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...

Muslim first...

In the two weeks that my three children and I recently stayed in Lanzhou (hometown of my late Chinese wife), my four-year-old daughter took bath only twice - on the day we arrived, and on the morning before we left. That, for most people in China, is quite normal. Not so for people here in Malaysia. We take a bath at least twice a day. Hence, to not do so for more than a week is quite unthinkable.

I've been to 12 foreign countries so far in my life. Not that many really, but in most of these visits, I stayed together with the locals; stayed in their homes, ate their food and followed their routines. Two weeks in Islamabad, I wore salwar kameez and ate chapati almost everyday. 15 months in Finland, I ate boiled potatoes every day and ate rice only once or twice a week. Wherever I was, as much as possible, I've tried to follow the culture of my host.

I can't say however that I was successful all the time. When I visited Lanzhou the first time, a week after Aishah and I were married, my late father-in-law (may Allah bless his soul) asked me what I would like to eat. I told him I will eat whatever he eats. Having noodles and green tea everyday was not a problem, but try as I did, there were a few things my stomach just could not take.

For example, what my father-in-law often had for breakfast was a bowl of tea, a special kind of tea which when added with milk, it turns pink. He would then add some salt and put small pieces of bread into it. The pink tea therefore is like a soup and he would drink the whole bowl clean. I tried doing the same a few times but was never able to finish the whole bowl.

Beyond food, certain things can be quite challenging, I certainly needed some getting-used-to using toilet paper in many countries, and till today I only use public toilets in China if I really, really have to.

But when it comes to observing my duties as a Muslim, performing my daily prayers and all, I've learned and managed to adjust. For example, it's not easy to find a surau or a musolla in many Western countries. But as the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, the whole earth is a masjid. A prayer or solat can be performed anywhere where the ground is clean. And I have done so, in secluded corners of airports and train stations, in lecture halls, libraries and supermarkets, and once, in a guest room in a church.  

When it comes to adjusting to variances in the practices among Muslims from different mazahib, I've managed that rather well too. For, if I had insisted being a Shafi'i while praying in a Hanafi congregation like in a Turkish masjid in Berlin or in masajid all over China, I would be causing others some unnecessary discomfort. Just imagine for example, if I insisted following the Shafi'i way reciting 'ameen' loudly; when others don't, right after the imam recited Surat Al-Fatihah ? I will only be disturbing others in their prayers.

Not everyone agrees though with such adjustments. To some, you should remain loyal to your cultural practices no matter where you are, and whether you do so or not depends on how you deal with your own social identity complexities.

Each one of us has multiple social identities. There are based on among others our religious, ethnic and national affiliations. In that order, I am for example a Muslim, a Malay, and a Malaysian. Each of these identities is important in different circumstances. But overall, when it comes to general principles in life, the guide is provided by a specific social identity that a person considers dearest and most important.

And to that, my thoughts are clear. I am, have been and will always be a Muslim first. Because of that, I've had no problem eating anything as long as it is halal. Because of that too, I have never compelled my wife (Allahyarham) and daughters to wear a telekung when they perform solat. I have never too, ingrained in the minds of my children that Malay food or Malay culture is superior to others.

I love Malay food, of course. I still believe gulai tempoyak ikan patin is the best dish in the world but as I once told an aunt in Lanzhou who asked me "which food is better, Chinese food or Malay food?"; I said, "in China, Chinese food is better, in Malaysia, Malay food is better." :)

A decade ago, when I received the scholarship offer to study in Joensuu, Finland, the first thing I inquired was whether there was a Muslim community in the town. It never crossed my mind to ask whether there were any Malaysians there. As it turned out, there weren't any Malaysians living there but I wasn't perturbed. The Muslim community of Joensuu, which comprised of about only 200 people, became my friends, and the 20 or so brothers who were regular attendees to the small local masjid became my family members.

Obviously, the common understanding amongst many Malay Muslims in Malaysia is that since a Malay is defined by the country's constitution as a Muslim, whether a person defines himself either a Malay or a Muslim first does not really matter. That, I respectfully disagree.

How we define ourselves has its implications not only on the way we conduct our personal lives, but also on our views and attitudes on cross-cultural relations and politics. And that is a thesis that I wish to discuss and explore more in my book insha Allah. :)   

Diktator Berhati Mulia?

(Berikut adalah artikel saya yang diterbitkan di laman web Centre for Policy Initiatives pada 4 November 2010 di bawah tajuk 'Dr M dan Lee Kuan Yew ada persamaan mereka')

Bekas perdana menteri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad pernah berkata antara tokoh zaman silam yang dikaguminya ialah pemerintah Rusia, Peter the Great, seorang Tsar yang memerintah Rusia selama lebih 40 tahun, dari tahun 1672 hingga 1725.

Kehebatan Peter the Great terletak pada kejayaannya memaju dan meluaskan empayar Rusia setaraf dengan empayar-empayar lain di benua Eropah. Di awal pemerintahannya, beliau banyak merantau meninjau kemajuan negara-negara Eropah Barat. Di Belanda misalnya, beliau mengkaji teknik pembinaan kapal dan pembangunan pelabuhan, dan di London beliau mengkaji pembangunan dan perancangan bandar. Hasilnya, pelabuhan dan armada tentera laut Rusia dimajukan dan bandar Saint Petersburg yang megah dan indah berjaya didirikan.

