Muslim first...(Part II): Islamization and '1Malaysia'

The Malaysian society I grew up in was certainly different from what it is today. I started primary school in 1984 at the time when the effects of the Islamization wave, which began in the 1970's was yet to be seen. I went to a primary school in Kelana Jaya, a then young housing area in the fringes of Petaling Jaya. The local society was truly multiracial and this was reflected by the multiracial composition of my classmates in school.

Looking back at my class photos, I can see that when I was in Standard 1 (Tahun 1 Limau, 1984, Sekolah Rendah Kebangsaan Taman Seaport), out of 45 students in that class, only twelve of them were Malays. I had 20 Chinese classmates, eight Indians while the rest were Kadazan-Dusun, Ceylonese and Eurasians. And my Standard 2 class (Tahun 2 Durian, 1985) was the same. There were 44 students in the class, 15 of them Malays, 21 Chinese and five Indians.

Those numbers sum-up quite nicely my childhood environment. My friends and I, we were truly '1Malaysia'. In fact, my best mate in primary school was a Chinese boy named Oliver, and in my first three years of secondary school in Kelana Jaya, my closest friend was my Indian buddy, Thanaraj.

I was conscious about my race and religion, and I'm sure all my friends in school were conscious of theirs too. That, however, did not stop us from playing together. We knew we had different cultural-religious beliefs and practices. We talked about them at times and from these conversations we learned to respect one another.

Occasionally, there were misunderstandings. I can recall one specific occasion when we were all tired and thirsty after playing football, a Chinese friend refused to drink water from the same bottle with me, not because he thought my bottle was dirty or anything but because; as what he said "aku makan babi" (I eat pork)". He was genuinely concerned that if his lips touched the bottle, the bottle would instantly become haram (forbidden) for me to drink from. 

I can see from those old class photos too that back then, all of us Malay boys wore shorts to school while the Malay girls all wore pinafores. One or two Malay girls started wearing baju kurung in Standard 4 while the boys started wearing long pants in Standard 5. Even in Standard 6, there were still more Malay girls in pinafores and skirts (prefect attire). Now, all Malay boys in primary schools right from Standard 1, wear long pants to school, and all the Malay girls wear baju kurung with tudung or headscarves as well.

The Malay-Muslim society in Malaysia has certainly become more Islamic over the last three decades. The influx of Islamic television programmes in recent years is a stark reminder of that too. Back in the early 1980's, the only regular religious programme was Muqaddam, a basic Quran reading programme hosted by Ustaz Hassan Azhari, aired on RTM1 every afternoon. Friday sermons were not even shown live on national television. There were recorded and aired after the evening news at 8.30 pm on Fridays. I remember this because what came immediately after was Tayangan Minggu Ini, a programme which aired old Malay movies of P. Ramlee and his contemporaries.  

The ‘Islamic Malaysia’ that we live in today is a country were 'Islamic' content penetrates into all spheres of life; in education, entertainment, medicine, finance, fashion and others. A Muslim, like me, certainly has no problems with this for Islam is my religion. But for non-Muslims?

I can understand their concerns. More so if I imagine myself in a reversed situation, i.e. a Muslim minority living in a non-Muslim majority society. If, for example that I live in the UK, and the British people suddenly became more religious that all public schools suddenly revert to routines and practices of mission schools in the past; with prayers read and hymns sang in student assemblies, the BBC begin to air more religious programmes; live coverage of mass on Sundays, Christian talent shows etc, and the British Prime Minister announcing a national policy of insertion of Christian values in public service, as a Muslim living in the UK, I would definitely be very concerned.      

Coming back to the reality here in Malaysia, I disagree with the popular assumption that the person chiefly responsible for the Islamization of the society was former Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir. Yes, he was indeed the man who introduced a national policy of insertion of Islamic values (dasar penerapan nilai-nilai Islam) in the 1980's, and the Islamization wave that hit the country coincides nicely with his premiership. But really, that was pretty much what it was, a coincidence. Anyone who became prime minister at that time would have introduced some form of Islamization, one way or another.

Not to say that Dr. Mahathir was insincere. He was indeed the country's first practicing Muslim prime minister. And I do believe he is genuinely religious in his own way. But more than anything, Dr. Mahathir was a cunning observer of political trends. He recognised and understood the Islamization wave that hit, not only the Muslims here but Muslims all over the world. He knew that if UMNO did not try to 'Islamize' itself, it might lose its position to PAS as the major political vehicle for the Malays. So he went on executing a deliberate political strategy’ to Islamize’ the government and his party. And getting the then ABIM president, Anwar Ibrahim, to join UMNO was undoubtedly part of that strategy.     

As far as winning the hearts and minds of the Muslims is concern, that strategy worked. Except for his last general election in 1999, UMNO and Barisan Nasional garnered the majority of Malay votes in every general election held during Dr. Mahathir’s tenure. But when it comes to race relations and national integration, that strategy has certainly caused great consternation.

Many non-Malays now refer to national schools as 'Malay schools' precisely because almost all the students there are Malays. There are hardly any non-Malays. The situation is particularly acute in urban areas. I live in the outskirts of Kuala Lumpur and the local national primary school here has not had a single Chinese student enrolled for more than ten years.          

Non-Muslim parents, especially Chinese, have overwhelmingly refused to send their children to national primary schools. This has been going on for almost two decades now, hence, as a result, we have an entire generation of Malaysians growing up in a more-or-less homogeneous environment; growing up interacting only with those of the same race with very little interaction with others.

When you don’t interact with others, what would be the most likely effect? Tolerance and acceptance, or prejudice and discrimination? You don't need a PhD in social psychology or sociology to know the answer.

The situation today certainly does not look good. The dream for a ‘Bangsa Malaysia’ and ‘1Malaysia’ looks increasingly more like a pipe dream. But I believe there are still ways to salvage that dream. It requires commitment and sacrifices from all; Muslims and non-Muslims, Malays and non-Malays. For the sake of genuine peace and harmony, each of us needs to accept some changes and let go some of our long-held opinions.

