Tricia Yeoh

It’s always a refreshing challenge to discuss religion openly, no barriers. Have been contemplating issues (again) of science, evolution, predestination vs. freewill, creation, life cycles, time, universes and the like.

According to my Blue Bible (chunky peacock blue Sociology textbook that I carried faithfully around during A Level-days, by Haralambos & Holborn), religion is defined in its simplest terms as the belief or subscription to the supernatural. Given that this is a British text, it’s no wonder that its focus, and hence my entire studies on Religion back then, was upon Western Judeo-Christian religions. Any ‘new’ form of religion undertaken by the authors was new age spiritual mysticism and so on.

If religion really is the belief in the supernatural, are systems which do not in fact subscribe to any higher life form considered a religion? By its very definition, the answer is no. What can you term it as, if not a ‘religion’ then? A set of beliefs and values?

Many people attribute Buddhism, for example, to a ‘way of life’. True that its primary focus is upon the way in which daily living is carried out. A set of moral guidelines from which suffering can decrease and happiness increase.

However, it does include teachings of a supernatural. Supernatural meaning anything that deviates from the natural order of the university and humanity. Supernatural in that rebirth is still a teaching. Supernatural in that there is something beyond the human brain, transcending the physical. Supernatural in labels of karmic energy, mental energy, the life flame that carries forth into separate realms. This is to me out of the ‘natural’ sphere.

If it does then carry teachings of the supernatural, is it considered a religion, even if the focus is not upon this? Even if it is of secondary importance, the fact that it still does carry teachings of the supernatural points towards the induction that it is a religion.

What then of its followers? Buddhism differs from other religions in the sense that it teaches one not to accept any of the teachings if one has not personally experienced it. Simply put, it is a “accept what you can accept. reject the rest” religion. Can a person who doesn’t fully believe in the whole of a religion’s teachings be considered an adherent to that religion?

In Christianity, I would say that one has to accept the very basic truths of Jesus’ existence and His life which led to death on the cross for all.

In Buddhism, it is trickier. One practices as far as possible the Five Precepts. Whether or not any other beliefs are subscribed to is immaterial.

My conclusion is that a set of beliefs which include the supernatural is by definition a religion, whether or not it is the primary concern. Secondly, the adherent to the religion who does not necessarily accept the supernatural aspect of it is still considered a follower of that religion.

This may sound foolishly simple and understood but I just had to reason it out, you see… Buddhism is a religion. A follower of Buddhism is a Buddhist.

The Islamic Family Law Bill was passed in December last year and created a host of complaints, uproar and cries from womens’ activist and other human rights groups. Other Muslim women groups, however, seem to deny that the Bill truly encroaches upon womens’ rights. Let’s look at the debate.

Women’s Aid Organisation says the following:

The recent passing of the Islamic Family Law Bill (Federal Territories) (Amendments) Bill 2005 by the Senate is the latest in a series of alarming trends that are damaging to women. These amendments, which have been passed and gazetted in 12 states in Malaysia, now give men even more power to divorce their wives, to contract polygamous marriages and also to freeze the assets of their wife/wives to claim matrimonial property, while women are denied effective remedies.

While amendments made to the Islamic Family Law Bill seemed to be welcome on the surface, Sisters in Islam says this:

However, these two positive amendments and other amendments contain loopholes and weaknesses that are open to abuse and will further discriminate against women. 

For example…

Section 23(9)(b): The gender neutral language used in this amendment masks existing inequalities between men and women. While it enables a wife to claim her share of harta sepencarian, it also enables a husband to claim from his wife or existing wives.

This is open to abuse by irresponsible husbands. In practice, the amendment could enable a husband to force the sale of the matrimonial home or to claim that property given as gifts to the wife to be harta sepencarian in order to support his subsequent dependents. This will cause injustice to the first wife and children.

 And to the nation’s surprise, our very own Minister of Women, Family and Community Development has made a turnabout in her opinion. First, she said this:

Women, Family and Community Minister Shahrizat Jalil has upped her rhetoric, saying she will petition the nine Sultans who are the religious heads in their states, to appeal for the bill to be substantially amended.Shahrizat said Malaysian women were slighted by the law and that their rights needed to be protected by correcting discriminatory clauses.

And then turned around to say that the Islamic Family Law Bill is not flawed. Make up your mind, woman! It’s no wonder men accuse us of being fickle in nature. We certainly have exemplary behaviour from the country’s leading lady woman.