By Farish A. Noor
“You are not qualified to talk about Islam”. How many times have I heard and read that same line, again and again? And more often than not, the same sentence is uttered or written by precisely the sort of self-trained autodidact whose own knowledge of Islam came from whatever he or she read on the internet or some cassette he bought at the local market.
It has become rather commonplace for conservative Muslims – as well as conservative Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and Jews – to claim monopoly over the discourse of Islam and to try their best to close off the space of public discourse on all matters religious for the sake of protecting the integrity and sanctity of that discourse. Or so we are told. But one can also argue that such attempts at restricting the participation and contribution of others in a discursive arena that is hotly contested is little more than a conventional and predictable attempt at censorship and the narrowing of the Muslim mind.
A recent case in point is the attempt to once again label the Muslim feminist movement Sisters in Islam of Malaysia as a group of ‘western-educated’ ‘liberal’ feminists who have no right to speak on matters Islamic. And once again we are in a paroxysm of anxiety as to how to deal with such accusations.
Let us therefore calmly and rationally look into the matter and dissect it piece by piece:
First of all, the claim that someone is ‘not qualified’ to speak about Islam simply because he or she did not go to a religious school is a rather bogus and shallow argument that should be exposed for what it is. The comparison that is often made is thus: Only a doctor can speak about medicine as he is trained to speak on medical matters, and only a pilot can speak about flying as he or she is trained in such matters as well; hence it follows that only the learned scholars (ulama) can speak about Islam as they have been trained to do so.
Now allow me to interject at this point: If I were to go to my doctor and complain to her of a headache, and she attempts to cure my headache by cracking my skull open with a hammer, I do reserve the right to object and to tell her that she is not a very good doctor. Likewise if I chose to take a flight to Jogjakarta and end up in Cuba, I do reserve the right to admonish the pilot. I don’t have to be trained in medicine or avionics to register such a complaint, for the simple reason that I am not objecting to the discipline of medicine per se, but rather the normative conduct of my doctor.
Likewise when Muslim feminists object to the abuse of women’s rights at the hands of misogynistic men who hide behind the cloak of religiosity, they are not condemning Islam or religion as a whole, but rather the normative culture of Muslims, and the abuse of law in the name of Islam. At no point is Islam being criticised or rejected, but rather the abuse of the law and the transgression of the egalitarian spirit of Islam.
This is the point that is often lost in the over-heated debates that take place between Muslim progressives and the more conservative Ulama in our midst. Whenever there is an attempt to question, debate, reform or develop the normative religio-cultural praxis of Muslims anywhere in the world, we often see the same reaction from conservative Ulama who will never accept that those who didn’t go to the same schools as they did have the right to speak on matters of religious praxis.
But if we accept this argument of the Ulama then we are in danger of overlooking the reality of history and how the greatest advances in Muslim normativity and thought came from those who were precisely outside the traditional circle of orthodox thought. Today many Islamists claim to have received their inspiration from the likes of Abul Ala’a Maudoodi, Hassan al-Banna, Syed Qutb, et al. But have we forgotten that men like Maudoodi and Qutb were themselves lay Islamists whose own education sometimes was not rooted in classical Islamic teaching? Maudoodi was, after all, a journalist by training.
Dealing and responding to such attempts at discursive closure would therefore require us to look beyond the discursive pyrotechnics of legalism and theology, and to see that beneath all these warnings and demands for closure is nothing more than a strategy of censorship at work. For those who are trying to engage critically and intelligently with the discourse of religion, abiding by the rules of traditional conventional scholarship will simply not get us anywhere.
If, for instance, a Muslim feminist were to abide by the rules set by some conservative male Ulama, they would be forced to conform to all the standards set by men: They would have to start from the beginning, go to the same schools as the ulama did, read the same books, dress and behave the same way, etc. But in the end, they would still be faced with yet another barrier to their participation into the discursive domain: “No, you are not qualified to speak on Islam. Why? Because you are a woman of course!”
In the struggle to understand and render relevant the concerns of religion in the modern age we live in, blind adherence to traditional conventions will get us nowhere; and can only in fact retard our development even further. What holds true for contemporary Muslim praxis is equally true for contemporary Christian, Hindu and Buddhist praxis as well. Conservative Muslims on the other hand have to realise that we now live in an age where modern developments in communication, education and the dissemination of knowledge means that Muslim women are more intellectually emancipated and equipped than ever before. Rather than silencing the voices of Muslim women who are trying to understand and make relevant Islam for the age we live in, the conservatives among us should learn to listen to the critical and often constructive comments of others instead. If Islam is indeed a universal religion, then it has to be open for discussion for all. If Islam is indeed for everyone, then everyone has the right to have a say in it.