For example...

Islamisasi dan Dasar Penerapan Nilai-Nilai Islam

Dalam ceramah-ceramah kempen pilihanraya anjuran Parti Tindakan Demokratik (DAP), antara hujah yang sering dikemukan untuk menggesa pengundi bukan Melayu supaya tidak mengundi Barisan Nasional (BN) ialah apa yang disifatkan mereka sebagai dasar Islamisasi kerajaan BN yang keterlaluan. Maka, dicanangkanlah kata-kata seperti "semua undi pada MCA adalah undi pada UMNO dan tanda sokongan terhadap dasar Islamisasi kerajaan".

Proses Islamisasi di Malaysia sangat sinonim dengan zaman pemerintahan Dr. Mahathir. Berbeza dengan perdana menteri sebelumnya, Dr. Mahathir sering disebut sebagai perdana menteri Malaysia pertama yang konsisten amalan agamanya dan tidak terpaut pemikirannya dengan ideologi pemisahan agama dalam urusan politik dan negara. Oleh yang demikian, Dasar Penerapan Nilai-Nilai Islam dalam agensi-agensi kerajaan diperkenalkan Dr. Mahathir sejak dari awal pemerintahannya.

Mungkin agak terlalu optimis untuk kita menganggap Dr. Mahathir sebagai pelopor gerakan Islamisasi di Malaysia yang ikhlas dalam perjuangan menegakkan syiar Islam. Keikhlasan itu sedikit sebanyak pasti ada dalam lubuk hatinya namun tidak dapat diabaikan juga kemungkinan inisiatif Dr. Mahathir ini lebih bersifat reaktif kepada situasi sosio-agama di dalam dan luar negara pada ketika itu.

Di peringkat antarabangsa, peristiwa yang menjadi pemangkin pada kebangkitan gerakan Islamisasi di seluruh dunia tidak syak lagi adalah revolusi Islam di Iran pada tahun 1979. Sebelum itu juga, bibit-bibit kebangkitan ini terserlah hasil pengaruh perjuangan kumpulan Ikhwanul Muslimin di Timur Tengah dan penyebaran meluas tulisan-tulisan pemikir Islam seperti Hassan Al-Banna, Sayyid Qutb dan Sayyid Abul A’la Mawdudi.

Dari situasi ini, di Malaysia lahirlah pertubuhan-pertubuhan Islam seperti Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia (ABIM) dan Pertubuhan Kebangsaan Pelajar Islam Malaysia (PKPIM) yang didokongi golongan muda. Dan pemimpin mereka yang paling lantang dan yang paling terkenal sepanjang tahun 1970-an tidak lain dan tidak bukan ialah Anwar Ibrahim.

Telah ditakdirkan, walaupun sebelumnya beliau kuat mengkritik kerajaan, Anwar Ibrahim akhirnya menyertai UMNO pada tahun 1982 hasil pujukan dan pelawaan Dr. Mahathir yang baru mengambil-alih tampuk pemerintahan pada ketika itu. Teori penyertaan Anwar ke dalam UMNO masih dibahaskan hingga ke hari ini. Yang sering didesas-desuskan adalah janji Dr. Mahathir memberi mandat kepada Anwar untuk menggerakkan proses Islamisasi dalam kerajaan daripada pelbagai sudut dan bidang.

Maka lahir dan berkembanglah insitusi perbankan Islam, institusi pengajian tinggi Islam dan Dasar Penerapan Nilai-Nilai Islam Di Sektor Awam hasil usahasama Dr. Mahathir dan Anwar Ibrahim. Hingga kini, Malaysia dikenali serata dunia sebagai penggerak utama perbankan dan produk-produk kewangan Islam. Dan dalam bidang pendidikan, Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Malaysia kekal dengan imejnya di dalam dan di luar negara sebagai insitusi pengajian tinggi Islam yang progresif dan moden.

Proses Islamisasi dalam institusi perbankan dan institusi pengajian tinggi tidak banyak mengundang kontroversi. Yang menjadi kontroversi ialah bila ianya menyusup ke sektor awam terutamanya dalam sistem pendidikan kebangsaan. Lebih menyulitkan lagi bilamana proses ini dianggap berselindung di sebalik agenda politik untuk menarik undi and sokongan pengundi-pengundi Melayu. Lantas, proses Islamisasi ini dilihat ramai orang bukan Islam sebagai tidak lebih dari usaha UMNO untuk mengekang pengaruh PAS di kalangan masyarakat Melayu Islam di Malaysia.

Akibat daripada pertandingan 'siapa yang lebih Islamik' antara UMNO dan PAS ini, pelbagai polemik dan polisi agama diketengahkan tanpa mengambil kira pandangan dan reaksi masyarakat bukan Islam di Malaysia. Di sekolah-sekolah kebangsaan, pendidikan agama Islam diberi lebih penekanan. Bacaan doa setiap hari dan ceramah agama semasa perhimpunan mingguan diperkenalkan di banyak sekolah-sekolah. Adakalanya, majlis sambutan perayaan agama seperti Ma'al Hijrah dan Maulidur-Rasul juga diadakan semasa perhimpunan mingguan di mana semua pelajar-pelajar bukan Islam turut serta secara paksa-rela.

Sebagai orang Islam, saya tidak punya masalah dengan kekerapan aktiviti-aktiviti agama di sekolah-sekolah. Saya sendiri pernah menjadi pembaca doa dan menyampaikan pidato agama dalam perhimpunan mingguan walaupun sekolah saya di Petaling Jaya ketika itu hampir separuh pelajar-pelajarnya adalah pelajar-pelajar bukan Melayu dan bukan Islam. Tidak terlintas di fikiran yang rakan-rakan bukan Islam saya di sekolah mungkin tidak selesa dengan aktiviti-aktiviti agama yang dijalankan.

