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. :)   

Menangani Prejudis dan Stereotaip Negatif Kaum

Seorang kenalan saya di Amerika pernah menceritakan bagaimana pada satu hari, ketika duduk berehat sebentar di sebuah pusat membeli-belah, beliau ternampak dua orang lelaki berkulit hitam berlari dengan pantas sambil dikejar seorang pegawai keselamatan. Lantas timbul hasrat kenalan saya ini untuk membantu lalu dikejarnya dua orang lelaki itu, diterjah salah seorang daripadanya dari belakang dan dihempap badannya ke bawah. Lelaki berkulit hitam itu mengerang kesakitan lalu berkata; "saya tuan punya kedai, kenapa awak tangkap saya?!" Terperanjat sungguh kenalan saya ketika itu. Beliau hanya mampu memohon maaf dengan penuh rasa kesal kerana bukan sahaja tersalah menangkap orang, tapi membiarkan juga pencuri yang sebenar melarikan diri.

Kenalan saya bukan sebarangan orang. Di Amerika beliau terlibat dalam pelbagai aktiviti kemasyarakatan yang melibatkan golongan minoriti di sana. Bahkan, beliau sering terlibat dalam kempen-kempen dan forum yang menentang sikap prejudis terhadap apa jua golongan bangsa dan beragama. Maka, walaupun beliau berkulit putiih, profilnya sama sekali tidak menggambarkan beliau sebagai seorang yang bersikap negatif dan agresif terhadap masyarakat lain.

Ramai antara kita sebenarnya tanpa disedari bersikap prejudis dan menaruh sterotaip negatif terhadap orang lain. Fenomena ini telah dibuktikan dalam banyak kajian dalam bidang psikologi sosial. Kajian di Amerika misalnya ada melaporkan hampir 80 peratus masyarakat kulit putih di sana tanpa disedari menaruh sikap prejudis terhadap masyarakat berkulit hitam. Sikap implisit ini tidak semestinya dizahirkan melalui perbuatan atau kata-kata secara terbuka, namun dalam situasi tertentu ianya tetap terserlah.

Di Malaysia, isu prejudis dan sterotaip kaum ini sering dianggap isu sensitif bukan sahaja di pentas awam, tapi juga di kalangan ahli-ahli akademik. Oleb sebab itu, tidak banyak kajian saintifik yang dilakukan untuk meninjau sejauh mana masyarakat pelbagai kaum di Malaysia menaruh sifat perjudis terhadap satu sama lain.

Namun yang jelas, jika ditinjau daripada kelakuan dan percakapan harian, masalah ini tidak boleh dipandang ringan. Di kalangan rakan-rakan dan sanak saudara saya yang berbangsa Melayu, sering kedengaran keluhan bilamana ada barang yang dibeli dianggap mahal, peniaga Cina yang cepat dipersalahkan. "Orang Cina, sebab tu lah mahal".

Di kalangan orang Cina, ada juga prejudisnya. Seorang graduan universiti tempatan berbangsa Melayu pernah menceritakan pengalaman beliau menghadiri temuduga di sebuah syarikat swasta. Semua penemuduga yang hadir berbangsa Cina. Ketika sessi temuduga berjalan, mereka sering berbisik di antara mereka dalam bahasa Mandarin. Yang tidak disedari mereka calon temuduga itu sebenarnya boleh berbahasa Mandarin kerana bersekolah rendah di sekolah Cina. Beliau faham benar apa yang dibisikan yang antaranya ialah "Ma-lai-ren lan-dou... Ma-lai-ren mei-you da-nao (orang Melayu malas... orang Melayu kurang pandai)".

Mengapa ini terjadi? (bersambung...)

Klik di sini untuk membaca artikel penuh di laman web Centre for Policy Initiatives.

Kaum & Budaya Apa Yang Lebih Hebat?

Masyarakat kita hari ini dikelilingi kepelbagaian. Kita terdedah dengan individu-individu yang berbeza warna kulit, budaya dan pegangan hidup berbanding diri kita sendiri. Maka dalam keadaan ini, dilema yang menanti adalah samada kita tetap teguh dengan cara dan budaya kita sendiri atau perlu kita mengalah dan menerapkan budaya orang lain.