Kejayaan Peter the Great memang tidak dinafikan. Rusia sebelum dan selepas zaman pemerintahannya perbezaannya amat ketara. Jika sebelumnya Rusia lebih tertumpu pada budaya dan industri tradisi, Rusia pada zaman pemerintahan Peter the Great berubah menjadi sebuah empayar yang moden dan progresif. Pastinya banyak kemajuan yang dikecapi rakyat Rusia berpunca daripada kebijaksanaan raja mereka Peter the Great.

Semua kemajuan ini tercapai walaupun Peter the Great hakikatnya seorang pemimpin diktator yang zalim dan autokratik. Tidak ada sistem demokrasi di Rusia ketika itu. Tidak ada pilihanraya dan tidak ada kebebasan untuk bersuara. Barang siapa yang berani menentang akan dibunuh dan diseksa. Mayat mereka dipacak pada tiang agar rakyat dapat melihat nasib yang menimpa mereka yang berani menentang. Malah, sejarah telah merakamkan bagaimana Peter the Great sanggup menyeksa dan membunuh anak lelakinya sendiri yang ingkar mematuhi kemahuannya.

Bagi mereka yang mengagumi Peter the Great, segala kisah kezaliman ini barangkali tidak begitu penting. Yang lebih penting adalah kemajuan dan pembangunan negara. Penyeksaan dan pembunuhan dianggap asam garam pemerintahan. Matlamat mencapai kemajuan dan pemodenan itu yang lebih utama.

Dr. Mahathir baru-baru ini telah berkata, sistem pemerintahan diktator itu adakalanya baik untuk sesetengah negara. Yang penting, pemimpin diktator itu berhati mulia (benevolent dictator) dan mampu membawa kemajuan kepada rakyat di bawah pemerintahannya. Barangkali bagi Dr. Mahathir, Peter the Great adalah contoh utama seorang diktator yang berhati mulia.

Memang benar, pemimpin-pemimpin diktator dulu dan kini bukan semua tindakan mereka jahat dan kejam. Bahkan, ada yang nampak ikhlas mahu membantu rakyat jelata. Saddam Hussein misalnya, berjaya menaikkan taraf pendidikan rakyatnya di Iraq sehingga mencapai taraf yang tertinggi di Timur Tengah pada suatu ketika. Di Cuba pula, pemimpinnya Fidel Castro berjaya mengurangkan jurang kemiskinan di kalangan rakyat dan memastikan khidmat perubatan dan bantuan makanan diberikan kepada semua. Maka, mengapa masih ramai yang tidak mahu sistem pemerintahan diktator seperti ini?

Sistem ini ditentang kerana kuasa dipusatkan kepada seorang manusia biasa yang sedikit sebanyak pasti ada kelemahannya. Seorang pemimpin yang agung, tidak kira betapa tinggi akal dan wibawanya, pasti lambat laun akan lalai dengan kedudukannya. Semakin lama beliau memerintah, semakin tinggi beliau dipuja. Akhirnya tersematlah di fikiran beliau layak untuk terus menjadi ketua, dan dalam segala hal dan perkara beliaulah yang paling arif dan bijaksana. Maka rakyat kesemuanya hanya perlu tunduk dan patuh. Pandangan dan maklum balas tidak diperlukan.

Sistem demokrasi tidak mahu perkara sebegini terjadi. Dalam sistem ini, kuasa diberi pada rakyat untuk memilih dan menolak pemimpin. Pemimpin adalah hamba kepada rakyat, dan di tangan rakyat terletak segala kuasa. Jika pemimpin berjasa, beliau akan disanjung. Jika beliau mengkhianati amanah yang diberi, beliau akan dipaksa mengundur diri. Sistem demokrasi percaya bahawa pemimpin negara boleh ditukar ganti. Rakyat diberi ruang dan kebebasan untuk menegur dan mengkritik pemimpinnya dan pemimpin itu harus menerimanya dengan rela hati.

Tidak ada sebenarnya seorang diktator yang benar-benar berhati mulia. Kesemuanya bersalah menghukum individu-individu yang tidak bersetuju dengan kepimpinan mereka. Ratusan ribu rakyat Iraq misalnya telah menjadi mangsa kekejaman Saddam. Castro pula begitu banyak memenjarakan orang-orang yang mengkritik dan menentangnya.

Mungkin, contoh terbaik seorang diktator berhati mulia ialah Lee Kuan Yew, bekas perdana menteri Singapura. Singapura di bawah pemerintahannya melonjak dari sebuah pulau kecil yang mundur kepada sebuah kota kosmopolitan yang maju, aman dan makmur. Namun di sebalik kejayaan Lee, ada juga kisah-kisah orang yang disekat kebebasan mereka untuk bersuara. Ramai antara mereka pernah meringkuk di penjara.

Antara Dr. Mahathir dan Lee sebenarnya ada banyak persamaan. Kedua-dua tokoh ini misalnya percaya sistem demokrasi yang diamalkan di negara-negara maju di Barat tidak sesuai untuk negara-negara di rantau Asia. Negara-negara di Asia dikatakan mempunyai nilai-nilai murni yang tersendiri (Asian values) yang mencerminkan budaya dan keperluan masyarakat di rantau ini. Nilai-nilai murni ini termasuklah sifat taat dan setia kepada pemimpin yang tidak berbelah bagi. Dan sekiranya kebebasan bersuara diberikan dengan luas kepada semua, ianya akan mengancam keharmonian dan kestabilan negara.

