Posted on

For God’s sake?

— Clive Kessler
The Malaysian Insider
Feb 11, 2013

FEB 11 — Disputation in Malaysia over the kalimah Allah, the name of God, has not abated.

On the contrary, it continues to become ever more acrimonious and worrying.

These days we now even have some enthusiastic “idealists” who give advance notice of their readiness for a virtually premeditated amok — or to excuse others who might resort to that kind of intimidatory violence — in order, paradoxically, to uphold their notions of moderation, mutual acceptance and tolerance in interfaith relations. Continue reading “For God’s sake?”

Posted on

Is sharia immutable?

— Asghar Ali Engineer
The Malaysian Insider
Feb 02, 2013

FEB 2 — It is believed by millions of Muslims across the world that sharia laws are immutable and represent divine will. This is based on serious misunderstanding. Sharia is not and cannot be immutable.

Recently I was invited to the Jaipur Literary Festival to be part of a panel discussion on the book “Heaven on Earth” by Sadakat Kadri of London, which is on the application of sharia laws across the Muslim world. He has travelled to different Muslim countries and talked to various ulama and muftis about sharia as applied to their respective countries.

All of them were defenders of conservative sharia formulations and refused to admit any change. They maintained that sharia being divine cannot be changed. It is from this rigidity of our ulama that the misunderstanding among common Muslims arises that sharia is divine and hence immutable.

In fact our ulama forget that ijtihad was not only permitted but encouraged by the Prophet of Islam (PBUH) and the hadith pertaining to Ma’adh bin Jabal is well-known. When the Prophet appointed him to the governorship of Yemen and he came to take leave of the Prophet, Ma’adh was asked how he would govern. Ma’adh said, according to the Quran. The Prophet thereupon asked what he would do if he did not find the solution to the problem in the Quran, to which Ma’adh said he would govern according to the Sunnah. But when the Prophet asked if he could not find it in the Sunnah also, Ma’adh said “ana ajtahidu” (I will exert myself to find the solution). The Prophet thereupon patted his back and told him he was right. Continue reading “Is sharia immutable?”

Posted on

Don’t politicise God

by P. Ramakrishnan
Aliran
9 January 2013

When God is politicised we are in big trouble. That is what is happening in Malaysia. And that’s why we are in such a big mess.

Religious zealots have come out with edicts that defy logic and override the supreme law of the land, the Federal Constitution.

They have paid scant attention to the High Court ruling way back in 2009 that the word “Allah” can be used by the Christians.

The government has appealed against this decision. But nothing has happened for more than three years. Seemingly it is meant to be so! There is no urgency to solve this matter as soon as possible. Most people think that the delay is deliberate and politically motivated.

The claim by some members of certain organisations who had aggressively demonstrated on the premise that Muslims and Christians will be confused if “Allah” is used by non-Muslims is ridiculous and laughable. There is no merit in their claim. There is no justification for this view. What is the basis for this ridiculous claim?

Why is the word “Allah” confusing? And confusing to whom? What is so confusing about the word? It had been in use for thousands of years; yet we have not come across anyone in any part of the world who was ever confused because the word “Allah” was commonly used by Muslims and non-Muslims. Continue reading “Don’t politicise God”

Posted on

Five contradictions in restricting the use of ‘Allah’

— Pak Sako
CPI/The Malaysian Insider
Jan 08, 2013

JAN 8 — There are major contradictions in the claim that the word “Allah” belongs only to Muslims and Islam, and does not apply to non-Muslims and other religions (JAKIM), and in the insistence that non-Muslims must convert to Islam to use the word “Allah” (Perak Mufti Harussani Zakaria).

The contradictions are as follows:

1. If we disallow non-Muslims from using the word “Allah”, are we implying that Allah has no relation to the non-Muslims, that Allah did not create the non-Muslims, but to whom Allah must belong if He is the Creator of all things?

2. If we say Allah is not the god of the non-Muslims, does this not imply that besides Allah there must exist a second god, specifically for the non-Muslims, the former god of Muslim converts? Does this not clash with the Islamic concept of tauhid, which proposes that there cannot possibly be another god apart from Allah, and that no being can perform the work of a god other than Allah?