Namun kini saya menyedari perasaan kurang senang jelas tersemat di hati mereka terutamanya di kalangan masyarakat Cina yang kesannya jelas kelihatan sekarang ini. Sejak awal 1990-an, kebanyakan ibubapa Cina tidak lagi memilih menghantar anak-anak mereka ke sekolah kebangsaan. Walaupun terpaksa membayar kos perbelanjaan yang lebih tinggi, lebih 90 peratus ibubapa-ibubapa Cina memilih untuk menghantar anak-anak mereka ke sekolah-sekolah jenis kebangsaan Cina. Fenomena ini jelas memberi kesan yang agak negatif kepada keharmonian hubungan antara kaum Melayu dan Cina.

Melihat akan situasi ini, patutkah proses dan dasar Islamisasi kerajaan dipersalahkan?

Jika dilihat secara objektif, fenomena kebangkitan kesedaran agama tidak berlaku di Malaysia sahaja dan tidak juga hanya melibatkan penganut agama Islam. Di kalangan umat Islam, kebangkitan agama berlaku di hampir semua negara-negara Islam dari Maghribi hinggalah ke Indonesia, dan turut berlaku di kalangan masyarakat minoriti Muslim di negara-negara Barat.

Di kalangan penganut Hindu di India, fenomena kebangkitan agama berkembang begitu kuat sehingga tertabalnya kerajaan fundamentalis Hindu pada tahun 1998. Di Amerika pula, fenomena ini melibatkan perkembangan kumpulah-kumpulan fundamentalis Kristian yang cukup berpengaruh dalam parti Republikan di sana. Secara amnya, sejak beberapa dekad yang lalu, pengaruh ideologi sekularisme sudah sedikit berkurangan hasil kebangkitan pengaruh agama dalam kehidupan masyarakat di seluruh dunia.

Jadi, apa yang berlaku di Malaysia bukanlah suatu yang unik. Namun, ianya tidak juga boleh dipandang ringan dan dibiarkan tanpa diambil sebarang tindakan.

Dalam masyarakat berbilang kaum dan agama seperti di Malaysia, perlu ada persefahaman yang melibatkan usaha dan pengorbanan daripada semua pihak. Saya masih tidak menganggap bacaan doa yang tidak pun memakan masa lebih dari lima minit dalam perhimpunan mingguan di sekolah-sekolah sebagai satu masalah. Namun saya bersetuju, tidak sesuai sekiranya waktu perhimpunan itu yang melibatkan semua pelajar Islam dan bukan Islam digunakan untuk ceramah agama dan majlis perayaan Maulidur-Rasul dan Ma'al Hijrah. Pihak sekolah seharusnya boleh mengatur program pada waktu yang lain khas bagi pelajar-pelajar Islam untuk majlis-majlis berkenaan.

Masyarakat Islam di Malaysia, walaupun benar merupakan golongan majoriti di sini, perlu juga mengambil berat perasaan dan sensitiviti golongan minoriti. Begitu juga bagi masyarakat bukan Islam yang perlu mengambil tahu sensitiviti dan pegangan hidup orang-orang Islam.

Saya kurang bersetuju dengan pendapat yang menganggap penyelesaian pada cabaran ini adalah pendekatan Islam yang sekular dan liberal. Masyarakat Islam di Malaysia dan di seluruh dunia amnya tidak dapat menerima fahaman dan pendekatan sekularisme yang memupuk pemisahan amalan agama dalam urusan kerja. Umat Islam menganggap ajaran Islam itu sebagai satu cara hidup yang mempengaruhi segala kegiatan dan tingkah laku. Maka, jika ada sebarang desakan atau paksaan agar amalan agama dikesampingkan, ramai orang Islam pasti akan memberontak dan menentang.

Bagi fahaman Islam liberal pula, sekiranya fahaman ini bermaksud kesederhanaan dan keterbukaan hingga ke tahap penerimaan terhadap perbuatan-perbuatan terlarang seperti hubungan seks luar nikah, amalan homoseksual dan pergaulan bebas antara lelaki dan perempuan di kalangan orang-orang Islam, majoriti umat Islam pastinya akan menolak dan menentangnya juga. Namun, sekiranya fahaman ini lebih menjurus kepada keterbukaan dari segi kesediaan untuk berdialog dan berdebat secara ilmiah isu-isu fekah semasa, ramai yang boleh menerimanya sebagai salah satu usaha menangangi cabaran Islam di zaman moden.

Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS) pada pilihanraya umum yang lalu tampil dengan slogannya 'PAS Untuk Semua'. Memang mudah berslogan namun untuk direalisasikan perlu perbincangan menyeluruh yang melibatkan pemimpin-pemimpin dan ilmuwan-ilmuwan Islam dan bukan Islam agar persefahaman dapat dibentuk dan kata sepakat dapat dicapai. Saya yakin dan percaya, ada jalan dan caranya agar dasar Islamisasi dapat diteruskan bagi memenuhi keperluan masyarakat Islam tanpa perlu menyinggung perasaan dan membangkitkan penentangan daripada masyarakat bukan Islam di Malaysia.

(Artikel ini telah dipaparkan di laman web Centre for Policy Initiatives. Klik di sini untuk melihat arikel asal)

Not My Master

Whenever I'm asked to name the best book I've read, the first book that comes to my mind is Islam and Secularism, the magnum opus of one of Malaysia's finest contemporary scholars, the eminent and most respected Professor Syed Muhammad Naguib Al-Attas. First published in 1978, the book provides the most eloquent explanation on the concept of religion in Islam, an excellent morphological analysis of the Quranic term ad-Din, and a comprehensive outline of the Islamization of knowledge philosophy. Certainly, I am just one out of many who were deeply inspired by this book especially those who like me were reading and studying books on philosophy and social sciences written by scholars in the West. To comprehend and accept those ideas while remaining faithful to our religious standing and belief was not easy. Islam and Secularism gave us the answer, and the confidence and faith to carry on without doubt and fear.

