Re: [wanita-muslimah] Peace, mutual,understanding and stupid ads
Ada berita berbunyi = Former peace adviser Teresita Ging Deles responded with a plea: that the leaders present encourage their communities to embrace what makes others different, to come together in a rainbow of cultures and faiths. Ging said it well for all of us. At the end of that rainbow lies the pot of gold known as peace. -- Jano ko berkomentar = Dengan kata lain, silahkan saja umat Islam menerapkan syariat Islam. Amin. Merdeka. Wassalam. "Dwi W. Soegardi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2006/aug/20/yehey/opinion/20060820opi4.html&cid=0&ei=Ok_oRNKhEruiHIz20ZkH Sunday, August 20, 2006 DURIAN By Amina Rasul Peace, mutual understanding and stupid ads Religious leaders and representative of civil society from over 50 countries gathered in Jakarta on July 14-16 at the World Peace Forum. Organized by the powerful Indonesian NGO Muhammadiyah and the Multi Culture Society, the leaders responded to the global resurgence of communal violence, ethnic and religious-motivated conflicts, and the rising force of narrow nationalism and other threats to human life. Inevitably, the discussions turned to the instability in the Middle East and the horrendous carnage in Lebanon as well as the linking of religion, specifically Islam, with violence. There was universal condemnation of the acts of Israel in bombing Lebanon as against international laws. At the same time, the Forum equally condemned all acts that sacrifice the lives of civilians and innocents, whether by none-state or state actors. Dr. Din Syamsuddin, the chair of Muhammadiyah, urged the Forum participants to explore how the values of societies could merge into the values of one humanity; how we can forge a common destiny, how we can all come together and accept our common responsibility to ensure the security of humankind. Former peace adviser Teresita Ging Deles responded with a plea: that the leaders present encourage their communities to embrace what makes others different, to come together in a rainbow of cultures and faiths. Ging said it well for all of us. At the end of that rainbow lies the pot of gold known as peace. I was asked to chair the session on issues and challenges to the quest for world peace. One of the participants remarked that he went to conference after conference on peace and left more pessimistic than when he started. He said, The more we talk about peace, the more conflicts sprout around us. He was saddened that the United Nations seems inutile to preserve peace, saddled as it is with powerful members in the Security Council with veto powers that can override the will of the majority of member countries. What happened to democracy? Happily, our pessimistic participant also felt that the representatives of civil society and the leaders of the worlds religions could be instrumental in bringing us back to the way of peace, if we could agree on doable measures we could implement. We all concurred. It seems that the other groups thought so, too. The leaders present agreed to support interfaith dialogues and peacemaking initiatives at all levelsfrom the community to global levels. We agreed to lobby for the UN to establish a Council of Religious Leaders that would support the search for world peace, a balancing force to the political leaders who talk peace but wage war. We agreed to support peace education in schools, in the community and in the home to plant the seeds of peace in our young, that they may grow up believing in mutual understanding and respect, in peaceful resolution of any conflict. Perhaps these and the other recommendations of the Forum may seem like the dreams of idealists. However, there was a consensus that some dreams are attainable. Did not Martin Luther King start with a dream and end dismantling of many walls which separated races in the United States? Besides, do we really have a choice? We either learn to live together, acceptingeven celebratingour different faiths and cultures or we become Israel and Lebanon. Speaking of mutual understanding, what message is Sigaw ng Bayan sending with their TV ad extolling the virtues of Charter change? A Christian woman is wearing a black headgear showing only her eyes, obviously unhappy and afraid. In the next scene, she is shown with her familyhappy, without the black covering, with a cross on the wall behind her. 1. Muslim countries oppress women 2. Muslim countries oppress Christians 3. The Muslim headgear oppresses women. I do not wear the headgear or hijab but a sizable number of Muslim women do. The ad demeans an act which our women consider one of piety and modesty. If the ad wants to show that women will be better off at home, if Charter change is implemented, why not show them in the sweatshops abroad? Jumping from a high rise in Singapore? Unhappily selling their bodies in a bar
[wanita-muslimah] Peace, mutual,understanding and stupid ads