3. If we maintain that “Allah” has no relevance to other religions, who then ultimately created these religions if not Allah, the Creator of all things? Are we suggesting that Allah got it wrong before unveiling Islam? But if tauhid is to stand and Allah is the sole Creator, and if Allah is infallible, perfect and all-knowing, does it not mean that Allah happily created, with no games intended, all the variety of religions and religious philosophies including Christianity and Hinduism?

4. Therefore how can it be wrong for a Hindu, a Christian or a freethinker to refer to “Allah” as our one common god? Must Sikhs, who are not Muslims, stop using the word “Allah”, though “Allah” appears numerous times in their holy book, which is not the al-Quran?

5. If non-Muslims must convert to Islam before referring to “Allah”, is that to say Allah was not their Creator prior to them converting? But how can that be if Allah created everything and there is no god other than Allah? If we say non-Muslims are non-believers who do not recognise Allah, then why deny them the use of the word “Allah” to recognise this Supreme Being and Ultimate Cause?

The restrictions on the use of “Allah” conflict with the core tenets of Islam. They conflict also with those of other religions. Continue reading “Five contradictions in restricting the use of ‘Allah’”

Posted on

The pathologies of Malay nationalism

by Ahmad Fuad Rahmat
New Mandala
03 December 2012

The nation

The problem begins with the nation-state ideal; for its coherence depends on there being a people deemed as the rightful owners of a land. It is rooted to the belief that territory is property – a thing to own – and that loyalty to the people means, among other things, the readiness to uphold the integrity of territory to ensure it belongs to the nation.

This requires clearly defined, finite, national borders, which – at least at the face of it – appears as a simple enough idea. Matters become complicated when we ask who those borders are meant for. There cannot be a nation-state, if there is no nation to begin with.

But identities unlike land cannot be enclosed and demarcated. Cultures do not flourish in vacuums. They develop out of interactions and fusions with one another. New words, outlooks and practices are adopted while others fade, in a slow, arbitrary and often ambiguous organic process of contact and migration through time.

The nationalist agenda is at odds with this reality. The belief in the congruence of identity and territory – or indeed identity as territory – at the face of inevitable cultural change that can neither be controlled nor predicted, means that each nation will always find itself in the position of having to redefine the conditions of membership, to determine what or who should or should not be excluded. Culture too is given boundaries as a result.

The nationalist imagination must, in other words, assume however implicitly that there is some supposed essence underlying the flux of culture and identity, out of which the ‘Otherising’ so common to nationalist politics is legitimised. The marker could be anything from a common language, religion, ethnicity, race or history. It could even be a set of values or general traits. None of this is exclusive, of course. At any given time, depending on the issue and occasion, different factors can be evoked to proclaim dissimilarity. Continue reading “The pathologies of Malay nationalism”

Posted on

Nurul Izzah’s statement in the Kaum Muda-Kaum Tua context

by AB Sulaiman
CPI
26 November 2012

The case of Nurul Izzah Anwar, the PKR vice president, making the statement that there is no compulsion in religion and that this should apply not only to non-Malays but to Malays as well is now commanding the public domain.

Thanks to Utusan Malaysia and the Internet, the speed at which Nurul’s statement spread was staggering. The very next day, it appeared as a front-page headline in the Malay daily but with a twist: it was reported that she had been ‘suggesting’ Malays could commit apostasy; or showing the way to do so. (Apostasy is considered the greatest sin in Malay reckoning.)

To the Malay-Muslim, she has committed a grave offence for which she must be taken to task.

I will try to identify what really is at issue by way of asking some pertinent and relevant questions. Continue reading “Nurul Izzah’s statement in the Kaum Muda-Kaum Tua context”

Posted on

The inexorable pursuit of an Islamic State

— Ahmad Farouk Musa
The Malaysian Insider
Nov 18, 2012

NOV 18 — If there is anything unmistakably clear from the recent muktamar or general assembly of the Islamic Party of Malaysia — PAS — is that despite the acceptance of the concept of tahalluf siyasi or political consensus among the three major components of the opposition front — Pakatan Rakyat — PAS’ ambition in establishing an Islamic State and implementing hudud laws is unwavering, if not more resolute.

It appears rather incongruous that despite the acceptance of Buku Jingga or Orange Book as a comprehensive framework of the opposition front on how to govern the country when they come to power, PAS seems to have a higher agenda — to transform the multiracial and multi-religious country into a full-fledged Islamic state with Islamic laws.