Generasi muda sekarang ini tidak dapat menerima tanggapan sebegini. Ramai antara kami pernah belajar dan menetap di negara-negara Barat. Kami melihat sendiri bagaimana kebebasan bersuara di sana tidak mengakibatkan kehancuran negara dan masyarakat. Malah kami melihat bagaimana kebebasan itu mendesak pemimpin-pemimpin bertindak dengan lebih berhati-hati dan bertanggungjawab. Pemimpin-pemimpin kerajaan datang dan pergi, namun negara tetap teguh berdiri. Tidak hancur sesebuah negara itu bilamana pemimpin kerajaan ditukar ganti.

Kami tidak mahu diktator yang berhati mulia kerana semua diktator itu sama sahaja. Semuanya bertindak mengikut kehendak dan buah fikiran mereka semata-mata. Walhal bukan dalam semua hal dan perkara pendapat mereka benar belaka. Dalam sesebuah negara, ada ramai yang berhati mulia. Mengapa perlu bergantung kepada seorang sahaja? Adakah hati seorang diktator berhati mulia itu lebih mulia dari semua seteru-seteru politiknya?

Di Malaysia misalnya, adakah pemimpin-pemimpin Umno dan Barisan Nasional sahaja yang berhati mulia yang ikhlas mahu membangunkan negara? Pemimpin-pemimpin pembangkang bagaimana? Adakah semua mereka ini berhati busuk dan mahu menghancurkan negara? Dan, adakah semua mereka ini bodoh-bodoh belaka, tiada ilmu dan tiada keupayaan langsung untuk memimpin negara?

Kami bukannya mahu kebebasan mutlak yang membiarkan pemimpin-pemimpin, agama, kaum dan budaya dicerca dan dihina. Cukuplah sekadar ruang yang sedikit luas diberikan agar rakyat boleh meluahkan pendapat dengan jujur dan berhemah tanpa perlu merasa takut menerima hukuman. Zaman sekarang bukan lagi zaman feudal di mana segala titah dan buah fikiran raja dan pemimpin umpama wahyu yang diturunkan.

Memang menjadi lumrah pemimpin-pemimpin politik berbeza pendapat dan falsafah. Pertahankanlah pendapat dan falsafah masing-masing dengan jujur, telus dan matang. Biar rakyat yang menentukan mana yang menjadi pilihan. Tidak perlu seorang diktator berhati mulia yang menentukan.

FIFA World Cup: The Moral Equivalent of War

It was William James who first called for a moral equivalent of war. In his article published in 1910, James wrote:

"I spoke of the "moral equivalent" of war. So far, war has been the only force that can discipline a whole community, and until an equivalent discipline is organized, I believe that war must have its way. But I have no serious doubt that the ordinary prides and shames of social man, once developed to a certain intensity, are capable of organizing such a moral equivalent as I have sketched, or some other just as effective for preserving manliness of type. It is but a question of time, of skilful propogandism, and of opinion-making men seizing historic opportunities."

Football (or soccer) was probably the last thing in James' mind when he wrote this classic piece. In fact, what he suggested then was, we should all go to work at coal and iron mines, and spend our energies for dish-washing, clothes-washing, window-washing, road-building and tunnel-making! He also did not mention anything about the Olympic Games, which at the time was beginning to grow as a major international sporting event.

James himself was rather clueless about what the moral equivalent of war is, but there is no doubt today that sports is the closest to James' vision. While many would argue that the Olympic Games is the biggest sporting event of all, I have no doubt that as far as the moral equivalent of war is concern, the FIFA World Cup is the better candidate.

There are too many different games in the Olympics which means only a few big nations can realistically become the overall champion. In the World Cup however, all the 32 teams competing in the finals have the same number of players and play the same number of matches in the opening round. That puts all the teams more-or-less on equal footing.

Moreover, football as a game embodies a lot of our psychological nature. Psychologists have for long believe that human beings have an innate desire to compete. And in addition, with reference to the Freudian perspective, have the need for catharsis; to release some of the overabundance psychic energy.

People in the past went to war because that was probably the only social event which gives them the opportunity to compete and collectively release some psychic energy. Understandably, war is filled with aggressive and destructive behaviours that are simply the manifestations of the energy released.

Football provides the same opportunity. In this game, players need to be aggressive to win. Similar to a battle in a war, a football game cannot be won by strength and skills alone. It must be supported by clever tactics and strategies. And most importantly, football is a team game where teamwork is of paramount importance although the heroics of individuals can prove to be crucial; again very similar to what happens in war battles.

We no longer live in times where envy, pride and jealousy would propel someone to physically destroy the enemy (at least not most of the time). These 'sins' still exist between and against people of different nations. But rather than going to war against the enemy, the battle can be fought on the football field. Players representing each nation are the soldiers who battle to preserve the honour of the country, while the spectators are the common citizens who watch with pride the valiancy of their 'warriors' fighting on their behalf. And the best thing of all about football is, there is minimal chance of civilian casualties.

