Religious obligations

I would like to reply to the letter from Yani Prasatya published in The Jakarta Post on of June 1.

If Yani Prasatya read my previous letter carefully, she will find that I have never claimed that my views are a proven science. I have always used the word "teach": Shalat (praying) teaches this and puasa (fasting) teaches that, and so on.

If a teacher teaches his/her students something that is right but the students do not take it to heart, who is wrong? The same applies in the case of corruption. Mostly people do not learn from the true significance of their religious obligations. These obligations serve as a reminder that one day we will be called to account for all we have done here in this world.

As we all know, most medicines are subject to directions for use and warnings. If the patient fails to head these, then the medicine is not going to work -- even though it has been proved efficacious scientifically.

Religious obligations are also subject to a similar "direction for use", i.e.: Always try to avoid all types of misdeeds. If someone just performs the obligations and does not care about the thing that are forbidden by his religion, like corruption and violations of human beings, then his/her shalat is nothing more than just showing off and puasa is merely a hunger strike.

Actually, concerning Yani Prasatya's questions about women, I have already answered these in one of my previous letters. Maybe she missed that. Yani seems to not be ready to listen any further in this regard.

FAZAL M-MUJEEB, Jakarta