Professor Al-Attas was the Founder-Director of the Institute of Islamic Thought and Civilisation (ISTAC). This 'Beacon on Top of The Hill' was a hugely respected institution attracting students from many parts of the Muslim world. It won't be an understatement to say that most of them came for the sole purpose of studying under this giant intellectual figure. Some even came upon giving up their professional careers. They all share the same burning desire that is to learn at the feet of this most learned scholar, a scholar deemed to be without peers; a scholar who deserves the loftiest of praises and reverence.

I too shared the same dream. ISTAC was the place for intellectuals, and I certainly wanted to be one. By the time I was in my final year of my undergraduate studies at IIUM, I had read all the books (published by ISTAC) plus many other scholarly papers written by Professor Al-Attas. I also became a regular visitor to ISTAC attending almost all his public lectures and talks. Unfortunately, instead of increasing my desire to study at ISTAC, these regular visits left me disenchanted and disillusioned.

What turned me off was the unmistaken air of arrogance emanating from the honourable professor/master and his students/disciples. On one occasion, a young member of the audience posed a mild critical comment on Al-Attas' views on Islamization. He was simply brushed aside with the reply, "tell me, what do you know about Islamization?" On another occasion, after delivering a talk on leadership in Islam, the professor was asked a simple and harmless question: "are leaders born or made?" The answer given was swift and demeaning: "of course they are born... you should read more books". And as these words were said by the master/professor, his disciples/students were laughing and smiling proudly in agreement.

Furthermore, being a student of the social sciences, I wasn't quite amused by the good professor's habitual condemnation of sociology and psychology. "These sociologists... according to them, religions are all rituals!" I've heard this exact statement coming from him quite a number of times. True, they are a number of sociologists who said so, but not all. After all, sociology is not Durkheim and Durkheim was not the only sociologists in history. And in Malaysia, the late Syed Hussein Alatas (as far as know) never said anything as sweeping as that. As for psychology, the eminent professor once exclaimed that other than to treat psychological disorders, psychology is practically useless. In this case, the good professor and his enlightened students probably thought psychology is nothing more than Freud's ambiguous psychoanalytic theory and Skinner's mechanistic behaviourist perspective.

Let there be no doubt that I do believe that Professor Al-Attas is a truly remarkable scholar whose scholarly achievements deserve great respect and acknowledgment. Having said that, I certainly do not see the need to constantly reiterate (especially not in front of him) lofty praises such as "he is a genius..., the most outstanding scholar..., his book (Islam and Secularism) is one the most important books written by a Muslim in the last century..." etc. Professor Al-Attas is a great scholar, but so was his elder brother Professor Syed Hussein Alatas and his 'intellectual-nemesis' Professor Ismail al-Faruqi.

As-far-as the Islamization of knowledge (IOK) is concern, I am truly of the opinion that Al-Attas' perspective is most profound and outstanding. His argument that Islamization begins with the mind vis-à-vis the individual and the emphasis on language and metaphysics was brilliantly explained in Islam and Secularism. But IOK is not exclusively his. Scholars from South Asia would vouch for the work of Sayyid Abu 'Ala Mawdudi as ideas that are more practical and comprehensive and written about much earlier. On the other hand, Muslim students in the United States back in the early 1980’s would fondly recall the IOK masterplan outlined by Ismail al-Faruqi in his book published by IIIT (International Institute of Islamic Thought). Great minds think alike. Thus, as my former teacher and current Dean of ISTAC, Professor Ibrahim Muhamad Zein once said, these are different perspectives of IOK. Professor Zein predictably was duly rebuked by an Al-Attas' disciple who reaffirmed the argument that there is one and only one true and original concept of IOK, and that belongs to Syed Muhammad Naquib Al-Attas.

All-in-all, throughout my journey as a student, I am firmly guided by the Malay proverb "ikut resmi padi, makin tunduk makin berisi" i.e. the more knowledge one have, the more humble one should be. This is sadly what I fail to see in Professor Al-Attas and his many students/disciples. What I've seen instead is an intellectual arrogance which abhors differences of opinions even those coming from other eminent scholars. While I was genuinely elated to see Professor Al-Attas presenting his talk on 'Reviving the Worldview of Islam' earlier this month (the first time I've seen him lecture in more than five years), I wasn't quite happy to hear that he is still bitter about what happened to ISTAC, and his continuous insistence that others "don’t know (and) don't understand" as if those who do not agree totally with his views are of substandard levels of intelligence. And because of that, although I will always be a fan of his books and lectures, I can never be one of his disciples. Allahu'alam.

Revitalising Islamization (or Islamicization)

Discussions on Islamization of knowledge (IOK) have been revitalised in the last few months. Both the Kulliyyah of Economics and the Kulliyyah of Islamic Revealed Knowledge & Human Sciences have held several forums on the issue since early this year. Yesterday, a session was held at the Kulliyyah of Economics and the presenter for the day was Tan Sri Professor Dr. Mohd Kamal Hassan, a former Rector of the university who has been with IIUM since its inception in 1983.

Much of Kamal Hassan's presentation yesterday focused on issues often discussed in previous IOK talks I've attended over the years. These were namely the historical and philosophical background of the IOK project, the rationale behind IOK and a brief survey of the different IOK perspectives. An interesting and unique point however was made when he addressed an issue that cropped up towards the end of his tenure as Rector of the university: his personal preference for the term 'Islamicization' instead of 'Islamization'.

Several reasons were given and all these were highlighted in his paper which was distributed to members of the audience. The first was in support of the views of the late Professor Muhammad Hamidullah who said the term 'Islamization' is often understood in the context of religious conversion and proselytisation. This therefore may create some misunderstanding among Muslims and instill unnecessary anxieties among non-Muslims.

The strongest reason given is explained in the paragraph below:

"...while "Islamisation" conveys the idea of having to embrace Islamic theology or ontology or axiology or eschatology or epistemology as the case may be, the term "Islamicization" includes the idea that something is "acceptable by Islamic values, norms, standards or criteria", or something is "in harmony with the values and perspectives of Islam", such as the ideas or practices of good governance, excellence, professional competency, integrity, goodness, beauty, efficiency, punctuality, beneficence, best practices, harmless innovations or better ways of doing things, as long as those ideas, practices or institutions - many of which could also be found in non-Muslim personalities, organisations, cultures or countries - that do not conflict with the belief system, the law and ethics of Islam."

