Dislodge from the OIC
Article 25 of The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (Cairo) adopted 1990 by the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) states “The Islamic Shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration”
Article 24 states “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah”.
As such and by deduction, the preceding 23 articles, no matter how noble their intention, are of no use and would pose conflict in a multi-cultural and religious fabric.
Four decades ago, a theological cloak is spun over Malaysia when the Prime Minister is appointed Secretary General of the OIC. Two decades later, after subscribing to Cairo, the controversial amendment to the Federal Constitution is in place. A decade later, the Prime Minister declares the nation Islamic while it assumes Chairmanship of the OIC. Now, Islamists push their agenda to fruition.
To remove the cloak and maintain its diverse fabric, the nation must - preposterous as it may sound - dislodge from the OIC and withdraw as signatory to Cairo. It must announce in no uncertain terms that it is a Secular nation and the Federal Constitution that provides for separation of religion from state, is the Incumbent. It must announce that religion in Malaysia, given its diversity, is a matter of private faith and has no place in the public domain.
In the fashion nutshell, schoolgirls donned pinafores four decades ago. Now the hijab, worn in several artful ways, has taken over but at the least, it differs from a fashion statement and a no-option uniform. The hijab, I might add, is a beautiful accessory to a dress but, usually worn in brightly embroidered and delicate fabrics, it bears no resemblance to a billowing abaya.
When the agenda comes to fruition, the nation is a single religious unit that seeks absolute compliance with dictates of chosen spokesmen. Nothing you wear is a matter of private choice. When the agenda comes to fruition, the abaya is in place with no option.
In essence, the OIC and Cairo are yokes that compel the nation to wear a religious linguistic in the public domain. It compels the nation to fulfill the agenda - by replacing the secular constitution with a religious one.
Post Script:- Apologists argue that passages in the Qur'an not properly understood are taken in context but can they defend the Cairo Declaration as supporting human rights when it contradicts the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, given that signatories of the Cairo Declaration by definition represent mainstream Islam?
Appended are some conflicts between the two protocols:-
UDHR: Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
Cairo: Article 1(a): All human beings form one family whose members are united by their subordination to Allah and descent from Adam. All men are equal in terms of basic human dignity and basic obligations and responsibilities, without any discrimination on the basis of race, colour, language, belief, sex, religion, political affiliation, social status or other considerations. The true religion is the guarantee for enhancing such dignity along the path to human integrity.
**********
UDHR: Article 16(1): Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.
Cairo: Article 5(a): The family is the foundation of society, and marriage is the basis of making a family. Men and women have the right to marriage, and no restrictions stemming from race, colour or nationality shall prevent them from exercising.
**********
UDHR: Article 18: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Cairo: Article 10: Islam is the religion of true unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of pressure on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to force him to change his religion to another religion or to atheism.
***********
UDHR: Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Cairo: ARTICLE 22(a): Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari'ah.
Words - Tommy Peters
hijab |hiˈjäb| noun - a head covering worn in public by Muslim women.
pinafore |ˈpinəˌfôr| noun - an apron-like garment worn over a dress.
Image composition: Google Images, ImageTricks, InstantShot
Audio: What a Wonderful World (Louis Armstrong) ©
Images and video are used without permission
Any individual, organisation, govt, etc that benefits from activities or revenue from sale of products that are considered haram, cannot lay claim to 'Islamic Status'. On that premise, Malaysia, by all counts, DOES NOT qualify, given the fact that she permits gaming industries to thrive and benefits from the sale of pork & liquor, all considered haram in Islam. To justify the revenue from the last 2 items, she labels them 'sin money' which doesn't cut ice with Islamic purists.
ReplyDeleteThe following is what Wikipedia says on the abaya ............
" The abaya "cloak" (Arabic: عباية ‘abāya[tu] or عباءة ‘abā'a[tu], plural عبايات ‘abāyā[tu]) is an overgarment worn by some women in parts of the Islamic world. It is the traditional form of hijab, or Islamic dress, for many countries of the Arabian peninsula such as Saudi Arabia or United Arab Emirates, where it is the national dress. Contrary to popular belief, the abaya is not mandated by the Qur'an. [1]
Traditional abayat are black and may be either a large square of fabric draped from the shoulders or head or a long caftan. The abaya covers the whole body except the face, feet, and hands. It can be worn with the niqab, a face veil covering all but the eyes. Some women choose to wear long black gloves, so their hands are covered as well.
Saudi Arabia requires women to cover in public.[2] Covering is enforced by the religious police, the muṭṭawwi‘īn (also known as the muttawwa). In Iran the cover is often referred to as a chador. In South Asia, it is known as a burqa. Some Muslim women living in the West also cover themselves as part of their religion and culture.
Abayat are known by various names but serve the same purpose, which is to cover. Contemporary models are usually caftans, cut from light, flowing fabrics like crepe, georgette, and chiffon. Styles differ from region to region: some abayat have embroidery on black material while others are brightly coloured and have different forms of artwork across them.[3] "
..........but what it doesn't say is, the purpose it was fashioned for, long before the dawn of Islam......and that is to protect one from the desert sands, hence the covering of the body and face.
It's the infusing of culture into religion that makes it confusing. No different from the samping worn by local Malays to the mosque which is not a religious garb but a traditional one that's part of their culture and not religion or the traditional Nehru-like attire favoured by muslims in India.
This is part of the control-mania that prevails in all religions. The institutionalizing of any religion is for the purpose of mass-control and making a particular attire mandatory, is part of that process (mass-control). Its like telling us that a practicing-whore who wears an abaya is nearer to the creator than a devout destitute who cannot afford one (give me a break).
Ever wondered why the hypocritical-gooks walk about in white cassocks in the vicinity of the church ? They'd like for us to think that they are 'christ-like' (give me a break) and divine but what they are ignorant of is the fact that the garment worn by Jesus was a fashion of those times and not meant to be a standard-garb of a particular sect.
Again, this is all part of the 'mass-control' process which has prevailed since the dawn of time.....even if it means the hijacking of religion to serve it's selfish needs.