” …. again label the Muslim feminist movement Sisters in Islam of Malaysia as a group of ‘western-educated’ ‘liberal’ feminists who have no right to speak on matters Islamic”
western educated liberal feminists?? you don’t say!! feminisim is so out of date in the west. it is so not there anymore!
it is so not islam to find the two words “muslim” and “feminism” in the same sentence
Are we being lured to talk Islamic religion.. by Farish….or is he trying to say that the mentalities of certain Muslims…..uttering these words are simply idiotic fellas.
Avoiding to comment..I wonder how many Malaysians care to know all the great teachers of all religions.
Regardless Muslims or Buddhists or Christians….are not Buddha…Jesus…great teachers?. Do you know them?
I recalled in my teens at the Missionary School…to utter there are as great teachers equal to Jesus is blasphemy….for Jesus is God ..and Islam said there is..only one true God….Allah..and Mohammad is his last prophet…and Jesus is not God….but a Messiah.
Years passed by….this is now an out-dated argument.
You see..religions are very profitable business and almost .. everyone needs to cling to one…to be saved….or feeling great their sins are forgiven..by praying to the so call..one true God.
No harm to have great faith..in a religion….but respect others too..is the way of life…practical and sensible living lifestyle.
Farish is focusing on fanatics of Islamic religion.
All religions have fanatics.
and there are loonies too who feed off what appears to be social progressivism among professed muslims.
I don’t think the targets of your article have ever claimed this. I thought the point of Islam is that it takes care of everyone, but most are taken care of by prescription, not as participants. Using your doctor analogy, everyone will get treatment at the clinic, but every doctor will take a hammer to your headache, and there will be nobody interested in you protesting about your bleeding skull. Headaches will be hammered by decree. I think you’ll find under such a regime, headaches would be miraculously rare. Proof of something.
The argument in the title is an advanced form of “don’t knock it if you haven’t tried it”, which would be seen as outrageously cheeky if uttered by a person who enjoys any of the things banned by killjoys whatever their philosophical persuasion. Perhaps the next time one of these self-proclaimed experts finds himself peeing standing up, he might consider applying the same argument and wondering exactly how qualified he is to speak for women’s issues.
“Rather than silencing the voices of Muslim women who are trying to understand and make relevant Islam for the age we live in, the conservatives among us should learn to listen to the critical and often constructive comments of others instead. If Islam is indeed a universal religion, then it has to be open for discussion for all. If Islam is indeed for everyone, then everyone has the right to have a say in it.” (Farish A. Noor)
In many foreign regions where majority residents of which practice the religion of Islam, such as Yunnan Province, XinJiang Province, Gansu Province, Mongolia Province of China and even Indonesia, we do not find too many problems about Muslim women talking on the teaching of Islam. We only find Islamic preaching and Islamic discussion giving a lot of problems when these practices are to be done among the Malays. Some Malays like to twist and turn the original meaning of Al-Quran in order to suit the political needs of the Umno Malays or the PAS Malays in Malaysia. For instance, Al-Quran never prohibits intermarriage between a Christian and a Muslim but when the cross-religion intermarriage has to happen among a Kadazan-Dusun who practices Christianity and a Kadazan-Malay who practices Islam, it will be totally banned by the Government Authority in charge of Islam.
The Malays seem to be immatured about religion and about the humanity. It is no wonder why Singapore Prime Minister Mr Lee Hsien Loong openly commented that “Singapore is not ready for a Malay Prime Minister yet!”
Below are the comments, which I extracted from Malaysia Insider website, being made by a Singaporean Malay woman on why the Singaporeans are still not ready for a Malay Prime Minister yet:
‘written by Nora, June 16, 2009
Anyone remarked “…Singapore is not ready for a Malay PM…”
Of course Singapore is not ready…. Is the Malays good enough to be Singapore PM? Are the Malays matured enough politically and economically when we are still stuck with the Religious issue? Malays seem not to be able to differentiate between race and religion, thus this whole confusion of being a Muslim is also being a Malay. Politically Malays are still immature, that is my opinion. Did you know that the Malay MP did submit a request to the selective committee to have Malay defined as Muslim. I salute the wise decision of the Selective Committee to reject such suggestion. At least we do not have the problem of “body snatching” … or throwing the Muslim apostate in jail. Your religious practice is something very personal. What you want to believe in is not their problem as long as you do not try to create racial and religious tension that may lead to the same tragedy as the riot.