Tidak kira siapa, Melayu, Cina, India, Arab dan sebagainya; nalurinya ialah mempertahankan adat dan budaya masing-masing. Jika ditanya, pasti ramai yang beranggapan budaya-nya-lah yang terbaik dan selainnya tidak setanding. Dalam sains sosial, fenomena ini dinamakan etnosentrisme (ethnocentrism). Walaupun sering dianggap negatif, etnosentrisme sebenarnya suatu yang normal dan setiap individu itu sebenarnya, sedar atau tidak, ada ciri-ciri etnocentrik.

Orang Melayu misalnya, rata-rata menganggap masakan Melayu itulah yang paling sedap, nasi itu hidangan wajib dan sambal belacan pelengkap hidangan. Mee, burger, spagetti atau apa saja selain nasi bukanlah makanan sebenar. Nasi sahajalah yang boleh mengenyangkan. Tidak kira di mana jua, di negara sendiri atau di perantauan, nasi-lah satu-satunya makanan asasi.

Saya sendiri pun lebih kurang begitu. Saya pernah tinggal di utara Eropah, pernah menyantap hidangan ikan salmon yang segar. Seringkali ke negara Cina menikmati mee dan sup daging yang enak. Namun kalau ditanya, hidangan apakah yang paling sedap, saya tidak teragak-agak menyatakan gulai tempoyak ikan patin yang paling sedap di dunia.

Saya bangga dan selesa dengan masakan Melayu. Namun, saya tidak pernah menghadapi masalah menyesuaikan diri bila berada di luar negeri. Saya pastinya tidak pernah kelaparan walau di mana saya berada walaupun tempat itu tiada nasi putih dan sambal belacan. Tidak pernah terlintas di fikiran saya walau di mana saya pergi untuk membawa periuk nasi, cili dan lesung batu.

Ini perihal diri saya. Orang lain bagaimana? (bersambung...)

(Sila lihat artikel penuh di laman web Centre for Policy Initiatives, atau The Malaysian Insider)

Learning To Be Altruistic

Many years ago, when I was walking back home from a grocery store, I went pass a crowded bus stop. As I passed through the crowd of about 30 people, I heard a faint voice asking for help coming from the sitting area inside. I turned my head and saw two young ladies; one of them was resting her head on the other lady's lap. Seeing that I was somewhat responding to her call for help, the second lady pleaded to me to help bring her friend to a clinic. Her friend looked really ill. She was very pale and was breathing heavily.

Without much hesitation, I offered to help and brought the lady to the nearest clinic. I carried her in my arms to a clinic which was about 100 metres away. And while I was doing this, everyone around the bus stop stared at me as if I was doing something wrong.

This happened years ago before I began my studies in psychology. Eventually, I realised what I did that day can be considered an example of altruistic behaviour. On the one hand, yes, I am proud of what I did, but on the other, I am sad to have witnessed a real example of bystander effect. I was clearly not the only person who heard the call for help from the two ladies. But amazingly, not only did none of them there offer to help, everyone of them (including the two people sitting right next to the two ladies) had turned their faces away deliberately pretending not to hear a thing.

I should probably mention here that the two ladies were Indonesians (recognisable by their accent), and they were both wearing shorts. I don't know, probably others thought they were involved in immoral activities but even if that was true, does that mean they did not deserve to be helped?

I never saw the two ladies again. The few people that I've told about this have mostly given me mixed reactions. They praised me for what I did while at the same time scolded me for my supposed naivety. How a small act of helping someone can be considered naive is beyond me. I certainly did not expect anything for what I did, nor did I think it was really praiseworthy.

To be altruistic is to be able to tell ourselves, for whatever we do we should not expect anything (tangible and intangible) in return. I don't know from where really I learned this but this has always been one of the philosophies in life that I greatly cherish. Probably it has even become an obsession of some sort that I often become extremely annoyed whenever I see people demanding for rewards and appreciations for their good deeds.