The 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa offers the prospect of some tantalising encounters. As early as the second round, either England or the United States may battle against Germany. Of course, none of the players of these countries were around during the First and Second World Wars, but the memories of both would surely spice-up the build-up to such an encounter.

Meanwhile, at the quarter-final stage; if both teams advance as expected, England and Argentina will do battle, a match that would surely bring up memories of the bitter Falklands War fought by the two nations. Argentinian football legend and current national head coach Diego Maradona has repeatedly said that beating England in the 1986 World Cup was the sweetest moment in his football career. No doubt this was largely because of the bitterness carried over from the Falklands War. If the two nations do meet again this year, the reciprocal animosity between players and fans from both countries will again be the focus of attention.

If England advances to the semi-final stage, their likely opponent is Holland, which is another juicy encounter. After more than a century where people from both countries fought a long and bitter war in South Africa (the Second Boer War), they may do battle again on the very same soil, this time for the honour and pride of advancing to a world cup final match.

Football may well be a silly old game where 22 grown-ups run like crazy chasing after a white ball. But football today is more than just a game. The FIFA World Cup, football's biggest tournament is the moral equivalent of war where people of different nations battle for their nations' pride and glory. There is no need to bludgeon your opponents to win this 'war'. All you need is the right tactics and strategies and to fight on the field in the name your country. And the satisfaction of winning would be just as sweet.

Isu 'Allah': Salahkah Orang Melayu Beremosi?

(The following is my article for Centre for Policy Initiatives, published on its website on 27th May 2010)

"Salahkah orang Melayu beremosi?" Begitulah keluhan yang dilontar saudara Akramsyah Sanusi ketika berucap di pentas Bloggers Universe Malaysia (BUM 2010) hujung minggu yang lalu. Konteks keluhan ini adalah isu kalimah 'Allah' yang masih belum bertemu jalan penyelesaian. Saudara Akramsyah seterusnya menambah, sekiranya ramai di kalangan puak majoriti (orang Melayu di Malaysia) hatinya terguris kerana isu ini, puak minoriti perlu bertolak ansur demi memelihara kesejahteraan dan keamanan negara.

Ada benarnya apa yang diluahkan saudara Akramsyah. Untuk memelihara keharmonian antara rakyat pelbagai kaum dan agama, emosi masing-masing perlu dihormati dan dijaga. Jika orang Cina atau Melayu mengadakan majlis keramaian dan diundang pula tetamu yang beragama Hindu, janganlah dibiarkan segala hidangan yang disediakan mengandungi daging lembu. Nanti terguris hati tetamu beragama Hindu yang hadir. Emosi mereka pasti terganggu.

Emosi orang Cina juga boleh terganggu sekiranya adat dan budaya mereka tidak dihormati. Contohnya, sekiranya kita ingin memberi hadiah harijadi kepada seorang rakan berbangsa Cina, janganlah diberikan hadiah sebuah jam dinding atau jam perhiasan. Emosi dan perasaan rakan berbangsa Cina itu pasti akan terganggu juga. Manakan tidak! Dalam budaya masyarakat Cina, menghadiahkan seseorang sebuah jam seumpama mengucapkan selamat tinggal kepada orang yang ajalnya hampir tiba.

Emosi mempengaruhi kelakuan dan motivasi seseorang. Ini telah dibuktikan dalam banyak kajian dalam bidang psikologi. Namun, bertindak kerana emosi bukanlah suatu kaedah yang efektif. Emosi kita adakalanya tidak rasional yang mungkin berpunca daripada salah faham atau kepercayaan pada fakta yang salah.

Contohnya, pada penghujung tahun 1990'an, emosi dan perasaan masyarakat Melayu tercalar hebat akibat laporan kes murtad seorang wanita beragama Islam. Ada pihak yang mendakwa jumlah kes murtad ini mencecah ratusan ribu di seluruh negara. Namun, bila dibandingkan dengan fakta yang ada, sepertimana yang dilaporkan dalam kajian pensyarah Universiti Teknologi Mara, Dr. Mohamad Azam Mohamed Adil, angka yang sangat besar itu jelas tidak munasabah. Memang kes murtad itu ada namun jumlahnya jauh lebih kecil daripada apa yang digembar-gemburkan.

Emosi yang berkobar-kobar ternyata tidak semestinya berlandaskan fakta dan kebenaran. Maka agak malang sekiranya saudara Akramsyah terus berkeras menggunakan alasan emosi sebagai panduan ke arah jalan penyelesaian. Isu kalimah 'Allah' memang banyak mempengaruhi emosi, namun tidakkah terlintas di benak fikiran Akramsyah dan lain-lain pihak yang membantah keputusan mahkamah tinggi dalam kes ini bahawa emosi mereka itu mungkin tidak rasional dan tidak berasas?

Di pentas yang sama, saudara Akramsyah turut mendakwa dengan lantang bahawa tidak ada satu pihak pun setakat ini yang telah memberikan cadangan jalan penyelesaian. Dakwaan yang sangat menghairankan kerana pelbagai cadangan sebenarnya telah dilemparkan.

