I almost expected it. You can read PAS Youth’s statement over at MENJ’s blog with respect to their sentiments on the recent ruling by Federal Court Judge Datuk Abdul Hamid Mohamad on those three boys who were expelled from school for refusing to doff their turbans.
My BM’s crap, but I want to take a look at the points raised in the statement from PAS Youth:-
- PAS Youth feels Datuk Abdul Hamid has insulted Islam
- PAS Youth also believes that Datuk Abdul Hamid has no expertise to pass judgements or make statements about Islam
- PAS Youth takes issue with Datuk Abdul Hamid speaking like an expert on Islam, when experts on Islam have, apparently, attested to the… virtue of wearing a turban.
It’s disappointing that such replies are frequent. Nowhere in the press statement did I read a firm and convincing rebuttal of Datuk Abdul Hamid’s contention that ‘commendable’ practices are not ‘necessary’ practices. This is simply because there can be no convincing rebuttal. If a religious practice is not necessary, how can disallowing it be deemed an insult to that religion?
Someone please explain it to me, because I’m pretty lost.
As for claiming that Datuk Abdul Hamid doesn’t have the expertise to speak about what is allowed or disallowed under Islam, well I certainly agree. But he wasn’t making a judgement about whether turbans should or should not be worn at all, he was making a judgement on whether religious polarization in terms of one’s dress code should be allowed in a presumably secular institution.
That’s certainly within his purview, I suppose? Of course, if turbans and jubahs are the required dress codes in religious-orientated institutions like madrasahs, fine, then there really won’t be an issue of secular judgements imposed on said institutions except where national security is concerned.
All that doesn’t matter now, I suppose. The great thing about religion and being utterly religious is, if you can’t take down a perceived enemy of said religion with reason, appeal to explicit threats: firstly, round up every other Muslim against said judge, and secondly, lodge police reports registering your displeasure. It’s amazing how civilized lynching has become.
Comments (2)
The attempt to create cultural uniformity in schools is little more than yet another instance of secularity striving for the status of an all-encompassing religion. It should be resisted by any means necessary lest the stimulus to intellectual and perspectival progress - exposure to difference and novelty - is sacrificed for the sake of a blinkered and elite-serving version of ‘progress’.
That is the other side of the equation, I suppose… I will agree there is much to favour a celebration of differences - and novelty - but I wonder if the reality of the situation indicates less laudable goals. The other consequence of difference is, undoubtedly, exclusivity - and in this instance inspired by a sort of chauvanism?