baru2 dlm akhbar The Sun ada menyiarkan interview dgn executive director Sisters In Islam (SIS), zainah anwar.. she claimed to study the Quran bersama2 ahli SIS yg lain ttg hak2 muslimah, tp agaknya dlm pada kaji2 tu dia tak jumpa lak ayat 31 surah an-Nur kot..

rakan2 ukhwah boleh baca & nilai sendiri bagaimana golongan yg berckp ttg Islam ikut tafsiran sendiri.. saya pastekan sebhgian jer sbb interview ni pjg.. utk full version boleh klik sini



And what about the challenges the organisation currently faces?

It's interesting that especially post-Sept 11 - and I'm sorry to make that a demarcation point - there's [been] a lot more interest among Muslims to deal with the religion, to better understand the religion. And also people of other faiths. I think the most important thing we have done is claiming the right for people like us, ordinary citizens like us, to speak on Islam.

If Islam is used as a source of law and public policy, then it can no longer be the exclusive preserve of the ulama. Public law has to be debated and argued in public and citizens of a country have a right, to discuss, to question, to critique the law and its impact on us as citizens of a multi-racial, democratic, nation state. So, I think there's greater recognition of that now.

Our position is that this is a democracy and we have a right to talk openly about these things. If we citizens have a right to talk about politics, economics, social issues, why is it that when it comes to religion, suddenly, we are supposed to shut up, you know, and leave it to the ulama?



A lot of people ask what exactly is Sisters fighting for? Are you fighting for a secular state?

No, we are very clear. We are fighting for justice, [for] an Islam that is just, an Islam that upholds the principles of justice, equality, freedom and dignity of the human being, be it man or woman. But, certainly, given the experience that we've gone through, our focus is on the rights of Muslim women. So, the whole question of separation of state and religion?

SIS does not believe in the use of Islam as a political ideology to govern a state. This is dangerous as it leads to a theocratic dictatorship and the corruption of religious knowledge. Only one truth prevails and is imposed on everyone else as religion is transformed into a legitimising ideological base for political rule. And those who dissent will be criminalised and regarded as infidels or deviants.

This, we see happening around us already, in so many Muslim states. Which truth prevails is not based on principles of justice or equality or public interest, but on who is in power and which religious truth serves to maintain those in power. There are many lessons to learn from the failure of the Islamic state project in countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Afghanistan under the Taliban. We do not want to go [down] the same path and discover only 20 years later [that] it was all a big mistake.

The question to be debated is the place of religion in politics. I believe religion has a role to play as a source of ethical values in the way we conduct our politics. Laws and punishment are not the totality of Islam. The ethical values of Islam must prevail and we obey God's commands out of love for God and not out of fear of punishment by the state.



So, when politicians, for example, do certain things which suggest that we are no longer secular, that more and more there is an interference of religion into state administration, does SIS come out to take a position on that?

We have taken very clear positions on so many issues... on the hudud law, on dress, the arts, freedom of religion, freedom of expression. We opposed the government's attempt to introduce a one-year compulsory detention for those attempting to leave Islam, just as we opposed Ustaz Hadi's attempt to introduce the death penalty for apostasy in Parliament.

We have been critical of the judiciary for its abdication of responsibility to uphold the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion. We took the lead in mobilising civil society to defend freedom of expression when the PUM [Persatuan Ulama Malaysia] accused a number of us of insulting Islam.



What was SIS's response when PUM and seven other Islamic organisations submitted a memorandum to the Conference of Rulers, urging them to take action against Islamic writers and intellectuals?

We called the NGOs [non-governmental organisations], held a meeting to strategise what we were going to do. We wrote a statement on the importance of differences of opinion and freedom of expression in Islam, and we had 26 organisations and 29 individuals, including academics, several members of the Human Rights Commission, individuals, some MPs, many exjudges [sign the letter]. And we had some academics like Hashim Kamali, Faisal Othman, Osman Bakar, Shad Faruqi, signing the letter.



After that?

We wrote to the prime minister, the deputy prime minister, to Jabatan Kemajuan Islam Malaysia, to all the sultans. We sent them reading materials and all that on the use of Islam as a political ideology because we felt that the attack was politically motivated. That it was not about Islam.



When you say politically motivated, by whom?

Well, you know, PUM is obviously aligned with PAS [Parti Islam Semalaysia]. And it was an effort to silence us. All of us, who had been critical of the obscurantist thinking and the discriminatory thinking in the name of Islam.



There has been a lot of debate on whether or not ours is an Islamic state. What are your views?

Well, nope. We are not an Islamic state. I think the announcement by [former prime minister Tun] Dr Mahathir [Mohamad] was a political decision to deal with the PAS challenge. I don't think we should be an Islamic state, you know, ideologically. I think we should be a state based on the principles of justice.

You know, a just state is an Islamic state. So, I really don't think [we should] tie ourselves into knots [about] what is an Islamic state and what is not. Because I think religion should not be used as a political ideology in order to govern a state. It's dangerous, it leads to totalitarianism. Because, if you govern in the name of Islam, then what view of Islam, what principles, what Islam is going to be codified as the law of the land? Who is going to decide on that one truth?