Contoh terbaik ialah analisa dan cadangan yang diberikan pensyarah Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Malaysia, Ustaz Zaharuddin Abdul Rahman. Dalam artikelnya yang bertajuk 'Nama Allah: Hukum Asal, Dakwah dan Siasah' yang siarkan di blognya, Ustaz Zaharuddin menjelaskan dengan terperinci bahawa dari segi hukum, penggunaan kalimah 'Allah' oleh orang-orang bukan Islam itu sebenarnya diharuskan. Yang dibimbangi adalah dari sudut dakwah dan siasah, yaitu sekiranya penggunaan ini disalahgunakan untuk kegiatan dakwah agama lain kepada orang-orang Islam. Walaupun Ustaz Zaharuddin secara peribadi bersetuju dengan pendirian melarang orang-orang bukan Islam daripada menggunakan kalimah Allah, di penghujung artikelnya beliau mencadangkan:

"Jikalau keputusan mahkamah (selepas rayuan) tetap mengizinkan penerbit Kristian menterjemah kalimah 'God' kepada Allah dalam penerbitan mereka, saya bersetuju dengan pandangan pelbagai pihak yang mencadangkan agar Kerajaan mengadakan segera muzakarah dan dialog di antara ulama, pakar undang-undang dan pihak Kristian bagi memastikan kebenaran itu tidak digunakan untuk mengelirukan umat Islam dan segala penulisan dihadkan kepada penganut Kristian semata-mata. Tatkala itu syarat-syarat dan perjanjian perlu dibuat bagi menjaga kehamonian masyarakat dalam Negara."

Nah, tidak cukupkah cadangan seperti ini yang diberikan, atau mungkin pada tanggapan saudara Akramsyah, hanya pandangan dan cadangan yang selari dengan pendirian Umno sahaja yang wajar dipertimbangkan. Cadangan Ustaz Zaharuddin ini ternyata tidak jauh berbeza dengan pendirian PAS dan PKR dalam isu ini, dan selari juga dengan undang-undang yang sedia ada yang melarang segala usaha dakwah agama lain kepada penganut agama Islam.

Emosi sebilangan orang Melayu yang panas akibat isu ini banyak diapi-apikan media pro-kerajaan dan tindakan kurang bijak yang diambil agensi-agensi agama dalam kerajaan. Mimbar Jumaat di seluruh negara misalnya telah digunakan untuk mempengaruhi orang-orang Islam agar membantah sekeras-kerasnya keputusan mahkamah yang membenarkan kalimah Allah digunakan orang-orang bukan Islam.

Persoalannya, mengapa tidak mimbar yang sama digunakan untuk menerangkan mengapa dari segi hukum, tidak ada dalil kukuh yang menghalang orang bukan Islam daripada menggunakan kalimah Allah? Mengapa tidak dijemput Tokoh Ma'al Hijrah 2009, Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradhawi menyampaikan syarahan perdana bagi menghurai isu ini dengan mendalam yang disiarkan secara langsung ke seluruh negara?

Bukankah kaedah seperti ini akan dapat meredakan emosi yang panas dan membalut hati-hati orang Islam yang terguris? Bukankah cara ini lebih positif dan bermanfaat dalam usaha memupuk persefahaman antara rakyat pelbagai kaum dan agama? Atau, adakah saudara Akramsyah dan yang lain-lain yang sealiran dengannya sebenarnya tidak mahu emosi yang panas ini disejukkan?

Di akhir sessi perbincangan isu ini di BUM 2010, saudara Akramsyah bijak menyebut bahawa isu ini sebenarnya memberikan peluang keemasan bagi sesetengah pihak untuk tampil sebagai 'hero' yang menyelesaikan masalah. Saya amat bersetuju dengan pendapat ini, namun kurang bersetuju dengan 'hero' yang dicadangkan saudara Akramsyah. Beliau berpendapat, orang Kristianlah yang patut menjadi 'hero' dengan mematuhi perintah larangan yang diputuskan kerajaan, lantas menampilkan ciri manusia yang berhati mulia sepertimana yang dituntut dalam ajaran agama Kristian.

Saya berpendapat, orang yang paling berpeluang tampil sebagai 'hero' ialah Perdana Menteri Najib Abdul Razak. Bayangkan sekiranya beliau dengan tegas mengambil langkah-langkah menganjurkan muzakarah antara pemimpin-pemimpin agama, dan mengadakan sessi-sessi penerangan yang disampaikan ulamak-ulamak tersohor seperti yang disarankan di atas? Populariti dan kredibiliti Najib akan melonjak tinggi sebagai 'Bapa 1Malaysia' yang sejati yang ikhlas memperjuangkan perpaduan dan keharmonian antara kaum dan agama di Malaysia. Sungguh malang, peluang keemasan ini nampaknya sudah dilepaskan.

Against Post-Conventional Morality

In his theory of morality development, Lawrence Kohlberg proposed that the highest stage of moral reasoning is the post-conventional stage. At this stage, right-or-wrong is decided either through social contract orientation (the will of the majority), or through a universal ethical principles orientation. The latter is an internalised standard where one’s personal conviction, derived from one’s active reasoning; is held supreme regardless of conformity with social mores.

People who I have debated with on the issue of homosexuality would often apply their own personal conviction to argue for its permissibility. In tandem with modern principles of human rights, they would argue that since homosexuals do not cause any harm to their own personal lives or create disorder or anarchy in the society, homosexuals should be allowed to practice their preferred sexual orientation.