Minority we may be, but we are being protected the basic freedom of religious practice… something that even the Malays in Malaysia are being denied of.’
We have to make enquiries, like when we want to marry, we have to enquire first. Whether it happens or not, we will see.”
pas made the decision to tie the matrimonial knot, but not wanting to consummate the marriage it then goes on to discuss the possibility of an extra marital affair with a former lover
you cannot blame pas for not wanting to consummate a marriage with an infidel
“Malays seem not to be able to differentiate between race and religion, thus this whole confusion of being a Muslim is also being a Malay. Politically Malays are still immature, that is my opinion.” nora
that’s what happens to you when you live under a totalitarian government and under the tyranny of majority rule; if something is repeated often enough, it is confused for the truth by the garrulous and the gullible.
Onlooker Politics, is anyone qualified or sufficiently equipped with facts to make an article about the alleged quote “Singapore is not ready for a Malay PM”? The comment you’ve posted is just more “talk cock”, if I have the vernacular correct. If Singapore guarantees freedom of religion. how can religion be used in an argument about the suitability of a member of a racial category to be PM? If religion was an issue, a PM of a state guaranteeing freedom of worship would have erred badly in rejecting a PM on ancestry – he should know the two are independent.
I’m not sure what the experience of religious people living under a Communist regime has to do with the price of fish, except that it is possibly to China’s credit that China’s god-botherers sometimes appear to fare arguably better than Malaysia’s Communists.
I’m not sure it’s fair to lay any criticism at the feet of all ‘Malays’, since in Malaysia the term is largely a government construction. While I’ve no doubt there are a great number of Malaysians who identify with the government portrayal of ‘Malay’, I strongly suspect many registered as such identify with a definition of ‘Malay’ that has a longer, more generous tradition, more bound to place and practise than it is to official presentation and prescription.
“Minority we may be, but we are being protected the basic freedom of religious practice… something that even the Malays in Malaysia are being denied of.”
was there not an incident some years ago involving a malay girl wearing a hijab not being allowed to attend class??
Why should we be lured to talk about religion by Farish monsterball? If you think just by reading his piece, you are lured into discussing religion, then you should not comment at all. It is as simple as that.Are you saying Farish has no respect for religion?
is nora a singaporean malay christian?
was there not an incident some years ago involving a malay girl wearing a hijab not being allowed to attend class?? (tomthumb)
it is neither race nor attire that makes a muslim.
Ekin…A smart alex trying to put words into my mouth..and instigate.
I am ignoring him.
It is the heart that counts…..correct….distantmalay?
Certainly not a piece of log….wants to talk religion with me……correct… ekin?
race .religion encourage by BN guys to talk …..by asking questions.
Smart young blokes ..ekin?
“You are not qualified to talk about Islam.” What next?
“You are not qualified to talk about PSD scholarships”.
“You are not qualified to talk about the NEP”.
“You are not qualified to talk about the Perak coup”.
“You are not qualified to talk about Altantuya”.
“You are not qualified to talk about the Malaysian economic crisis”.
In short, “You are only qualified to obey the Tuans”.
Guess it is whether one belongs to a group of rationalist or group of believers (what religion).
Rationalist is loose term of someone who holds belief up to only that point until it is refuted and overturned by the next more ‘rational’ one. In other words, he is one who puts emphasis on all beliefs of his being “relative” in the sense that they can be changed if a contrary belief asserted in challenge is more persuasive being backed by cogent arguments or new facts and empirical evidence. Such a person will be less “sensitive” in having his beliefs challenged or contradicted and is usually an upholder of the freedom of expression by others.
One of the greatest rationalists is British philosopher John Stuart Mill. He would put a high premium on free speech and the right of others to voice their contradictory and different opinions. He would think there are three advantages in taking such a liberal and tolerant stance: (1) if he were in error, then he benefits from being contradicted by the truth in the other’s dissenting opinion; (2) on the other hand, if the one contradicting him were wrong, then the error might be pointed out (in such a free exchange) to the other who could benefit from the truth when collided when his error; (3) and even if the other holding the wrong opinion were to be so stubborn as to refuse to acknowledge the truth when pointed out to him, the one who held the truth would benefit from a more vivid impression of the truth by having it pointed out to the one in error. [These ideas are abstracted from John Stuart Mill’s essay “On Liberty”).
