Kota Bharu Municipal Council (Majlis Perbandaran Kota Bharu) introduced a regulation about how women should dress.
Should I ask, why no regulation about a man’s dress code? Perhaps not. Let us not put ideas into people’s heads.
Not long ago, there was an issue about women wearing hijab in the UK. My comments about that can be seen here and here.
Here in the UK, I have met with many women from the Middle East who do not wear the “traditional” dresses they wear back at home. Why? Because at home, they wear it due to legislation but in London they are not forced to do so. This is why I disagree with attempts to impose morality through legislation. It doesn’t stick.
Love of Allah can only come from true devotion. It cannot be forced by the hands of the state.
If we want to create a moral society, we should allow choice. Only a society that chooses to be moral is truly moral.
We should educate. Not legislate.
I was astonished when I saw writings by certain people who argued that the MPKB rule is ok because even China had done the same back in 2004. See an example here.
When you have to use communist China to back your argument, you really are running out of arguments.
Filed under: Malaysia
You wrote: “If we want to create a moral society, we should allow choice. Only a society that chooses to be moral is truly moral.”
My question is simple. Having chosen to be moral, the society that has evolved into a truly moral society will necessarily have a minimum standard of morality – which in some cases are higher than other societies – to abide by. Would it be justified then, for this society to legislate not as a measure to “enforce” morality, but as a mirror and reflection of that society itself?
A “society that has evolved into a truly moral society” will insist that the state should not impose morality.
A “society that has evolved into a truly moral society” will advocate a limited state.
bagaimana dengan hadis nabi yg menyuruh kita ajar anak sembahyang, dan kalau umur 10 tak solat jugak, sebat…
my point is this, education and enforcement should go together. you cannot simply enforce, without educate. doing so, people would not understand the hikmah, wisdom behind what you are doing.
Having said that, i believe that had proper education being in place, enforcement is rather unnecessary. Because when one believes, he/she will be aware of the punishment in the hereafter, more than what the government legislates.
Look at any office around you. The boss would expect his/her employees to dress in a certain way, and there’s no argument about it. Is it not quite similar?
You seem to presume that education is / has been accorded the same level of importance as legislation. I think that is inaccurate.
The rule has been there since 1990. It has been implemented since then. The local population knows and have no qualm about it. Everyone there knows that the ‘new’ enforcement only concerns the Muslims community.
The dress code is also not only peculiar to Kelantan. It is the mark of Universiti Islam Antarabangsa which has campuses at Gombak in S’gor and Kuantan, Pahang.
You quote reference to the Chinese’s practice. The official that you quote may not be articulated enough (to your standard) to defend his position, however I think this should not distract your article from the main bone of contention.
Anak Alam, thank you for highlighting the fact that the rule has been there since early 1990s.
Let me re-iterate why I have a problem with the regulation. (Knowing Anak Alam, I will use a slightly religious tone)
I do not expose my knees but it is not because there is a mortal law against such action. I choose to dress in a certain way because I have been trained that if I do such and such, Allah will reward me. Once that conviction is set in place, regulations become redundant, and I would not care much about what the rulebook says because I know what I believe.
If regulations are introduced before education, or if the two are not given the same emphasis, we will only produce people who dress up in a certain way but behave in a another.
I do not believe that dress code is the singular determinant of behaviour. The corrupt male politicians, including those student politicians, all cover their aurah. Some even wear ketayap and have beards like there is no tomorrow. At the end, their behaviour is not much better than…….
And, think about it….. How low have we become when we have to use communist China to back up our actions? Whatever next?
By the way, Anak Alam, hope you are settling down well over there. Bila nak apply buat PhD kat sini?
1. I am settling down well and trying my best to get familiar with the new system and working environment. Frustation lurks at every corner but so far I managed to evade all, alhamdulillah. Life of no complaint, insya-Allah.
2. If law is not part of education, can education be part of the law?
3. The opinion wrt to dress code / morality issue, ada satu ideologi dalam tauhid Islam yang dipanggil Murjiah. Example of their belief includes: no need to wear tudung because tudung does not guarantee acceptance from Allah, but the heart’s intention is the sole guarantor. Kalau nak debate pasal isu tudung boleh masuk tak masuk syurga, sampai bila tak habis sebb tak de siapa boleh korek isihati orang. Tapi kalau dress code as a law tak leh implement, makanya semua sekolah2 dalam msia ni tak perlu ada reg pasal uniform sekolah, sebab budak2 pakai uniform pun tetap tak berdisiplin, tetap tak malu nak gi melepak. PAS implement dress code since 1990 dgn terlalu lemah lembut, dan only selectively untuk Muslims. Enforcement of aurat-covering dress also occurs in tariqah and among tariqah members and you could see the effect of dressing in certain ways on them.
Mankind is a creature of habit, and in the current environment perhaps there is really a need for law like this, no, so that at least kalaupun niat tidak ada, pemakaian itu sempurna.
It is true that laws and regulations only have effects on a particular place
where they are enforced. When a person crosses the border, the laws no
longer apply. In my opinion, the purpose of laws and regulations are mainly
to force people to follow the law and order of that particular place. It
will make sure that people will behave in a particular manner regardless
whether a person agrees or not. The laws do not guarantee that the
individual will continue to behave in a manner that is expected when he/she
goes to another place where the law is no longer applied. Therefore, laws
and regulations are only effective in a place where they apply. The
effectiveness of the law is reflected by the statistics, ie
crime rate. It is true that the most potent factor that stops a person from
doing a crime or to behave indecently lies within oneself. It can be a whole
list of reasons, removing any effect from the tangible (not related to
faith) external environment, whether be it self control, moral conscience,
self-imposed law , fear and love of the unseen and so on. Anything which is
temporary also has temporary effect. Many external factors are confined to
space and time, therefore the effects of these forces are also limited to
space and time. When the external factor is not limited to space and time,
such as in the case of a definite believe in an immortal Creator, an
individual develops such a strong force within him/ her that governs every
action. Having said these,a place need to be governed by law to ensure,
eventhough limited by the boundary of the place, a specified standard of
behaviour among those who are in that particular area at that particular
time, eventhough the effects are short-term. I’m sorry for my language for
not being very good, just giving some important comments