The human rational mind is no doubt capable of complex processes and meticulous reasoning but to committed adherents of religions, is still subjected to morality by divinity. We believe in submission to a divine code of law derived from the scriptures and teachings of our religious teachers.

For Muslims, the shari'ah (divine law derived from the Quran and Prophetic traditions) is supreme and its authority is not subjected to personal whims and fancies. As Professor Muhammad Hashim Kamali once wrote:

"In matters which pertain to the dogma of Islam, or those which are regulated by the direct authority of the Quran or Sunnah, criticism, either from Muslims or non-Muslims will not be entertained, as personal or public opinion does not command authority in such matters. Islam is basically a religion of authority, and the values of good and evil, or rights or duties are not determined by reference to public opinion, or popular vote, although these too have a certain role to play in the determination of the ahkam (religious rulings)." (Kamali, M.H., Freedom of Expression in Islam, p.107).

To stand against homosexuality is to follow directly the authority of the Quran. Therefore, to all Muslims, including Muslim clinical psychologists who have been trained to refer to DSM IV (in which homosexuality is not classified as an abnormal behaviour), homosexuality must be prohibited, and for those who have ignorantly acquired such orientation, they must be corrected.

For proponents of liberal ideologies, submission to religious principles is a sign of weakness as the human mind is deemed capable enough to come to its own conclusion on what is right and what is wrong. And the underlying philosophy remains, that unless a behavioural practice is proven to cause harm to other individuals in the society, the practice should be considered legal and permissible no matter how much others may dislike it.

To that, I would invite people to stretch their imagination and apply the same philosophy to another type of sexual behaviour: incestuous relations. If a man decides to have sex with either his mother or his own daughter in the privacy of his own residence, shouldn’t we consider it legal and permissible too since it does not harm other individuals in the society?

Is Chinese New Year a Cultural or Religious Festival?

Tomorrow, Chinese communities all over the world will celebrate the coming of a new year; the year of the ox, an animal which symbolises hard work and perseverance.

Here in Malaysia, Chinese New Year is considered by many as a cultural festival. Hence, anyone who identifies his/her ethnic background as Chinese, regardless of his/her religious beliefs, would and should celebrate Chinese New Year. For this reason, non-Muslim Chinese who convert to Islam would still celebrate Chinese New Year because the festival is considered part of their cultural tradition and celebrating it is not considered against their Islamic faith.

However, is Chinese New Year really only an ethnic-cultural festival?

If we look at the rituals and practices in conjunction with its celebration, traditionally, preparations begin at the start of la-yue, the twelfth and last month of the Chinese lunar year. La-ba-zhou (eighth-day porridge) is celebrated on the eighth day of this month with the making of delicious porridge, a practice originated from Buddhists in China in memory of the enlightenment of Buddha. Dong-zhi (Winter Solstice) which falls on the 22nd of the month is celebrated with the eating of Chinese dumpling, a practice based on a Chinese custom which symbolises that a person is now one year older.

Then, a few days before the eve of Chinese New Year, every family has to send their home-god (jia-shen) to the heaven (through the observation of a variety of religious rituals such as the burning of incense and yellow-paper money) to report their deeds for the entire year while at same time to bring them more luck, wealth and prosperity for the coming new year. For the people in northern China, they pray to the god of the kitchen (zao-shen), to the people in the south especially among fishermen, to the god of the sea (hai-shen), while among merchants and businessmen they pray to the god of wealth (cai-shen).

So, New Year’s Eve is a very important time not only for family reunion; where all members in a family should return home to pray to the spirit of their ancestors to ask them to protect and bring the family more prosperity, it is also an important time to warmly welcome the return of the home-god who will come back to bring them luck and blessings for the new year. For this very reason, all members in the family would traditionally stay-up the whole night (shou-sui) at the family home on New Year’s Eve. In relation to that, at the stroke of midnight, which marks the start of the New Year, family members will burn firecrackers to drive away ghosts, evil spirits and bad luck to ensure the home god’s smooth return from heaven.

On the first and second day of Chinese New Year, members in the family are not allowed to go out of the house, not even to visit neighbours and friends; to avoid the flowing out of good luck, and to prevent bad luck from coming in to the family. Sweeping the floor inside the house is not allowed on the first two days of the new year to prevent good luck from being swept out from the house. Only on the third day till the fifteenth day of the new year, people may celebrate new year with their friends and neighbours.

Of course, not all of these practices and rituals are observed by Chinese communities today. Nevertheless, the points above clearly support the motion that Chinese New Year is in fact a religious festival. One has to understand that the traditional religion of the majority of Chinese is an amalgamation of teachings in Buddhism, the ethical philosophy of Confucianism and the metaphysics of Taoism, sprinkled with doses from Chinese myths and legends. The influences of these different sources of inspiration in the rituals and practices observed during Chinese New Year celebrations are indeed very clear and apparent.

It is for this very reason that ethnic Chinese Muslim communities in China do not celebrate Chinese New Year. Chinese New Year to them is a non-Muslim religious festival, and as Muslims, and because of their knowledge of the background of the various non-Islamic religious rituals and practices, they believe they should not participate in its celebration. Some of the elders in Chinese Muslim communities have in fact emphasised to their families to eat the most basic of food on New Year’s Eve, to clearly emphasise that the festival is not part of their family culture.