For me personally, although I am in agreement with all the points above, I would still prefer to stick with the term 'Islamization'. 'Islamization' is without doubt often understood to refer to religious conversion (especially in the study of history), but I believe can be argued today to have integrated the scope and meaning of "Islamicization" detailed in the above paragraph. On a more lighter note, the word "Islamicization" is quite a mouthful to pronounce. Many have struggled to pronounce it and that cannot be good if indeed we want people to talk and discuss about it more. The struggle to just get the pronunciation correct may put many people off.

Towards the end of his presentation, Kamal Hassan expressed his concern on the future of IOK at the university. IOK, or to be exact "Islamization of Human Knowledge" is IIUM's niche area "enshrined in the university's constitution as an important component of its sacred mission... As such it must remain as the core concern of the university which should never be marginalised or peripheralised."

I'm not sure whether Kamal Hassan was merely expressing a personal view, or was it in reaction to certain current developments at the university or the changing scenario in Malaysian politics. Whichever, I managed to put out a question on how we should respond to the argument that Islamization is a threat to nation-building and national integration in the context of multi-ethnic and multi-religious Malaysia. Kamal Hassan's answer dwelled more on a futuristic premise that nation-states will someday become obsolete but he did express his hope that future Malay-Muslim leaders in the country would see themselves as Muslims first, hence put priority on Islamic values and principles while governing the country. That is in fact the whole issue that requires some serious discussion for I know for sure it is an issue that many non-Muslims as well as Muslims liberals in Malaysia are currently questioning.

The talk was definitely a fruitful one. Future sessions are already in the pipeline and I am looking forward to attend them.

Freudian Personality Psychology

Psychoanalysis is the first formal approach in the study of personality psychology. The emphasis of this approach is on unconscious forces within an individual. Sigmund Freud is universally considered the founder of the psychoanalytic school. According to Freud, the basic elements of personality are instincts, a driving force or impulses that mediate between the mind and the body (Schultz & Schultz, 2001). In addition, Freud proposed the three levels of personality: the conscious, preconscious, and unconscious, while the structures of personality were explained by the concepts id, ego and superego.

In analysing the psychoanalytic approach to the study of personality from the Islamic perspective, one has to first consider the differences in the understanding of the concept of human nature. The psychoanalytic approach has a very pessimistic view of human nature as the ultimate goal of all human behaviours according to Freud is to reduce anxiety (Freud, 1926). In addition, on the issue of free will and determinism, Freud believed that human personality is determined by the life and death instincts, and the invincible and inaccessible unconscious forces within an individual.

Islam believes man's nature is inclined towards good since the essence of man is spiritual goodness (Ali, 1995). On free will and determinism, the emphasis is more on free will. An essential element of man's free will is imbued in the term ikhtiyar, derived from the root word khayr (good). Hence ikhtiyar is not merely about exercising choice but choosing what is good and beneficial (Al-Attas, 1990).

On the influence of unconscious forces, Ibn al-Qayyim in his book Al-Fawa'id acknowledged that all behavioural actions begin with wasawis (concealed whispers) (Badri, 200). This unconscious element however, is not viewed as the powerful deterministic force in the magnitude described by Freud. These inner fleeting thoughts, which may incline towards both good and bad behaviour, can be easily steered towards good and away from evil by an individual's deep sense of faith (iman) and religiosity.

In explaining personality development, Freud introduced the five psychosexual stages starting with the oral stage followed by the anal, phallic, latency and genital stages. Freud believed that an individual's personality is largely shaped by the experiences in the first five years of a person’s life (encompassing the first three stages of the theory).

This huge emphasis on early childhood experiences is not in harmony with the perspective of Islam. Islam's view on human nature is more optimistic where human beings are deemed to be naturally incline towards goodness and are always capable of improving. Every living individual has continuous potential for growth and self-development which can never be exhausted. The spectacular transformation in the personalities of the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him), Umar al-Khattab and Abu Dhar al-Ghifari in particular; transformed from the greatest of bullies during the Jahiliyyah period to amongst the most pious Muslims upon conversion to Islam, are outstanding examples of how radical personality changes and improvements can occur even during adulthood.

(The above is an excerpt from an unpublished paper entitled 'Personality Psychology From An Islamic Perspective' written in 2007)

Psychology, Culture and Indigenisation

(Below is an excerpt from my article bearing the same title above to be published in the forthcoming publication Psychology from the Islamic Perspective: A Guide to Teaching and Learning, Noraini Mohd Noor (Ed.), IIUM Press)

The primary task of this section is to clarify the differences between culture and religion. That the two concepts are different is a pre-conclusion of this discussion, and a deliberate attempt to confront the conventional assumption that religion is merely a component of culture.

'Culture' has been defined in many different ways in the different areas of social sciences. Some definitions focus on the functions of culture while others focus on the structures, representing respectively the functionalist and structuralist perspectives. The definition provided by Matsumoto and Juang (2004) attempts to integrate both these broad perspectives. Culture here is defined as:

"dynamic system of rules, explicit and implicit, established by groups, in order to ensure their survival, involving attitudes, values, beliefs, norms, and behaviours, shared by a group but harboured differently by each specific unit within the group, communicated across generations, relatively stable but with the potential to change across time."

Two key components of this definition are the structure of culture as a 'dynamic system of rules', and the function of culture 'to ensure survival'. Although a universally accepted definition of culture remains elusive, these two components are incorporated, in one form or another, in all definitions of culture.

'Religion' similarly does not have a universally acclaimed definition. However, what is arguably the most referred to definition of religion in the social sciences is the definition provided by social anthropologist Clifford Geertz. Geertz (1973) defined religion as:

"a system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic."

Geertz’s definition of religion, on one hand, is a positive recognition of the function of religion, but on the other, a subtle attempt to de-sacrelise religion. Religion is described here as a cultural system that may not necessarily have a divine origin whose effect on human behaviour and emotions therefore, are merely matters of human perception.