The group loosely termed “believers” have a more “absolutist” idea in their beliefs inculcated by families, friends and communities. It does not matter whether these set of beliefs pertain to personal religion, political ideology or morality.
The word “absolutist” is used in context of “absolutely true” with settled finality, permitting no margin of error. The person’s entire identity – his values, how he views himself in relation to others and vice versa, indeed his entire world view – are structured round these beliefs. He is not happy that his beliefs are subject to another contrary interpretation or argument under the excuse of freedom of speech or an open exchange of ideas. To him what is there to exchange or debate when his beliefs are (to him) already the veritable/cosmic truths and any argument or rebate justified on rational grounds has no benefit but only tend to shake his beliefs, and since his beliefs are, a priori, defined as already truth, then such an atempt at argument or debate is bad because it tends to shake the truth – not error!
The possibility of error of his beliefs in this line of thinking is just not there! Because any suggestion that they could be erronous would lead to him becoming confused, unsure whether what’s next to be done is right or wrong and he becomes unhappy and hence angry of whose who by a different opinion and deliberate challenge of argument has sown confusion in this thoughts and actions. Being so hurt by what others say or write freely contrary to his beliefs he would rather silence them by the law and imprisonment if he could.
Farish’s comments highlight the unbridgeable difference between these two personality types – never mind, the veritable truth that greater intellectual and social progress has been made throughout history of mankind by people of the rationalist personality type eg Nicolaus Copernicus (19 February 1473 – 24 May 1543) the Polish astronomer and mathematician who held (correctly) the view of the Earth in daily motion about its axis and in yearly motion around the Sun rather than the contrary view held by the Clergy and those in power then in his time.
Sisters in Islam of Malaysia is hence labelled as a group of ‘western-educated’ ‘liberal’ feminists (who have no right to speak on matters Islamic) because their spokesperson and ideas (especially the rights of Muslim women) do not conform strictly to prescriptions of the sacred text believed to be veritable truths laid down by the Almighty but a hybrid of Western ideas emphasising in (1) rational debate of certain beliefs and ideas as to their relevance in context of existing or present circumstances and realities (2) subject the relevance of certain held beliefs to challenge of rational argument and contradiction (3) implicitly bias in favour of Western values believing in Freedom of Expression and self evident right of all peoples of both sexes to right of happiness derived from the right to equality (as such a concept is understood in Aristotlean sense of treating like cases (comparing orange and orange) equally and not treating unlike cases (comparing oranges and apples) equally – wherever the exact ramification of this concept of treating like alike and unlike differently may lead to or applied.
For someone who continues to impose his nonsensical views on all and sundry, for God only know how long in this blog and others, his inability to distinguish a “Smart Alec” from Alex is astounding! similar to his nick which exudes a lot of hot air, but has very little substance. Kepala kayu they call it. And he wants to talk about religion? Can you beat it? If he does so and opens his mouth (arse) the UMNO types are waiting to catch these idiots by the balls and then say “LKS’ blog encourages kaffir chauvnists who will be out to insult Islam, blah, blah… What sheer stupidity. No prizes for guessing who the idiot is. All who try will get the right answer
“You Are Not Qualified To Talk About Islam”: How to Respond to Attempts to Close the Public Domain?
I must admit that I am not qualified to talk about Islam, especially when I see the mess in Iran. I can only shudder when I think that PAS wants to lead us to Timbuktu.
No one is qualified to talk about Islam – No wonder when there’s suicide bombing here and there in the name of Islam, there’s not much condemnation for doing so, as there’s no one qualified to talk about Islam!!! Those who “qualified” encouraged it!!! Habislah tu!!!
kontiki Says:
Today at 15: 14.23 (4 hours ago)
“For someone who continues to impose his nonsensical views on all and sundry, for God only know how long in this blog and others, his inability to distinguish a “Smart Alec” from Alex is astounding! similar to his nick which exudes a lot of hot air, but has very little substance. Kepala kayu they call it.”
You cannot be referring to Monsterball. Naaah …!
“If Singapore guarantees freedom of religion. how can religion be used in an argument about the suitability of a member of a racial category to be PM? If religion was an issue, a PM of a state guaranteeing freedom of worship would have erred badly in rejecting a PM on ancestry – he should know the two are independent.” (OrangRojak)
OrangRojak,
The core issues here are whether “the Concept of Separation of Mosque and the State” shall be made prevalent over “the Concept of Merge of Mosque and the State.” In the United States, the choice of Secularism or Theocracy is also the common issue of policy choice being always argued between the Liberal and the Conservative. There was nothing wrong when Singapore PM Mr Lee Hsien Loong mentioned something about the possibility for the Singaporean Malays to become a Singapore PM in the future because it was a matter of policy choice.