Since Chinese New Year is in fact a religious festival, should Chinese converts to Islam refrain totally from its celebration? Religious beliefs do not abrogate family obligations. As such, a Chinese-Muslim convert should attend the family reunion dinner on the eve of Chinese New Year as part of his/her family obligation. But the person should not participate in any of the religious rituals associated with the festival.

Celebrating Chinese New Year should not be seen as a mandatory Chinese-ethnic-identity-confirming behaviour which defines one’s Chinese cultural identity and origin. There are at least 20 million Chinese Muslims in China who do not and have never celebrated Chinese New Year. The fact that they don't celebrate it does not make them less Chinese than others who do. They respect it as an occasion celebrated by their non-Muslim neighbours and friends but they do not participate in its celebration. As Muslims, their festive occasions are the Eid celebrations, which are celebrated twice-a-year by all Muslims all over the world.

(This post was co-authored by my wife who is a Hui Chinese Muslim from Gansu, China)

Culture, Respect and Freedom of Expression

In his farewell visit to Iraq, outgoing United States President George W. Bush had a shoe thrown to him (twice!) during the press conference in Baghdad. In many ways, for someone to be thrown a shoe at, as Professor Akbar Ahmed had pointed out when interviewed by CNN, is the ultimate insult akin to like having your head being stepped on by someone.

Predictably, there were different reactions from different sides to the shoe throwing incident. Many Iraqis and Muslims in the Middle-East saluted the actions of the Iraqi journalist. Muntadhar Al-Zaidi is now not only receiving support from various quarters clamouring for his immediate release, he has also received a new job offer and a marriage proposal! Many Americans, on the other hand are angry about the incident as they believe their president deserves greater respect from the Iraqis having poured in billions of dollars rebuilding their country.

During his presidency, George W. Bush has been condemned, ridiculed and made fun at. Both Jay Leno and David Letterman have said that they will miss President Bush. Why? Because both of them and many other talk-show hosts and comedians have prospered with Bush jokes in the last eight years. To make jokes about Bush was easy, but to joke about Obama will not.

When I was visiting Washington DC last year, I saw a number of anti-war activists with placards with some very nasty caricatures of President Bush on them displaying them directly in front of the White House. That, and the many nasty jokes made about Bush are deemed acceptable in America, actions that are considered part of the society’s freedom of expression. To openly and publicly make fun of government and political leaders is considered normal and acceptable in most Western countries, but here in Malaysia and the Asian region?

As much as I cherish the rights of any individual to express himself, and as much as I am indeed disgusted about some of our local political leaders, I don’t think I would like to see the kind of jokes made about Bush being made about them here. Malaysians or Asians in general are still conservative societies in which respect towards elders is a sacred tradition inspired by cultural and religious values. In many ways, we show respect to our seniors, teachers, superior officers, and society leaders the same way we show respect to our parents. And people here just do not openly argue with their parents.

Even when there are disagreements, children would most likely utilise various subtleties to express their disagreements with the hope that somehow their parents would understand. Children find it hard to give a direct "no" to their parents for the fear of hurting their feelings. As the Malays would often say, 'ibarat menarik rambut dalam tepung... rambut jangan putus, tepung jangan berselerak' ('like pulling a hair from a container full of flour... you have to pull the hair out gently that the hair does not break and flour is not scattered around the place').

On this adab (etiquette) of respecting our elders, is it possible however that people here tend to overdo it? My respected senior colleague Professor Malik Badri certainly thinks so as he often laments on how students here are indeed over-adab-ised, a point that I cannot help but agree since my own students hardly question me in class even when I made factual errors (occasionally) during my lectures. Yes, students should respect their teachers but would it be disrespectful for students to disagree with their teachers?

As a student, I once disagreed publicly with one of my lecturers about attendance to make-up classes. He had said that attendance to make-up classes is compulsory to which I argued a student’s responsibility is to attend classes as arranged in the official schedule. Make-up classes are organised to replace class sessions cancelled by the lecturers in order for them to cover all topics in the syllabus. Hence, lecturers have the obligation to organise make-up classes but they should not force students to attend them. The argument I had was quite tense but I knew my lecturer did not take it personally. After all, it was the same lecturer who a few years later as the head of department lobbied the university’s authority to hire me as a teaching staff at the university.

I have to say though that my experience above was more an exception rather than the norm. The reality is the culture here in Malaysia, and in the whole of Asia in general, has limited tolerance for dissent. I have heard numerous personal stories of students and low-ranking officers being heavily reprimanded and unjustly punished for disagreeing with their teachers and superior officers.

When I first became a staff member at IIUM, it was after two years studying in Finland and half-a-year working for UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees). Three years of ‘Westernisation’ had ‘corrupted’ me somewhat that I was always eager and ready to argue with anyone regardless of their standings and positions whenever I feel I had something to say. However, I have learned to be much more relenting over the years mainly due to some of the friendly advice given to me by a few concerned colleagues. Was this for the better? Perhaps, because I no longer create any unnecessary tension between myself and others. But I can’t help but feel that by doing so I may have sacrificed some of my core values and principles.

Still, I do not quite understand why people here almost always take criticism personally. My senior colleague Professor Wan Rafaei once told me how astonished he was to see both the supervisor and co-supervisor of his doctoral research (at the University of Wales) arguing so aggressively for more than an hour, but at the end of the meeting both went off happily together for lunch. According to Professor Wan, if there was an argument like that here in Malaysia, both parties will not be on speaking terms for at least a few months!

