So I have not read every single thing written about Ariff Alfian Rosli, the Malay-Muslim Malaysian man who allegedly entered a same-sex union in Ireland. But what I have read up to now pisses me off. Big time. There are multiple levels of ignorance here, and I just don’t know where to begin. Oh wait, of course I know where to begin. Let’s start with:

Malaysia

By now, everybody knows the Kepong Islamic Youth Organisation (excuse me, but WTF?) has lodged a police report against Ariff Alfian. And the Malaysian government is actually paying attention to them. Nice. The tagline for Tourism Malaysia should change now. Something along the lines of, “Malaysia: Where ‘Islamic’ NGOs lodge police reports against anyone they don’t like.”

Wait a second. This guy goes to Ireland and – if it’s true – marries another man. An “Islamic” group finds out, lodges a police report and threatens to “rehabilitate” him. And we wonder why he doesn’t want to come back? We wonder why Malaysia is experiencing brain drain? Hello? It must be a truth universally acknowledged that when a country loses its top brains to other countries, something must be wrong inside said country. Still don’t get it, Kepong Islamic Youth Organisation? Still want to bash us with:

The “Islamic” position?

“The marriage is a disgrace to our religion, race and country,” Norizan Ali, chairman of these Kepong Muslims says on behalf of all Malaysians. (Oh ya, and you asked every single Malaysian, did you?)

Says OnIslam, the IslamOnline.net offshoot in the body of its report (again, what sort of journalism is this?): “Same-sex relationship and marriage are totally prohibited in Islam as well as in all divine religions. Islam teaches that believers should neither do the obscene acts, nor in any way indulge in their propagation. The Catholic Church teaches that homosexuality is not a sin, but considers homosexual intercourse as sinful.”

Says an OnIslam reader:

“#5 King 2011-12-21 08:06

“Homosexuality is a disgrace and has no place in civilized society. Malaysians need to prosecute these perverts and tell Europe and America to get lost, thats what Nigeria did last week. The comments supporting this filth are shallow emotional drivel.

“Just because degenerate Godless white European perverts have accepted it doesn't mean human beings will.”

But it does not end there. Yup, let’s now look at:

The “Western” position

This is a position now synonymous with “pro-gay”, “secular” and “liberal”. Whatever. From a post in the gay blog, Towleroad.com, we get posters giving us such gems as:

“As bad as Christians are, Muslims are worse. Posted by: Chris | Dec 20, 2011 9:45:19 AM”

“Oh those Muslims ... perhaps someday they will realize that the Christian law ‘what one sows, so shall they reap’ transcends even into the Muslim religion. Hate - Hate - Hate ! I always felt religion was a spiritual place of love and kindness. Could have fooled me. Posted by: GaybyGod | Dec 20, 2011 10:03:48 AM”

I’m sure there are many more gems like this, not least spouted by so-called “secular-liberal Westerners”, some of whom might be gay. Charming, this argument. So no matter what, it is okay to collapse all Muslims into a single category (“terrorist”, “stupid”, “backward”, take your pick), and better, to locate their singular source of evil within “Islam” (a global civilisation and religion that gave us some of the best Jewish philosophy, music, science, poetry, inter-religious dialogue, etc., by the way).

The deal

The deal here is that Ariff Alfian Rosli’s studies in Ireland were fully sponsored by Petronas, Malaysia’s state-owned oil and gas company. So now he owes Petronas a tidy sum of money because he hasn’t fulfilled his contract. Something like RM890,000, which could give most people a heart attack.

I was a Petronas scholar too. I studied chemical engineering in Australia. The deal was, you sign a contract that says in return for the sponsorship, you need to work with the company for a certain number of years. “Bonded” is what we call it. You break the bond and you have to pay back the value of your scholarship.

Is it fair? I don’t know. Petronas thinks it’s fair. I just know that I signed the scholarship contract when I was 17. I dutifully studied chemical engineering, but people now know me as a journalist/playwright/singer-songwriter. So from my perspective, we need to have profound discussions about the nature of education in Malaysia, about what we want to achieve in the education system. In my case, I wonder why it was just that much easier to get a scholarship to study engineering or medicine compared to, say, sociology or literature or performing arts.

So there’s a systemic issue at work here. And then there’s also the issue of complex, flawed human relationships. When a student takes on a scholarship, their immediate families are implicated. In some cases, families can be very understanding when the student has a change of heart – either wanting to switch studies or change careers after graduation. I know mine was. But all this falls within the realm of family relationships, and the negotiation between the family and the sponsoring company.