As a cultural system, religion has to be dynamic. And a dynamic system, essentially, is not static, hence is always incline towards change and continuous revision. This, however, is not in agreement with the views of scholars of religions. From their perspective, religion is a system that clarifies the answers for five quintessential issues: theology, doctrine and rituals, scriptures, cosmology, and eschatology (Smart, 1989; Eliade, 1981). While there are indeed certain provisions for hermeneutic change and revision, these five issues are essentially religious dogmas from which pillars of religion are based upon.

Islam is dynamic as there are indeed avenues for new interpretations of the divine law (shari’ah). The door for ijtihad (revised interpretation) remains open for Islamic religious scholars to explore in view of circumstantial and contemporary challenges (Kamali, 1994). However, this avenue is restricted both in terms of subject areas and individual qualification. The five pillars of Islam for example, are not open for new revisions, nor are the articles of faith and other doctrinal aspects. Furthermore, the majority of opinion amongst the ulama’ (Muslim relgious scholar) would subscribe to the view that only a mujtahid (one with sufficient knowledge) is given the provision to exercise ijtihad. A Muslim who is not knowledgeable about Islam is to seek guidance from the learned, and not to decide on matters of religion based on his/her own rational justification and logical deduction.

Is Islam a cultural system? The Islamic faith is not a philosophy open for individual cultural perspective. Islam is a revealed religion, revealed by Allah SWT to His Messenger Muhammad (peace be upon him). The message of Islam is preserved in the form of a book, the Holy Quran, which is divinely protected from all forms of corruption.

The cultural manifestations of Islam however, do exist. The two sources of the shari’ah, the Holy Quran and ahadith (Prophetic tradition); provide the general guide for Islamic conduct and responsibility. How these general guidelines are applied and manifested depends on cultural and individual preferences. For example, Muslim women are obliged to cover their awrah, which allows them to expose only the palm and the face. This is the general guide. How a Muslim woman fulfils this depends on her personal and cultural preferences. A Muslim woman in Malaysia would normally use the Malay traditional baju kurung, while a Muslim woman in Pakistan would normally use the traditional shawal kamis. Both these cultural manifestations are acceptable as long as they adhere to the guidelines in the shari’ah.

The religion of Islam is referred to in the Quran as ad-Din, a concept that explains Islam not only as a belief or cultural system but an all-encompassing entity that provides guidance for a distinct way of life and answers to the very purpose of one’s existence (al-Faruqi, 1982). Such attributes clearly goes beyond and above the realm of culture as explained in Western social sciences. With this Islamic worldview, compared to Western psychology, an Islamic indigenous psychology would naturally operate from a quite different epistemological assumption. As observed by Murken (cited in Khalili et al, 2002), secular Western psychology considers religion as merely one example of a cultural subsystem, i.e. a set of variable in research. In Islamic psychology however, religion (i.e. Islam) is the basis and framework for everything. Islam is not a variable to be evaluated, but the very principle that guides the judgment and understanding of Muslim psychologists both in research and practice. Herein lies the unique characteristic of Islamic indigenous psychology as espoused in much of the work on the Islamization of psychology.

References:

Al Faruqi, I.R. (1982). Al-Tawhid: Its implications for thought and life. Virginia: International Institute of Islamic Thought.

Eliade, M. (1981). A history of religious ideas. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.

Kamali, M.H. (1994). Freedom of expression in Islam. Kuala Lumpur: Berita Publishing.

Khalili, S., Murken, S., Reich, K.H., Shah, A.A. & Vahabzadeh, A. (2002). Religion and mental health in cultural perspective: Observations and reflections after the First International Congress on Religion and Mental Health, Tehran, 16-19 April 2001. The International Journal of the Psychology of Religion. 12(4), 217-237.

Matsumoto, D. & Juang, L. (2004). Culture and psychology. 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Smart, N. (1989). The world’s religions. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Classics in Psychology

I have been teaching the course History and Philosophy of Psychology at the university for the last three semesters. Although I can never claim to be an authority on the subject, many of the issues covered are of great interest to my academic inquiry and personal curiosity. Most importantly, having spent many hours reading classical works in psychology; books written by Freud, Jung, James, Skinner, Maslow, Rogers, and Frankl, during my undergraduate years, I realised how important it is to read the original works of these luminous figures to have a better grasp of their scholarly ideas and thoughts. Textbooks attempt to compress and summarise thus what we often get are simplistic views that do not do justice to the complexity and sheer enormity of the thoughts of these great thinkers.

Take Freud for example; a man whose colourful background is matched only by his colourful ideas. In an earlier posting, I gave my views on why Freud will always be an important component in any psychology syllabus. That had to be argued because Freud is by far the most vilified figure in critical psychology. It’s fine to argue against his ideas but I certainly find personal attacks against him (drug addict, sex-maniac etc) distasteful. And I’m very sure anyone who has read any of Freud’s original work, though may still disagree with his ideas thereafter, would at least appreciate his detailed and sophisticated arguments.

In teaching History and Philosophy of Psychology, I have asked my students to read the classical works in psychology and compare their impression and understanding upon reading these primary sources with what they have understood about the same issues from their readings of contemporary textbooks. I am happy to note that some of the reviews and analyses produced were quite impressive. Most notably are the more fair and mature analyses from the Islamic perspective. Rather than cliché statements that these ‘Western’ psychologists are secular, atheist, anti-religion etc without ever trying to understand what they meant in the first place, I was very happy to note that some students were able to express intellectual arguments and even concede that some of these ‘Western’ psychological ideas are in fact Islamic.

Islamization of knowledge as propounded by both Al-Attas and al-Faruqi was never about labelling knowledge as Islamic or un-Islamic. It is a meticulous process of understanding and mastering a particular field of study as prerequisite before any attempt to criticise and challenge it. One cannot criticise something that one does not understand. The great Muslim scholar Al-Ghazali was a strong critic of Greek philosophy and he was able to do that with credibility due to his undisputed knowledge of philosophy. That therefore is the standard that we should aspire to achieve.