Perhaps, traditional cultural values and 22 years of Mahathirism had nurtured this culture of submissiveness in Malaysia. But certainly a balanced and moderate perspective between the need to show respect and the need for constructive criticism and disagreements can be achieved. Sheikh Taha Jabir Al 'Alwani has written a beautiful book on 'The Ethics of Disagreement in Islam' (Adab al Ikhtilaf fi al Islam). I remember vividly his argument in the book on how Islam in fact recognises disagreement and scepticism as valid methods of inquiry. Of course, in Muslim communities today, this beautiful tradition is largely forgotten. The political culture in most Muslim countries does not value dissent and tend to see it as a corrupted Western approach that is alien to Islam.

Of course, I am not advocating throwing shoes as a way to express disagreements, or making nasty jokes about our political leaders as often seen in Jay Leno and David Letterman talk shows. What I would like to see is the creation of proper channels and avenues for freedom of expression where people can voice their views (with observance of adab) without fear of negative repercussions.

To speak just for the sake of speaking is indeed foolish, but to not speak when something needs to be said is a sign of lack of wisdom and self-confidence and often lead to weak and faulty decisions and understanding. Allahu’alam.

The West and The Muslim World Post 911

Last Friday, the university hosted a forum entitled “The US and The Muslim World: Between Cooperation and Confrontation”. The guest speaker was the internationally respected American scholar on Islam, Professor John L. Esposito. Professor Esposito is a no stranger to IIUM having visited the university on many occasions in the 1990’s. However, just like many other international scholars both in the West and the Muslim World, prior to this year's visit he has not set foot on Malaysia since the tumultuous political events of the late 1990’s.

The focus of Professor Esposito’s presentation is the findings from the global attitude survey reported in his latest book ‘Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think?’, and the forthcoming 'The Future of Islam'. The survey covered a total of more than 40 countries with more than 50,000 respondents who were all interviewed one-on-one in their own respective native language. Respondents include both Muslims and non-Muslims who were asked a series of questions about their attitude on Islam and Muslim communities, and the values of the people in the West.

Without going to specifics, my personal view is the result of the survey has confirmed the opinion shared by many of us who have lived in both worlds, that between the people in the West and the Muslim World, there is a great degree of mutual misunderstanding. On one hand we have the people in the West who believe that Islam is a global threat to their freedom and values; while on the other the Muslims who believe that there is a global war and conspiracy against Islam. Both views are in fact illusive and hallucinative.

After the events of 9-11, the intensity of inter-civilisational dialogues between Islam and the West has indeed increased. Many Muslims have never quite understood the strong reactions of the Americans to the events (just like how most Americans have never understood why Muslims are so angry about America's continuous support to Israel). For the Americans, 9-11 was the very first time their country was attacked in its own soil. And this, according to Professor Esposito “created a hysteria on terrorism”, and since President Bush had singled out Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda as the Americans greatest enemy, Muslims and the religion of Islam became the focus of attention.

Professor Esposito has always maintained a positive view on Islam and an optimistic attitude towards Muslims. Hence, when discussion and debates on Islam and the Muslims began to flourish in the immediate aftermath of 9-11, he took centre-stage and appeared in various media programmes and events to defend those views. In one memorable programme aired on the BBC World Channel, Professor Esposito, in the course of defending Islam went to the extent of almost ridiculing some aspect of Christian values. A fellow Christian panellist had made a cheeky attempt to paint Islam as a religion of violence by saying that Islam does not have anything similar to the Christian teaching of “turn the other cheek”. To that, Professor Esposito nonchalantly suggested that the Muslim panellist hit the Christian man on one side of his face and see how he would react!

While I do agree that negative spins from the Western media have contributed to the prevailing negative attitudes toward Islam and the Muslims, I would like to emphasise that such negativity is also the result of genuine naturalistic observations. Except for those who have travelled extensively to various Muslim countries, or those who befriended closely individual Muslims, the only direct information the people in the West have about Muslims are based on their observations of Muslim immigrant societies in their midst. And if this is the yardstick that they base their judgment and attitudes on Muslims with, the negativity would not be entirely shocking, in fact could be considered almost expected. I do not know for sure the situation in America, but in Western Europe, the lifestyles and progress of Muslim immigrant societies certainly have much to be desired.

In Finland (in fact in all the Scandinavian nations), the people are proud of their welfare system where among others there is free education, free housing and generous allowances for unemployed persons. Unfortunately, instead of taking advantage of the system to improve their educational and social standings, many Muslim immigrants choose to remain unemployed and live with the free allowances given. In Germany and the Netherlands, where Turkish and Morroccan communities are established for three generations, their youth are more often associated with drugs and gangsterism rather than academic and entrepreneurial achievements. These are not exclusively the views of Western media or propaganda, but crucially the findings of various academic studies conducted by both Muslim and non-Muslim researchers.

The way forward is for Muslims to assume centre-stage and speak up for Islam and our respective communities. And we need to learn to do so first-of-all, by using the ideological language of the West (the language of human rights and democracy), and to live up according to those principles and ideals. Calling ourselves Islamic is one thing, but living an Islamic way of life is quite another.