http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2006/aug/20/yehey/opinion/20060820opi4.html&cid=0&ei=Ok_oRNKhEruiHIz20ZkH Sunday, August 20, 2006 DURIAN By Amina Rasul Peace, mutual understanding and stupid ads Religious leaders and representative of civil society from over 50 countries gathered in Jakarta on July 14-16 at the World Peace Forum. Organized by the powerful Indonesian NGO Muhammadiyah and the Multi Culture Society, the leaders responded to the global resurgence of “communal violence, ethnic and religious-motivated conflicts, and the rising force of narrow nationalism” and other threats to human life. Inevitably, the discussions turned to the instability in the Middle East and the horrendous carnage in Lebanon as well as the linking of religion, specifically Islam, with violence. There was universal condemnation of the acts of Israel in bombing Lebanon as against international laws. At the same time, the Forum equally condemned all acts that sacrifice the lives of civilians and innocents, whether by none-state or state actors. Dr. Din Syamsuddin, the chair of Muhammadiyah, urged the Forum participants to explore how the values of societies could merge into the values of one humanity; how we can forge a common destiny, how we can all come together and accept our common responsibility to ensure the security of humankind. Former peace adviser Teresita “Ging” Deles responded with a plea: that the leaders present encourage their communities to embrace what makes others different, to come together in a rainbow of cultures and faiths. Ging said it well for all of us. At the end of that rainbow lies the pot of gold known as peace. I was asked to chair the session on issues and challenges to the quest for world peace. One of the participants remarked that he went to conference after conference on peace and left more pessimistic than when he started. He said, “The more we talk about peace, the more conflicts sprout around us.” He was saddened that the United Nations seems inutile to preserve peace, saddled as it is with powerful members in the Security Council with veto powers that can override the will of the majority of member countries. What happened to democracy? Happily, our pessimistic participant also felt that the representatives of civil society and the leaders of the world’s religions could be instrumental in bringing us back to the way of peace, if we could agree on doable measures we could implement. We all concurred. It seems that the other groups thought so, too. The leaders present agreed to support interfaith dialogues and peacemaking initiatives at all levels—from the community to global levels. We agreed to lobby for the UN to establish a Council of Religious Leaders that would support the search for world peace, a balancing force to the political leaders who talk peace but wage war. We agreed to support peace education in schools, in the community and in the home to plant the seeds of peace in our young, that they may grow up believing in mutual understanding and respect, in peaceful resolution of any conflict. Perhaps these and the other recommendations of the Forum may seem like the dreams of idealists. However, there was a consensus that some dreams are attainable. Did not Martin Luther King start with a dream and end dismantling of many walls which separated races in the United States? Besides, do we really have a choice? We either learn to live together, accepting—even celebrating—our different faiths and cultures or we become Israel and Lebanon. Speaking of mutual understanding, what message is Sigaw ng Bayan sending with their TV ad extolling the virtues of Charter change? A Christian woman is wearing a black headgear showing only her eyes, obviously unhappy and afraid. In the next scene, she is shown with her family—happy, without the black covering, with a cross on the wall behind her. 1. Muslim countries oppress women 2. Muslim countries oppress Christians 3. The Muslim headgear oppresses women. I do not wear the headgear or hijab but a sizable number of Muslim women do. The ad demeans an act which our women consider one of piety and modesty. If the ad wants to show that women will be better off at home, if Charter change is implemented, why not show them in the sweatshops abroad? Jumping from a high rise in Singapore? Unhappily selling their bodies in a bar? Why focus on our hijab? Sigaw ng Bayan, you would do well to focus on legitimacy of the people’s initiative, instead of attacking a symbol proudly worn by millions of Muslim women. === Milis Wanita Muslimah Membangun citra wanita muslimah dalam diri, keluarga, maupun masyarakat. Situs Web: http://www.wanita-muslimah.com ARSIP DISKUSI : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wanita-muslimah/messages Kirim Posting mailto:wanita-muslimah@yahoogroups.com Berhenti mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Milis Keluarga Sejahtera mailto:keluarga-sejahtera@yahoogroups.
