’. Everyone experiences the ‘real world’ in some form, so this does not apply particularly to her. That said, I do not blame her if she should blame her situation, partially or completely, on her ‘erratic religious upbringing’. But then again, this will not do well to explain how it is possible that some people who were not brought up as Muslims eventually convert to Islam, some of whom even becoming scholars of the faith. I would go further to claim that in the end, Islam is a personal and personally accountable choice, no matter who our parents or siblings or friends are, and it is up to us decide whether to affirm this choice, problematize it, or even discard it—this is my opinion.

I welcome Ms Dina’s attempts to highlight the issues faced by Muslims. The issues, such as sex, bomohs and societal progress, are undoubtably relevant to Islam. However, I personally find it quite discomforting to read the issues through the lens of someone visibly quite cynical about Islam. I even fear that it would be confusing to some readers, Muslim or not, for it gives false impressions of Islam, as I have already demonstrated. It would certainly be better if Ms Dina escapes the illusion that her issues are at all ‘new’, and stop questioning Islam as if it is too ‘young’ to answer society’s problems, because Allah indeed has perfected this religion for us (5: 3). To bring up with equanimity or sarcasm examples after examples of how problems persist, or of how Islam is not properly followed, is just not constructive, and does not appear well-intentioned.

I would like to anchor you back to Ms Dina’s original statement: that her column “is not a discourse or religious book about Islam”. Her writings certainly will not form a religious book, but it would be too far-fetched to deny that there is discourse on Islam in her writings. Having presented all my critique and with this parting contradictory observation, I hope to highlight that right from the very beginning, Ms Dina’s readers are indeed in for an ‘adventure’, of reading ’strange, new’ ideas from someone who calls herself Muslim.

In retrospect

We ought to be responsible for what we say. To mislead people is out of the question; to confuse them is a great injustice. This is particular true for educated people. Having had the chance to inherit treasures from the vast sea of human knowledge (or if you are Muslim, the vaster sea of Allah’s knowledge), it is our duty to add on to the knowledge that we have, and share it with other people to expand our collective knowledge.

Inevitably, our readers or listeners will be influenced by what we say. This will have consequences. Some of these consequences we will see in our lives, some other consequences will continue to be seen by generations after us. Because of this, the expression of knowledge is a delicate art. It becomes even more delicate if the subject itself is delicate, such as religion. Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, although originally a scientific one, has gotten people debating for so many generations till now, even encroaching the realm of religion.

If you are Muslim, there are consequences to face in the Afterlife as well. This adds on even greater weight to the responsibility that I was initially talking about: the responsibility for what we say. How we say things is equally important as what we say, for it does have implications about our attitude towards the subject that we talk about. This is especially true for those who are trained or experienced in letters.

For speaking on Islam, I would not risk or encourage anything other than polite carefulness. Needless to mention, logical coherence should be upheld at all times.

Postscript

July 4th, 2008: Can a person like Ms Dina Zaman be said to be acting in the interest of the Muslims?