Different Approaches of Islamization of Knowledge

(Below is an excerpt from my paper 'Islamization of Knowledge: Current Development and Future Trends' presented in a Seminar on Philosophy of Science in 2001)

To indulge on the issue of the origin and originator of the Islamization concept is to indulge into a meaningless argument which reaches to no end. It is meaningless because it does not serve any great significance. Sufficient to say, the idea, or in this case the movement, was given the limelight it deserves in 1982 with the publication of the book Islamization of Knowledge: General Principles and Work Plan, written by Isma’il al Faruqi. This work provoked critical responses from scholars, both Western and Muslims, and has resulted in a series of conferences, research, books, and to a large extent the formation of the first international Islamic university in Malaysia.

Not everyone however, shared al Faruqi’s approach towards Islamization. Agreements varied and this ultimately resulted into several other approaches. Christopher Furlow, from the Department Anthropology, University of Florida, in his article ‘The Islamization of Knowledge: Philosophy, Legitimation, and Politics’, published in the journal Social Epistemology (Vol.10, 3, 1996) has categorized these different approaches into three major groups: modernization, indigenization and nativization. The following are summaries of each approach.

1. Modernization

The advocates of this modernist approach hold that "science is value free, neutral and objective." Any values that surround science are "primarily personal in nature and therefore do not effect the content of science." Knowledge is considered universal. What makes it different or in this case Islamic or un-Islamic is the application. Application in this case covers both intention and action. Two major figures in this approach are physicists Muhammad Abdus Salam and Jamal Mimoumi. Both view modern science as a Graeco-Islamic legacy and state that "natural sciences are as Islamic as nature could be." There is no need then to Islamize science and knowledge. Knowledge should be pursued no matter from where or whom the source is. Knowledge is Islamic or Islamized if and when it is used in the path of Allah and towards the betterment of mankind.

2. Indigenization

The indigenists’ goal is "the production of knowledge relevant to the specific problems of Islamic countries." While they argue that Western philosophy should not be adopted in its totality in an Islamic education system, they are none-the-less unwilling to discard the whole enterprise altogether. The goal then is an integration of Western sciences and Islamic revealed knowledge. For this to be achieved, the Muslim world will have to produce scholars who are endowed with both Western modern disciplines and Islamic revealed knowledge. This is the approach championed by the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), and the Association of Muslim Social Scientists (AMSS). And among its major proponents are almarhum Isma'il al Faruqi, Sheikh Waqar Husaini and Sheikh Taha Jabir al-Alwani. How this integration is to be achieved is firmly outlined in the 12 steps of the Islamization of Knowledge Work Plan of al Faruqi.

3. Nativization

If the modernists argue science should be approached as it is, and for the indigenists, an integration of Western modern sciences and Islamic revealed knowledge and heritage, the nativists propose the creation of a completely new Islamic science. For them, Islamic science should not be an adaptation of the modernist model of science, rather it is a new and different science that must be built upon the foundations of Islamic epistemology. Two main models of this approach are the Ijmali’s model, led by Ziauddin Sardar, Parvez Manzoor and Munawar Anees, and the model of Seyyed Hoessein Nasr. The Ijmalis' ultimate aim is to apply universal Islamic concepts to contemporary situation "... and (to) address the issues of modern Islamic civilization from within its own worldview." For Hoessein Nasr, the goal of this new Islamic science is "the demonstration of the interrelatedness of all things." And to achieve this, knowledge should be pursued from a Tawhidic perspective whose pre requisites include total rejection of Western philosophy and science.

Why We Still Study Freud...

One of my dilemmas as a Muslim teacher of psychology is whether I should or should not teach Freudian psychology. As a person, my religion, Islam, is what defines me first-and-foremost. That I am bounded by the standards of professionalism as a teacher, though of paramount importance, to me does not supersede my religious values and obligations. With that in mind, how then can I justify teaching my students that during their pre-school years they all had romantic feelings towards their parents, that when they were infants they all obtained sexual pleasure when breast-fed by their mothers, that young girls are envious of boys for their genitals and young boys envious of girls for having a womb, that religions are nothing but illusions and neurotic compulsions etc. All these, very obviously are NOT Islamic, hence the argument for Islamization of knowledge. Even then, rather than Islamizing Freud, why not discard totally Freud and psychoanalysis from our syllabus?

Well, the reason why we don’t do this is because, although Freud was not right on many issues, he was also not totally wrong. There are two books that I often refer to for an in-depth scholarly critic against Freudian psychology: ‘Decline and Fall of the Freudian Empire’ by Hans Eysenck, and ‘Freudian Fraud: The Malignant Effect of Freud’s Theory’ by E. Fuller Torrey. Both, though highly commendable work, contain some very cruelly unfair and negative remarks against Freud and his ideas.

I was an undergraduate student when I first read both books. I was a psychology major but was (maybe am still) suffering from an acute intellectual identity crisis. Reading these two books didn’t help much to resolve the conflict. In fact, it made me feel even more confused and disillusioned to the extent that at one point I even considered quitting psychology and reinvent myself with studies of religions, spirituality, mysticism and philosophy (in addition to my ever burning interest in politics and history).

Now, with almost five years of experience teaching psychology, I like to believe that my level of understanding of psychological theories has grown more sophisticated. In the case of Freud and his psychoanalytic school, having read some of the primary sources in the last few years, I believe I can now understand and appreciate better Freud’s ideas. I can only claim to have read three books authored by Freud himself: ‘Totem & Taboo’, ‘The Future of an Illusion’, and ‘Civilization and Its Discontents’. But even from reading these three books, it was very clear to me that Freud has not always been fairly depicted in contemporary psychology text books.

I certainly believe Freud was quite right to say that the unconscious is the key to understand one’s personality. And his deliberation on the id, ego and superego to me was a fair reflection of man’s constant battles against his own whims and desires. Of course, I won’t go as far to say that it is exactly the same with the Quranic depiction on the nafs (mutmainnah, al-ammarah, al-lawwamah). There are indeed some fundamental differences between them both philosophically and operationally.