However, the danger we talked about the Malays in relation to religion is that the Malays tended to be easily misled by the politically-motivated Politicians to believe in the occultic legend which stipulates “Malays = Muslims and Muslims = Malays”. This kind of Malay-centric religious-political philosophy tends to create a rigid racism which will rule out all other aborigine people in the region of South-East Asia from being classified as the Malays if these aborigine people don’t believe in Islam. Worse still, even those non-Malay people who do believe in Islam will also be ruled out from being classified as the mainstream political group of people either in Singapore or in Malaysia. This kind of Malay racism being enhanced by the Islamic religious background has created a lot of political conflicts as well as social conflicts among different races in Malaysia. The May 13 Incident of 1969 was only one of the most serious conflicts which were made known to the whole world.
OrangRojak, I know you learn fast about the culture of Malaysia but please don’t ever use the word “talk cock” again because it simply means “talk pennis”, that does not worth to be uttered from the mouth of a learned man like you!
white trailer trash living off the back of a hard working Chinese, you mean.
TomThumb,
Regarding the smart Alex issue, like the Malay proverb says, “Siapa makan cili dia rasa panas”. I leave it to you to draw your own conclusion.
Are you sure about “talk cock” Onlooker Politics? I got the impression from talkingcock.com, a Singaporean site, that ‘cock’ referred to a rather large bird, as opposed to the little bird of local parlance.
I was referring to the comment from ‘Nora’ at The Malaysian Insider. The idea that a person, even a member of the in-breeding group she refers to, talking for the entire group as though she knows each one individually, is risible. Imagine believing you fall into (however you define) the category ‘Malay’ and also strongly believing that you have what it takes to be the leader of an alleged secular democracy and then one of your ‘sisters’ tells the world you are all incompetent! It boils down to exactly who has the authority to speak on your behalf. I expect any Malay Singaporeans who aspire to any of the high posts of the land will be contacting ‘Nora’ soon to plead with her not to speak for them.
But even so – isn’t there a contradiction in the story? The Singaporean government turns down a request from a Malay MP to have Malays defined as Muslims. The leader allegedly says (said or not?) “Singapore is not ready for a Malay PM”. The reason offered is religion. Not because of racial issues like they have skin even less like Michael Jackson’s than many other Singaporeans, and not because they sometimes have wavy/curly hair, but because of religion. The government says “Malays are not Muslims”. The PM is claimed to be saying something like “A Malay PM would be a Muslim”. I understand that there is not likely to be a very deep debate about this topic in Singapore itself, but I would have thought we could discuss it here.
The subject you brought up is Singapore and an apparent contradiction in a leader’s statement about race (or is it religion?). You see the difference? Using your example of USA, it would be like Obama saying “we ain’t ready for a white leader”, inferring that the USA doesn’t want to be a Christian fundamentalist state. Obama would say “christian” if it came to it, I’m sure. I don’t think any blog.lks reader could have any great investment in the debate either way. Except perhaps for cintanegara, but everybody knows he holds losing cards and is bluffing for all he is worth.
I think the problem arises because of a confusion between natural definitions of words and their politically / socially constructed meaning. In such an important matter as rejecting a candidate for PM on the basis of affiliation, I feel a respectable leader would have made it clearer which one he was referring to.
Aiyah – ‘learned’ … thanks and all, but so what? As my self-appointed nemesis keeps reminding me, I have a humble origin. Much worse comes out of my mouth in unguarded moments. At least I have the chance to do a little editing of my output here, otherwise you might not be so quick with the compliment!
Now a smart alex uses my statement to say I am qa smart alex!!
Truth hurts…so bang it back to monsterball..in 3rd party way..or get moderated.
Siapa kina monsterball tarok….rasa bola sakit.
Onlooker Politics, I thought it was important to reply to you yesterday, but you won’t be able to see it as it appears I’ve been insufficiently moderate. What with The Nut Graph editing my comments towards Political Correctness and the lks moderation system preventing me from being honest, I fear one of these mornings I’ll wake up and I won’t even be me any more.
TomThumb,
See how the chili has burnt the lips of the “Smart (in reality Stupid) Alex and he jumps as if he sits on pins! No need to tell you that if anyone were to give this “Smart (in reality Stupid)Alex a rope, he will hang himself, ha ha ha….