In Ariff Alfian’s case, it looks as though this has been complicated and politicised (in the most disgusting manner) because of his alleged sexuality. And his voice has been erased by both so-called Muslims and so-called Western liberals. Here’s what he says for himself:

“I had a disagreement with my father in 2009, after which he reported me missing ... I'm not in communication with him, but I am in regular contact with my other family members.”

Another poignant quote:

“I feel I have have been inadvertently thrust into the public eye. I just want to get by without upsetting anyone or causing any trouble. My overriding concern is for my family.”

And finally:

“I have not converted to any religion, contrary to what has been reported. I was born a Muslim, I am still a Muslim and will remain a Muslim until the day I die. Nothing will shake me from my faith.”

So there you have it. Whether or not Ariff Alfian is gay and married to a white man, he is Muslim. Ironically, many so-called Muslims and so-called Western liberals would deny him even this mark of identity. Only the “Muslims” will try to disown him by claiming he is not a “real Muslim”, and “Westerners” will probably claim that he is professing this under duress, or worse, delusion. But both responses are identical in that they have no qualms about erasing Ariff Alfian's voice at the expense of polemics.

And ironically, these apparently opposing voices are both intent on erasing the fact that there is a lot of wiggle room even within traditional Islamic jurisprudence on sexuality. Oh, I have said this over and over again, and don't want to get into it here. But just google Scott Kugle or Musdah Mulia and you'll see.

My response is: get over it. I remember in 2009, there was a poll in which even The Guardian (yes, that bastion of left-wing secularism) screamed that Muslims had “zero tolerance” for homosexuality. Yet when the 2011 poll showed that Muslims had more nuanced views on same-sex relationships and, whatever their private views, actually supported Britain’s policies on same-sex partnerships, nobody screamed. Instead, this new report was met with 9/11-infused scepticism. Nice, huh? We like data that shows us Muslims are idiots, but we don't like data that shows us they're human. The fact is, both reports were based on quantitative surveys, and quantitative surveys are, by nature, superficial and flawed. The fact is, there is a lot about Muslim attitudes towards homosexuality that we (meaning Muslims and non-Muslims at large) still do not comprehend.

British Muslim writer Shelina Zahra Janmohamed says it best:

“The danger in focusing on sexuality as a litmus test of integration is that in turns this into a one-issue debate. The point here is that it is that it is completely irrelevant to a discussion of integration and a happily functioning society, where mutual respect and understanding for each others moral codes – whether we agree or not – ought to be the foundations for a shared vision of a shared society. We see this in the statistics about homosexuality: it's true that no Muslims in the UK found this to be morally acceptable (though there is a 5% margin of error for Muslims across all the statistics in the report). However, this needs to be seen in context of the fact that Muslims are more respectful of those different to themselves than the general British public. The important point here is not that we should have homogeneous social and moral attitudes, but that we can respect and live with those who hold opinions at different ends of that spectrum.”

My point is, I do not want to excuse the violence and bigotry directed at Ariff Alfian Rosli. But I do want to call for a bit more reflection on all sides. And for everyone to just think about the ways in which Islam does not play a role in this. I mean, the really big news in Malaysia now is about a student activist who took down a flag bearing an image of the prime minister’s face and raised a flag for academic freedom instead. All the heat in Malaysia now is on this guy, Adam Adli, not Ariff Alfian, really. To repeat: Adam Adli has been threatened and subjected to violence for calling for academic freedom, not sexual rights, geddit?

And yes, some Malaysians – even some activists – actually do not agree with Adam Adli’s tactics. It’s an evolving discussion. There is a diversity of opinion in Malaysia and sure, lots of it is stifled by the government-controlled media, but it’s there. It’s the same with sexuality. In my writing, I’ve defended sexual diversity too, even from an Islamic standpoint, and sure enough some Muslims have threatened and attacked me. But guess what? Lots of other Muslims have agreed with me and supported me. Oh wait, are we going to say they’re not real Muslims, though? (Which is what the anti-Islam "secularists" have said and who, by the way, have attacked me, too. Yay!)

Gah! Just leave Ariff Alfian Rosli alone. If he’s screwed up with Petronas, I’m sure the law will catch up on that score. Believe me, Petronas’s efficiency in collecting student debts is not something to be taken lightly. Other than that, everyone, from the many so-called Muslims to the many so-called Westerners will have to deal with the fact that there are believing and practising Muslims who are gay, and that there are believing and practising Muslims who are okay with this. But really, really, let’s say a prayer for Syria, which again, is proof that you just can’t keep good Muslims down. Because there are Muslims who are just good people, just like there are atheists, Christians, Jews, wiccans, etc., who are good people. And there is no singular "Islam", or "Christianity" or "secularism". Can we all just start from there? Please?