Islamic laws and hudud were never mentioned in Buku Jingga and neither was the establishment of Islamic State. PAS even came out with its own manifesto “Nation of Care and Opportunity”. However this concept of a benevolent state is not well received by many PAS members themselves. Reason being, the so-called Erdoganists in PAS mainly mooted it. Recent spate of debate about the concept of Islamist Democrat — a term popularised by the Erdoganists — between the ulama faction and the young Turks clearly proved that they are considered contaminants in the “pure and pristine” PAS struggle. Continue reading “The inexorable pursuit of an Islamic State”

Posted on

End the smear campaign

— Islamic Renaissance Front
The Malaysian Insider
Nov 08, 2012

NOV 8 — We at the Islamic Renaissance Front condemn and lament the irresponsible mischaracterisation of Nurul Izzah Anwar’s statement on religious freedom.

She merely summarised the gist of the well-known Quranic verse in Surah al-Baqarah which clearly stressed that there is to be no compulsion in matters of faith, for truth and error has already been clearly stated.

Because of that she has been subjected to the crudest level of character assassination from those seeking to stoke controversy and gain political mileage for the upcoming elections. Continue reading “End the smear campaign”

Posted on

No fatwa on ‘belligerent infidel’ term used in ‘Utusan’, says minister

By Mohd Farhan Darwis
The Malaysian Insider
Nov 06, 2012

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 6 — The National Fatwa Council has never issued any fatwa (religious orders) to refer to non-Muslims as “kafir harbi” or belligerent infidels, minister Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom said today, referring to the label some conservative Muslims had used to describe the secular DAP opposition party earlier this year.

The minister in charge of Islamic affairs also said that any statements calling non-Muslims as “kafir harbi” or “kafir zimmi” are merely personal opinions, and added that Muslims are not bound by these personal convictions.

His statement comes just months after Umno-owned Malay daily Utusan Malaysia reported several Islamic religious scholars as saying that it is “haram” or forbidden for Muslim voters to support the DAP, which they have described as a “belligerent infidel” party.

“Until now, there is no fatwa or legal opinions related to the position of non-Muslims in Malaysia as Kafir Harbi or Kafir Zimmi issued by the state Fatwa Committee, or MKI (National Council for Islamic Affairs Malaysia),” Jamil Khir said in a written reply to PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang.

Legal opinions are only valid and recognised after receiving approval from the states’ Fatwa Committee and the MKI, Jamil said.

“Fatwa and legal opinions in this country can only be issued by the authorities.

“Therefore, any opinion or institutions apart from the two entities cannot be considered as fatwa, but only personal conviction.” Continue reading “No fatwa on ‘belligerent infidel’ term used in ‘Utusan’, says minister”

Posted on

Ordinary, average Muslims are not easily confused, their faith is strong!

by P. Ramakrishnan
The Malaysian Insider
November 03, 2012

NOV 3 — It is difficult to understand the so-called Muslim elites who constantly and consistently convey the erroneous message that Islam is under threat and that Muslims will be easily misled.

They always seem to suggest that Muslims must be sheltered and protected otherwise they can go astray and embarrass their religion.

The latest episode involves the screening of the movie “My name is Khan” by TV3 on the second day of Hari Raya Aidil Adha.

The Muslim youth movement Abim has strongly protested against this film, claiming that the Shah Rukh Khan film “confuses Muslims as it promotes liberal Islam and religious pluralism, and warned Malaysian broadcasters not to air the hit film”.

Abim vice-president Ahmad Saparudin Yusuf “gave examples of scenes in the film such as the Muslim hero marrying a Hindu heroine, saying that it is ‘clearly against Islam’s teachings’”.

He also pointed out “that the depiction in the film of acceptance and mixing of other religions’ worship methods with Islam’s as well as giving zakat or alms to non-Muslims were ‘confusing’.”

This film has been available in Malaysia since March 2010. It has been screened in cinemas and the film’s CD has been widely sold. In the 2½ years that it was around, thousands upon thousands of Muslims and other Malaysians have seen and enjoyed the film. Continue reading “Ordinary, average Muslims are not easily confused, their faith is strong!”

Posted on

Ministerial moral insight: A brief comment

— Clive Kessler
The Malaysian Insider
Oct 25, 2012

OCT 25 — The infliction of the hudud punishments will not affect, or have any impact upon, non-Muslims, the minister has sought to assure everybody ( “Hudud will not impact non-Muslims, minister says”, The Malaysian Insider, October 24).