Only one truth will prevail, and who is going to decide that one truth? And what is going to happen? The understanding of Islam, practices of Islam throughout the history of Islam, has always respected differences. And you look at the experiment in Iran. How it has failed, 24 years after the revolution.

I was in Iran two years ago. My friends in Iran say that people are turning against the religion. Because you govern in the name of religion and when the state fails to deliver on the aspirations of the people, it will be seen as the failure of Islam.



Do you agree that Islam is a "sensitive" issue and hence, should not be debated publicly?

I think that "sensitive" is an overrated word, really. Yes, it's sensitive in the sense that you don't speak about religion in an insulting manner. But, if the religion is used as a source of law and public policy, then you can no longer hide behind "sensitive", behind the sanctity of religion and the infallibility of God. You cannot.

Because you are using it as a political ideology to govern, you are using it to make laws, to make policies, to mobilise the crowds. So, how can it be "sensitive" anymore? Then it becomes like any other ideology that's open for debate, for criticisms.

You know, like secularism, like nationalism, like communism. You have turned it into an ideology, rather than a faith and belief in God. So, it's no longer a religion as a faith-belief system. You've turned religion into a political ideology.



What are some of the toughest issues that SIS has had to deal with? And are there any issues, for example, homosexuality, that you haven't dealt with publicly for strategic reasons?

Ya, the whole issue of sexuality that's now emerging in the public sphere and of course, we are dealing with it. We are having study sessions, some of our members are doing their readings and doing their research and are engaged in international discussions on this issue.

Basically, we take the position that nobody deserves to be discriminated against on the basis of their sexuality. Because, really, what is the reality if you say that you want to penalise those who have different sexual orientation? Are you going to round up all the homosexuals, and the lesbians, and the transvestites, and the transsexuals and put them in jail?

Ah, certainly that is not the way I would want... non-Muslims may say it doesn't affect non-Muslims, [but] would non-Muslims want to live in a country where such people are sent to jail? Or sent to rehabilitation camps? So, basically, that's where we are at now while we do our readings, and there's a lot of new scholarship that's coming out on this issue. Lots of meetings being organised on the whole issue of sexuality, Islam and sexuality, sexuality in Muslim countries and all that.

But, when we had to deal with it with the WAC [Women's Agenda for Change] statement -- there' s a chapter on sexuality -- that was a position that we all could live with, that nobody should be discriminated against. So, that means the state should not have laws and policies that's going to discriminate, or penalise, or criminalise sexual orientation.



Are there any other tough issues that privately, you may be doing your own searching, but publicly, you don't take a stand on it?

Even on the issue of freedom of religion, we had a lot of internal [debate]. People think that we come out with these positions so easily, [but] we don't. A lot of labour, sweat goes into these positions that we take, because we have to be convinced, because we are doing it within the Islamic framework and we have to be convinced that this is within the framework.

And we have lots of debate, for example, on freedom of religion even though some of us believe in freedom of religion, we felt that it's so controversial that we shouldn't take a public position on it. But there were others in the group, who felt very strongly that we need to take a public position on this issue because this is a very fundamental issue of faith. Faith cannot be faith when there's compulsion, when there's force.

What is belief if you are forced to believe? Faith has to come from inside you and has to be voluntary. So, for us it was a very fundamental issue, for many of us that we felt that we needed to take a public position on the subject even though it opened ourselves up for attack, of course.



And did you take a public position?

Yes, we took so many on apostasy, both the PAS position on apostasy and the government's position on apostasy. That was [in] 1999 and 2000, we took a position on it.

amboi bahasa omputeh....
Mok chik tak fahamlah dik oi...

he..he.......

ada sesiapa yg boleh terjemahkan....
ana ni dulu ngaji tak habis....tak sempat nak terima 'sijil' ...tok guru pencen dulu...

hehe.....

erkk.. cepat nyer cik nuraini dah reply..

bab terjemah menterjemah ni.. saya lemah sket la.. psl interview ni pjg & takut ader yg tersilap terjemah.. lain plak maksud nyer nanti.. mungkin ader ahli ukhwah lain yg boleh bantu kot..

... Ana banyak kali gak terdengar dan menonton berita tentang SIS ni melalui televisyen dan media-media lain... Nama pertubuhan ni memang 'cantik',kelihatan seperti memperjuangkan hak-hak muslimah di Malaysia... Satu perkara sahaja yang ana ingin pertikaikan di sini iaitu mengenai cara pemakaian para pemimpin SIS... Ke manakah 'menghilangnya' kain penutup kepala atau dalam bahasa mudahnya tudung mereka? Apakah mereka tidak mempunyai wang yang cukup untuk membeli walaupun cuma sehelai tudung?Ataupun suami-suami mereka 'mendiamkan diri' tatkala melihat isteri-isteri mereka 'keluar rumah' dengan pakaian yang tidak mengikut hukum syara'... Tentang terjemahan temuramah ni insya-Allah ana boleh usahakan tetapi kena ambil sedikit masa sebab ketika ini ana masih sibuk dengan tugasan... tambahan pula teksnya agak panjang... sekian,wassalam.

memperjuangkan hak wanita2 islam untuk melanggar hukum islam?.?.?