One of Freud’s most brilliant assertions was his defence mechanisms. I do not think that there is any doubt that all of us do try to repress (if not forget) painful and embarrassing memories, we do sometimes project our anger not to the person we are angry with but to others weaker and more vulnerable, and we do to sometimes quite strangely embrace the very habit and behaviours that we openly denounce as immoral and unacceptable.

Some things are just so eerily true, which, in the case of Freud’s views on war and aggression, even Albert Einstein was greatly impressed. Below is an excerpt from Freud’s famous letter to Einstein:

Conflicts of interest between man and man are resolved, in principle, by the recourse to violence. It is the same in the animal kingdom, from which man cannot claim exclusion; nevertheless, men are also prone to conflicts of opinion, touching, on occasion, the loftiest peaks of abstract thought, which seem to call for settlement by quite another method. This refinement is, however, a late development. To start with, group force was the factor which, in small communities, decided points of ownership and the question which man's will was to prevail. Very soon physical force was implemented, then replaced, by the use of various adjuncts; he proved the victor whose weapon was the better, or handled the more skillfully. Now, for the first time, with the coming of weapons, superior brains began to oust brute force, but the object of the conflict remained the same: one party was to be constrained, by the injury done him or impairment of his strength, to retract a claim or a refusal. This end is most effectively gained when the opponent is definitely put out of action--in other words, is killed.

(Sigmund Freud’s letter to Albert Einstein dated September 1932. Click here to read the entire Einstein-Freud correspondence)

So, where was Freud wrong? The mistakes Freud made are in fact the same mistakes made by many others who came after him; the mistake of overemphasizing and overgeneralizing his claims. Yes, he was wrong to overemphasize on human sexuality, and he was wrong to present his theories as a universal theory despite the very small number of case studies from which he derived almost all his ideas from. But then, didn’t Skinner overemphasize on learning factors (hence largely ignoring biological and genetic factors), Hull on drive-reduction as the basis of all reinforcements, and Maslow on self-actualisation and peak experiences? They were all scholars who promoted their own theories and approaches and all of them believed theirs were without flaws and most superior.

Why then that Freud continues to be the most convenient target of criticism? His ideas I guess were just too explicit and radical. Be-as-that-may, I am quite sure Freud will forever remain an important part of any psychology syllabus.

Whither Islamization of Knowledge?

Last month, I had the honour of attending an event graced by two former Rectors of the International Islamic University Malaysia - Professor (Dato') Dr. Abdul Hamid AbuSulayman, and (Tan Sri) Professsor Dr. Muhammad Kamal Hassan. As a former student, and now academic member of the university, hearing the words of wisdom from both of these monumental figures in the history of the university brought back many sweet memories, but unfortunately also provoked many regretful critical inquiries.

After going through the psychologically torturing period of identity vs. identity confusion, it was during my undergraduate studies at IIUM that I believe I found myself. Prior to that, I was constantly searching for the right composite of idealism to be embraced, knowing not what is worth striving for, and ignorant of what is profound and mundane.

What had truly facilitate the process was my introduction to the debate on Islamization of knowledge (IOK). Reading the writings of Muslim intellectual giants such as Al-Faruqi, Al-Attas, Fazlur Rahman, Mawdudi, Hossein Nasr etc had altered significantly my perception of life's challenges and crystallised my views on what one's life is worth dedicating to.

Knowledge is the key, and to Islamise it is the mechanism to bring the Muslim ummah back to the path of glory and far away from the threat of destitution. IOK is the process to de-Westernise knowledge, to revive the heritage of Muslim scholarship, to harmonise revealed knowledge and modern sciences, to free the Muslim minds from mental colonisation... all these and many more.

Many students of IIUM of my generation were captivated by all these ideas. We were 'brainwashed' of course through the many debates, talks and seminars on different spectrums of IOK. Not satisfied with the events organised by the university, some of us even got together to organise our own forum - IOKY (Islamization of Knowledge Youth Club). We were an underground club (I don't think it was ever registered under STADD) yet in our bi-monthly sessions on Friday nights at ECONS 1.5, guest speakers who had graced our meetings include both brother Rectors, Professor AbuSulayman and Professor Kamal Hassan, Dr. Sano Koutoub (now Professor and Deputy Rector of IIUM), Professor Syed Muhammad Naquib Al-Attas (former Director of ISTAC), Professor Hashim Kamali (former Dean of ISTAC), Dr. Ibrahim Zein (now Professor and Dean of ISTAC), Dr. Louay Safi (now Executive Director of ISNA), Dr. Hazizan Mohd Noon (now Dean of the Kulliyyah of IRKHS), and Dr. Abdul Aziz Berghout (now Professor and Director of CCAC)

I can still see the enthusiastic faces of my dear brothers Marwan Altalib, Mustafa Kamal, Adli Abdul Wahid, Hassan Gonzales, Zaid Assagoff, Mahfuth Khamis, Brima Sylla and many others who regularly attended the sessions. One can see it in their eyes that they were all deeply passionate about IOK regardless of which IOK orientation they believe in or which scholar whose view they most respected.

What is IOK now to IIUM students? I have been an academic member at the university for more than four years now and what I have seen during this time is indeed very worrying. Yes, Islamization is now officially part of the philosophy of IIUM, embedded in the catchy term Triple I-CE (Integration, Islamization, Internationalization and Comprehensive Excellence). And I am quite certain a great majority of current IIUM students would be able to recall this having been compelled to memorise it during Ta'aruf Week.

But beyond recalling the term, is there anything substantial? Are they curious of the history of the development of IOK? Have they even heard about (let alone read) books such as 'Islam and Secularism' and 'Crisis in the Muslim Minds'? Do they know who are the pioneers of IOK? Have they even heard the name Al-Faruqi and Al-Attas before?

All I can say is, whenever I talk about IOK in any of my classes, the number of blank faces that I see staring at me is just truly, truly depressing.