Just consider for a moment.

The state will inflict the hudud punishments on some of its citizens. On their bodies, and brutally.

Since it will be acting as the state, and not as some instrument of private punishment or vengeful enforcement, it will be doing so in the name of all of its citizens. That is what, by definition, modern states are.

So all of the state’s citizens, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, will be complicit in, and will share moral responsibility for, the infliction of those punishments.

And, as a result, their nature as “moral agents” will be transformed by that complicity, by their dragooned participation in and shared authorship of those mandatory stonings, amputations and the like.

Yet the minister says that these non-Muslim citizens will be in no way affected, or “impacted.”

It is an assurance that is entirely unconvincing. One that is patently inadequate, ill-founded and wrong. Continue reading “Ministerial moral insight: A brief comment”

Posted on

What Does “Moderate” Mean in Malaysia?

by Azeem Ibrahim
Huffington Post
10/12/2012

There have been a lot of loose definitions of “moderate” Islam in the media recently and in the wake of violent protests throughout the Muslim world, the word is starting to mean simply — non-violent. The deaths in Libya and many other Muslim countries have been a disturbing counterpoint to the hopes aroused by the Arab Spring movement. Peaceful protests have achieved so much more change in the last two years than all the decades of violence in the past, yet extremists still believe they can achieve their agenda by continuing to murder innocent civilians. Violence is their only way of remaining relevant as they have nothing else to offer.

Malaysia is often referred to as a moderate Islamic country, as it is mainly peaceful, prosperous and law-abiding. A predominantly Muslim country with vocal and distinct minority populations of Indian and Chinese origin, peaceful change has taken place over the last twenty years without violent extremism. It may be because the government has kept a tight hold on the country with the emergency law and regulations adopted in 1957 to maintain political order and stability when Malaysia was emerging from the communist insurgency. These laws stayed in place until very recently and have been used to respond to any movement that was considered prejudicial to national security. Today, the question arises of whether such laws provide security or whether they have become a liability. In September, 2011 the increasingly controversial Internal Security Act (ISA) of 1960 was repealed and in November, 2011, the government finally lifted three existing emergency proclamations, rendering void the unpopular Emergency Public Order and Prevention of Crime Ordinance of 1969.

However, civil rights groups are expressing dissatisfaction with the new legislation which replaces the archaic repealed laws; Hasmy Agam, the Chief Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia has spoken out against the new legislation for failing to meet international human rights standards. Many see the proposed Peaceful Assembly Bill as placing further curbs on civil liberties by restricting street demonstrations and the new Security Offences Act is simply “the New ISA.” The much vaunted relaxation of media restrictions is also being criticized as an inadequate half-measure. Continue reading “What Does “Moderate” Mean in Malaysia?”

Posted on

Menjelang PRU, musuh ulangi pujukan

— Abd Shukur Harun
The Malaysian Insider
Oct 11, 2012

11 OKT — Semakin hampir PRU Ke-13, semakin rancak desakan dan pujukan supaya PAS memutuskan hubungan dengan DAP sekaligus menarik diri dari Pakatan Rakyat, kerana DAP didakwa menolak Islam.

Desakan ini tidak sekedar datang dari musuh PAS — Umno/BN — bahkan datang dari segelintir yang amat kecil jumlahnya dari ahli PAS yang keliru dan kecewa atas sebab tertentu.

Juga mereka yang tidak memahami sejarah PAS dan tidak memahami secara mendalam konsep dan pengertian Tahalluf-Siasi (Pakatan PAS dengan parti lain).

Tahalluf-siasi, seperti saya katakan dalam tulisan saya dulu, bukan rekayasa sembarangan, tidak juga ijtihad perseorangan, jauh sekali didorong oleh kepentingan duniawi.

Tetapi ia dicetuskan sebagai suatu ijtihad jamai’e (Ijtihad kumpulan) PAS setelah diadakan muzakarah antara ulama dan pemimpin tertinggi PAS dengan ulama di peringkat antarabangsa, khususnya termasuk pemimpin Ikhwanul-Muslimin dan pemimpin ulama sedunia, Dr Yusuf Al-Qaradhawi. Continue reading “Menjelang PRU, musuh ulangi pujukan”

Posted on

What’s keeping Malaysia’s Opposition together?