The end of the year is a time I really like -- reminiscing and evaluating the year that's past, looking forward to new things in the coming year, and yet knowing that a year is just a construct, no? Life still goes on: babies still get born, people still die, natural disasters still happen, etc.

But I still enjoy. And am back on LJ after deciding to rest for a few months. Finished the MA (successfully!) and am now chomping at the bit to start the PhD back in London.

I am already so ambitious, wondering if I should stay on LJ or start some other stuff on Wordpress or Tumblr, etc. We'll see lah. One step at a time.

In case I don't log on before then: Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Happy New Year, etc., everyone!

This little list was circulating around the email this time last year. Thought I'd resurrect it because. It. Is. Really. Funny! In Bahasa Indonesia, dong:


1. MELUDAH

Meludah akan membatalkan puasa kalo air  ludah tsb mengenai alat kelamin lawan jenis kita, kemudian kita membantu membersihkannya.


2. TIDUR SIANG

Tidur siang akan menjadi batal jika kita tidur siang di atas badan orang lain yang  bukan muhrimnya. Sedangkan jika kita tidur siangnya di bawah badan orang lain yang bukan muhrim, maka puasa kita tetap batal.


3. BERSENTUHAN

Bersentuhan dengan sengaja dengan isi dari bra sebelah kiri mantan pacar kita maka  akan membatalkan puasa. Sedangkan jika menyentuh isi dari bra sebelah  kanan, juga dapat membatalkan puasa. Namun jika kita menyentuh keduanya, tetep dapat membatalkan puasa.


4. MELEMPAR COIN

Melempar coin sehingga mengenai dada seorang gadis lalu kita meminta maaf karena menyesal sambil mengusap-usap dada tersebut selama 2 jam karena kasihan dengan gadis itu, maka perbuatan tadi dapat membatalkan puasa.


5. DUDUK-DUDUK

Duduk-duduk sambil iseng-iseng memasukkan nasi padang ke dalam mulut hingga dua  bungkus adalah dapat membatalkan puasa. Sedangkan jika hanya duduk-duduk saja sambil menggoda ibu penjual nasi padang, lalu berselingkuh dengan  ibu tersebut, juga membatalkan puasa.

Selamat puasa.

Kakak sendiri mesti tahu betapa sensitifnya bulan Ramadan dan perayaan Aidilfitri, kan? Tengok, kalau tersilap masuk hidangan tidak halal dalam promosi Ramadan di suratkhabar boleh kena tindakan serius. Dan tengok, kalau tersilap ajak orang Islam ke majlis kebajikan di tempat ibadat bukan Islam pun boleh kena tindakan serius. Jadi di stesen kami, kami tidak mahu main-main dengan sentimen orang Islam.

Cabo dari iklan Ramadan 8TV

Jadi saya sebagai perempuan Cina pun mencadangkan satu konseplah. Macam ini: Ada satu hiaow cabo (terjemahan: perempuan gedik) yang memakai baju seksi ke rumah terbuka kawannya yang beragama Islam. Di rumah terbuka tersebut, hiaow cabo ini makan sampai tak ingat diri, bertepuk/bertampar/berpeluk dengan semua lelaki Islam di sana, dan membawa anak anjing dia sekali untuk disuap. Kemudian ada pengumuman: “Jangan biadap!” Kemudian kita tengok hiaow cabo ini sudah bertukar, dia memakai tudung labuh dan bersembunyi di penjuru
rumah bersama-sama dengan orang gaji Indonesia. Kemudian ada pengumuman: “Hormatilah sensitiviti umat Islam sempena Aidilfitri ini!” Kami rasa ini konsep yang sangat bagus dan lucu.


Tapi kakak pun tahu baru-baru ini ada kontroversi besar tentang iklan Ramadan, bukan? Sekarang saya dan rakan sekerja saya pun sudah pening lor. Mahu buat pun susah, tak buat pun susah. Mahu jaga sensitiviti orang Islam,
nanti orang bukan Islam marah. Mahu jaga sensitiviti orang bukan Islam, nanti orang Islam marah. Apa kami mahu buat dengan iklan ini? Saya mahu letak jawatanlah. Saya mahu jual insuranslah, senang. Atau jual vitamin. (Tapi kalau vitamin tak ada tanda halal pun nanti saya kena, kan?)