-----------------
Hunusan lidah itu lebih berbisa daripada hunusan keris sang pendekar

Sister in .........?

Kalau tak silap sister in dot dot ini tak pakai tudung kan.....

Perjuangkan monogami .......

bercanggah-bercanggah.....TAK BOLEH PAKAI

i think sisters in islam is more to gerakan feminisme....menyuarakan hak wanita....

" Menyuarakan hak wanita pun jangan sampai mempersoal dan mempertikaikan hukum Allah "

Antara alasan tidak bertudung yang pernah diberikan oleh SIS ialah " Tidak ada paksaan dalam beragama "......So, bila tiada paksaan, nak pakai ke tak nak pakai ke....suka hati la. Tafsir Quran ikut nafsu dia....

Satu lagi kenyataan dibuat ialah Al-Quran ini boleh ditafsirkan oleh sesiapa sahaja....ni satu lagi berhujah pakai nafsu.......Al-Quran ni hanya boleh ditafsir oleh ahlinya sahaja....bukan semua orang boleh tafsir Al-Quran. Dulu dia pertikaikan PAS menggunakan islam pada parti dan membuatkan orang salah tafsir pada islam sebab islam yang dibawa oleh PAS tidak betul ( kerajaan sekular hari nilah yg kata )......yang Sister in Islam pakai nama islam pada persatuannya kemudian dok beri fahaman islam yang salah.....tak pertikai pulak.

SIS sebenarnya menurut kata mereka memperjuangkan hak kaum wanita..tapi malangnya mereka bukan memperjuangkan hak kaum wanita tapi merendahkan martabat dan kedudukan wanita itu sendiri.

Dalam Islam wanita itu lebih tinggi dari lelaki..so tak payah nak memandai nak memperjuangkan hak kaum wanita..Amalkan al Quran dah cukup memelihara kedudukan wanita di dalam masyarakat.Menyuarakan kedudukan wanita dengan berpandukan al Quran dan hadith mestilah berpandukan semua ayat atau hadith yang ada. Bukan kita tafsir mengikut ayat yang kena dengan kita..

Tu je kot pandangan ana..Kalau salah tolong tegur

entah la apa nak jadi ngan dunia islam hari ni....keluar statement ikut logic otak jer... kofius..konfius

..

Dah lama ana tak masuk ke portal ni. Alhamdulillah dah semakin maju dan berkembang..

SIS perjuangkan hak wanita? Hak apa yang nak diperjuangkan? Hak membuka aurat? Hak memakai pakaian seksi? Hak memperdagang dan menonjolkan tubuh badan untuk eksploitasi? Atau hak mengepalai rumah tangga, menggantikan org lelaki?

Semoga sahabat semua dapat membezakan yang benar dan munafiq.. Wallahu a'lam

-----------------
HAPPY Moments----- PRAISE ALLAH
DIFFICULT Moments- SEEK ALLAH
QUIET Moments------ WORSHIP ALLAH
PAINFUL Moments--- TRUST ALLAH
EVERY Moment------- THANK ALLAH

antara Objektif utama SIS adalah :

- Menegak dan membangunkan satu kerangka hak-hak wanita dalam Islam yang mengambil kira pengalaman dan realiti wanita;
- Menghapuskan ketidakadilan dan diskriminasi terhadap wanita dengan mengubah amalan-amalan serta nilai-nilai yang menganggap bahawa taraf wanita adalah lebih rendah daripada lelaki; dan
- Membina kesedaran awam dan memperbaharui undang-undang serta dasar-dasar mengenai kesaksamaan, keadilan, kebebasan, martabat dan demokrasi dalam Islam.

--------------------------
Nampaknya pihak SIS tidak yakin dengan janji ALLAH dalam surah AN-NISAA' ayat 124
" Barangsiapa yang mengerjakan amal soleh, baik lelaki mahupun wanita sedang mereka adalah org beriman, maka mereka akan masuk ke dalam syurga dan mereka tidak dianiaya walau sedikit pun "

- Jelas menunjukkan kedudukan lelaki dan perempuan adalah setaraf dari segi amal solehnya. Sedangkan perkara ini yang menjadi tuntutan bagi orang² ISLAM...

p/s : kaum muslimah yang sejati akan dapat membezakan mana yang haq dan mana yang batil.....mudah²an ummat ISLAM akan kembali bersatu di bawah lembayung AL-QURAN dan AS-SUNNAH dalam erti kata yang sebenarnya...

wassala...

yah,,,saya mmg dari dulu lagi tak suka dgn sister in islam...pendapat mereka selalunya bercanggah dengan ajara agama islam...lagipun dia org ni dah ler tak pakai tudung...

[ Posting ini telah di edit oleh: alea13 pada 2004-11-03 04:45 ]