— Bridget Welsh
The Malaysian Insider
Oct 10, 2012

Oct 10 — What keeps the Malaysian opposition Pakatan Rakyat (People’s Alliance) together? The quick answer often given is the common search of political power.

While power frames the relationships between three disparate political parties – Islamist PAS, secular-committed Democratic Action Party and the umbrella reform-oriented PKR of Mr Anwar Ibrahim – it is not the glue of the opposition alliance. Were this the case, PAS would have left the coalition when UMNO floated the offer of joining the government in 2008 and intense jockeying took place within PAS.

The answer lies in the three parties’ shared moral compact. Pakatan Rakyat is an alliance of profoundly different backgrounds, with secularists, theocrats, conservatives and progressives working together. In a world wracked with tensions over religion and misunderstandings, Malaysia’s opposition stands out in bucking international trends of difference. Continue reading “What’s keeping Malaysia’s Opposition together?”

Posted on

What Islam Says, and Doesn’t Say

Omid Safi, a professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, is the author of “Memories of Muhammad: Why the Prophet Matters” and the editor of “Progressive Muslims: On Justice, Gender, and Pluralism.”
The New York Times
October 5, 2012

Modern nation states utilize political models that were unanticipated in any of our premodern scriptures. It is anachronistic to ask whether “Islam” endorses constitutionalism or democracy. Islam as such does not proscribe any one particular system of government. (Of course “Islam” doesn’t do anything, Muslims do. We human beings are the agents of our religious traditions.)

Rather, there are general ethical principles that have to be guaranteed under any system of government that Muslims adopt, like social justice; protection of life, property, and honor of humanity; accountability of rulers to law; distribution of wealth; and protection of minorities. All systems of government are imperfect, and it is not only good but also healthy to be perpetually vigilant against abuses of any form of government. However, it may also be the case that a genuine and robust democracy is the least imperfect of all imperfect political models today, as others before us have said. Continue reading “What Islam Says, and Doesn’t Say”

Posted on

Muslims Have Pushed for Democracy

Richard W. Bulliet, a professor of history at Columbia University, is the author of “The Case for Islamo-Christian Civilization”
The New York Times
October 4, 2012

If democracy is to be born in the Muslim world, religious political parties will be the midwives.

Elections do not necessarily mean democracy, of course. Most majority-Muslim countries, including monarchies like Kuwait, Jordan and Morocco, hold elections. Usually nationalist regimes instituted them, and nationalist leaders transformed them into instruments of dictatorship, partly by banning religious parties.

Muslim political parties have been the strongest and most consistent force urging genuinely free elections in majority-Muslim nations.

The question is whether a Muslim party, once elected, would inevitably make a mockery of that process by creating a religious dictatorship.The question in both the Western and the Muslim world, however, is whether a Muslim party, once elected, would inevitably make a mockery of that process by creating a religious dictatorship. Continue reading “Muslims Have Pushed for Democracy”

Posted on

Rejected by Religions, but Not by Believers

by Reza Aslan, an associate professor at the University of California is the author of “No God but God” and “How to Win a Cosmic War”
The New York Times
October 5, 2012

The question of whether Islam is compatible with democracy is nonsensical at its core, first because it ignores basic empirical evidence (the five most populous Muslim countries in the world are all democracies) and second because it presumes that Islam is somehow different, unique or special — that unlike every other religion in the history of the world, Islam alone is unaffected by history, culture or context.

Anyone who would answer “no, Islam is not compatible with democracy” does not even deserve a response; this is merely recycling the same old tired and disproven stereotypes about Islam that are frankly starting to get boring.

The truth is no religion either encourages or discourages democracy. Indeed, because religions are in their nature absolutist, all religions reject the principles of liberalism and popular sovereignty that are at the heart of the democratic ideal. Continue reading “Rejected by Religions, but Not by Believers”

Posted on

On the secular state controversy

― Ahmad Fuad Rahmat
The Malaysian Insider
Sep 26, 2012

SEPT 26 ― Some weeks have passed since the release of our rather controversial call for a secular state. Naturally, we encountered many comments along the way. Many were constructive, while one particularly from HAKIM was nothing short of vitriolic.

In the interest of furthering democratic debate, we shall take the opportunity here to clarify the misconceptions we encountered along the way in hope that our position will be more clearly understood. Continue reading “On the secular state controversy”