Tolonglah kami, kak. Saya tak bermaksud untuk menyinggung perasaan kakak. Saya tahu kakak orang Melayu dan menulis untuk orang Melayu. Tapi saya benar-benar keliru dan takut sekarang.


Maggie Wong Peik Yin
Petaling Jaya

I have to be quick because I have buka puasa (that's iftar to you hip British Muslims) plans. I didn't want to blog about the recent riots in the UK, because I felt out of my depth. It was shocking. I also wanted to stay away from armchair analysis. There's enough of that going around. And there's enough smugness going around as well. For example, it was only a matter of time before someone equated the London riots with the Bersih march on 9 July 2011 in Kuala Lumpur. I mean honestly. Does the Deputy Inspector-General of Police not understand the difference between a violent, spontaneous riot, and a peaceful, organised demonstration? Why did he neglect to mention countless other peaceful assemblies and demonstrations in London which the police not only allowed but assisted? 

But that's not my main concern for now. For now, I want to talk about what my imam said during his Friday khutbah today. My mosque is in Peckham, which is one of the areas affected by the riots. Granted, my mosque itself was untouched, and I am grateful for this.

The imam opened his khutbah by saying that the rioters were immoral. While I think his analysis was a bit simplistic, I cannot really quarrel with it. He is, after all, part of the local community so he has seen and experienced things that I'm unaware of. And for all intents and purposes, I don't think it's that problematic to name wanton destruction of public property as "immoral". What is important is how my imam framed the rest of the khutbah.

He did not use his khutbah as an opportunity to whinge about all the evils the "infidel West" has inflicted upon Muslims. He did not use this as an opportunity to hawk Islamic supremacy over all other moral systems and religions. Instead, he told us that as Muslims, we need to set an example to others because this is what our faith commands us to do. We need to help rebuild the communities affected by the riots. We need to ensure we are connected to the youths in our communities. And the youths in our communities need to understand that if they are frustrated, destroying public property and threatening other people is not going to help solve their problems. All in all, I thought this was a really sound thing for an imam to preach.

And then he did a wonderful thing. He closed his khutbah with this hadith from Sahih Muslim (number 79):

It is narrated on the authority of Tariq b. Shihab: It was Marwan who initiated (the practice) of delivering khutbah (address) before the prayer on the 'Id day. A man stood up and said: Prayer should precede khutbah. He (Marwan) remarked, This (practice) has been done away with. Upon this Abu Sa'id remarked: This man has performed (his duty) laid on him. I heard the Messenger of Allah as saying: He who amongst you sees something abominable should modify it with the help of his hand; and if he has not strength enough to do it, then he should do it with his tongue, and if he has not strength enough to do it, (even) then he should (abhor it) from his heart, and that is the least of faith.

My heart melted. In Malaysian khutbahs, I have heard this hadith used time and again as justification to police the morals of others, to pry into their lives to see if they really are praying, or fasting, or being chaste, and so on. I have also heard it used to justify the actions of the Royal Malaysian Police. But here, in London, for the first time, I heard it used to exhort Muslims to care for our communities, and to uphold the rule of law in the countries where we reside, in this case the UK. For the first time in a long time, this hadith touched my heart. And that's why I'm so moved to write about my imam's khutbah.

(And listen to me, calling him my imam. I only started going to this mosque a couple of months ago and I've only ever smiled at the guy from a distance. But somehow I feel connected to him now.) 

But I digress. My point is this: amid all the lay theorising about the riots, and amid the appalling responses from so many politicians, my imam's simple, clear message of hope and solidarity was music to my ears.

As I said, I don't think my imam's analysis of the why of the riots is as penetrating as it could be. It's pretty normative, actually. This is where I am heartened by this commentary by Martin Kettle from yesterday's online edition of The Guardian. Here's an excerpt: 

Once again, most of the politicians, commentators and public figures who have expressed a view about why the riots took place have placed them in a well-worn, pre-existing explanatory frame. Those who tend to blame the Tories or the street gangs or the cuts or consumerism for most things tend – surprise, surprise – to blame the riots on the Tories or the street gangs or the cuts or consumerism too. If you think, as Scotland's first minister, Alex Salmond, does, that the world's difficulties are the fault of the English, then you blame the English. If rap music's your problem, then rap music's to blame. Across the board, for every outbreak of riot, there's an instant, pre-cooked explanation.

He says, further:

It might be a start to do something that will not come easily to a society still in shock and to politicians who are rightly concerned to restore order. That something is to accept that the rioters themselves, and not just non-rioters like you and me, may have something to tell us about the riots. Of course, they are tainted witnesses. But if we want to understand riots we need to take more account of who the rioters are – the Sun had an interesting though selective go at this subject today – of what they thought they were doing and of what they actually did – as well as didn't do.

That's the kind of analysis I think is sorely needed now. But as I said, I'm not directing this criticism at my imam. Instead, I think it's a criticism better directed at people like the British Prime Minister and the Malaysian Deputy IGP.

A few things have become clearer since the furore over the 8TV Ramadan ads first erupted last week. I'd just like to pick up some of the more diverse responses I've come across and personally thought about:

1) Some non-Muslims/non-Malays thought the ad wasn't funny, but weren't actually offended by it.
2) Some Malay-Muslims don't understand the fuss about these ads when there was no similar outcry about caricatures in the media implying Malays are mat rempits and drug addicts, etc.
3) The issue of humour -- what is funny, and what is not? 
4) The issue of freedom of expression -- does 8TV not have the right to express itself freely? 

Instead of responding to each of these issues in turn, I want to reflect very honestly about some of the things I've done and thought in the past (and even now).

Once, a friend -- this is a very kind, thoughtful, friend who also worked tirelessly on human rights and women's rights at the time -- told me a joke about a disabled person. I couldn't stop laughing at the punchline. It was quite funny. Another good friend overheard us and wasn't pleased -- she had a close family member who had a disability and was a wheelchair user. Once this friend explained why she was offended, and once I had met this family member of hers, I became sensitive to jokes about people with disabilities. Yet, I continue to hear very reasonable people -- fellow journalists, activists, friends and so on -- using the word "cacat" freely as a means of making light of something.

Have I not told sexist/racist jokes myself? Of course I have. Have I not been told off for being insensitive? Of course I have. Do I continue to find gendered/racial humour funny? Of course I do.

Humour is a funny thing. Something that one person finds hilarious, another person doesn't. I'm in London now and it's amazing how I get some forms of British humour, but not others. And this has absolutely nothing to do with the humour being "offensive" or "insulting" or whatever. And the line between "offensive" and "acceptable" is sometimes very unclear. I have shared limericks about Anglican priests with Anglican friends -- some have found them hilarious, some have not. My Anglican friends have shared Muslim jokes with me -- some I find hilarious, some I find insulting. It's difficult to articulate why some are okay and some are not.

To be honest, some racial humour is bafflingly funny to me. Take this joke that the British comedian Gina Yashere tells:
 
I love Gina with all my brown Muslim heart.

But there is a line that gets crossed sometimes. It's just very hard to pin down what that line is. Whoopi Goldberg illustrates this with great humour, intelligence, and empathy.


I love this Whoopi Goldberg example, because it speaks directly to the whole 8TV situation. And I love her even more because of how she processes this joke with the audience. She wasn't just doing comedy, she was using comedy as public education. I love Whoopi Goldberg with all my brown Muslim heart. Did I laugh at the punchline initially? Of course I did. Did I feel humbled and maybe a little bit ashamed after Whoopi talked a bit more about it? You bet I did.

So what do I really feel about 8TV now? I don't quite know. I know I disagree with demonising the team that came up with these ads. I believe Ahmad Izham Omar when he says the ads were thought up by a multi-racial creative team, and I believe him when he says they were just trying to be funny. But something is happening then, in the public discourse, for something that seemed so innocuous to its creators to end up appearing so offensive to so many viewers. And let's not forget the responses in the middle, some of which I alluded to at the beginning of this entry.

I really don't have any easy answers. There's no "solution" to this, in my mind, other than that we need to keep talking to each other, and that includes talking to the folks at 8TV (either directly, even face-to-face, or indirectly, for example through blogs and status updates and so on). It is vital that the conversation be kept open. It is also vital to keep our eyes peeled for the ways in which power and injustice in society work. My position is that it is not funny to laugh at the expense of people who are powerless to respond to your humour, no matter the situation -- it could be with regard to someone who has just slipped and fallen on the pavement, or with regard to a certain ethnic minority.

When we tell jokes about certain individuals or groups of people, I think it's important to ask if they have the power to respond to this joke in ways that do not dehumanise either us or them. By telling a joke, are we providing relief to certain groups of people who have long felt the pain of discrimination or even persecution? Or are we deepening that pain by reinforcing the attitudes of those who are powerful enough to perpetuate this discrimination?

But the thing about humour is that it also works best when it's instinctive. I don't know what others think, but this is one of my all-time favourite Ali G clips:
 
And yes, I love Ali G with all my brown Muslim heart.