In studies on organisational behaviour, altruism is a dimension of organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB). I've just completed a research project on the work culture of primary school teachers here in Malaysia. One of the variables we looked at was OCB. When we compared the scores on OCB among Malay, Chinese and Indian school teachers, we found Malay school teachers scoring significantly higher than the Chinese and Indian respondents.

Teaching is a tough job, which certainly requires a degree of dedication that goes beyond any extrinsic motivation. Why Malay school teachers here were found to be significantly better on this quality however was difficult for us to explain. Perhaps, just perhaps, their passion for teaching is far higher, seeing it more as a noble deed and service to the society rather than a job that gives them their monthly salaries.

A quantitative cross-cultural comparison study like this unfortunately does not tell us the details about many things. Of interest to me personally is to know how we can teach people to be altruistic. My two small children often demand things in return whenever we (my wife and I) ask them to do something. Yes, they are children but how can I teach them or make them learn eventually that they should not expect anything from anybody? I want them to live by the principle that the most important thing in life is to do what is right, without thinking much (if not at all) about receiving any reward in return.

If only we know how to do this, I'm sure this world would be a far, far better place. Our children, and everyone in the society, from the most common labourers right up to presidents, kings and prime ministers; can thus be taught the mentality that we live to serve, not to serve for a living.

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)

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?

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.

Early Marriages

I'm not a therapist, nor am I a counsellor. However, for whatever reasons, in my five years working at the university, I've had on a number of occasions, students who came to me for advice for various personal problems. These are young adults, and as can be expected many of their problems centred around the issues of marriage and romantic relations.

Sheikh Abdallah Adhami, a Muslim preacher in America, was once asked to deliver a talk on marriage in Islam. In preparing for the talk, he asked the organiser what exactly about marriage they want him to talk about. The organiser requested the sheikh to focus on what happens before marriage. To that, Sheikh Adhami said: "that will be a very short talk because in Islam NOTHING happens before marriage."

If 'nothing' here means no social interactions whatsoever between men and women, it certainly is a big challenge for youngsters today to adhere. Of course, in the past the situation was different. Both my grandmothers got married at the age of fourteen while my paternal and maternal grandfathers were eighteen and twenty respectively; both immediately upon completing their education (the former upon graduating from Tanjung Malim Teachers' College, and the latter after passing his Senior Cambridge examination). Needless to say, when my grandparents got married they hardly knew their spouses.

Allah SWT has instilled in the hearts of human beings the ability to experience love. To love and wanting to be loved is part of human nature. Hence, for a person to fall in love with another is something natural and in most instance unavoidable. The only question then is how does one manage and respond to this emotional experience?

Marriage is the natural solution ordained by both religious and cultural traditions. It is not easy however for people today to get married. Here in Malaysia, social-cultural expectations dictate that only those (men especially) who are financially stable can begin contemplating marriage. To be exact, you should have a stable job, a car and at least able to rent a decent house before you can think about getting married. All of these of course are in addition to saving enough money for the dowry, wedding gifts and expenses for a lavish ceremony. To meet all these requirements, a young man would need to work fulltime for at least a few years. That would mean pushing the age of marriage to the late twenties if not later.

Can a young man (or a young woman for that matter) wait that long? Of course, I'm posing this question in the context of the Malay-Muslim society here in Malaysia where conservative religious values are still largely adhered to (to be exact, the strict prohibition on pre-marital sex). Studies in developmental psychology have shown that humans develop romantic feelings and sexual desires from the period of adolescence. And it grows even stronger and remains strong during the entire period of young adulthood. Can we just simply expect young men and women today to suppress these feelings? Suppressing them entirely during high-school, throughout their years studying at universities, and a couple of more years of working life?

To me, the answer is quite simple: encourage early marriages! During my undergraduate studies, I once wrote a term paper on encouraging early marriages. And one of the earliest publication projects I worked on was to translate a book entitled 'Marriage in Islam' from English to Malay in which the propagation of early marriages is the thesis statement of the very first chapter. Of course, the call for early marriages would run directly against social-cultural expectations. One has to decide then which one is more important: marriage as a religious duty to preserve one’s chastity or adherence to social-cultural norms?

Without a doubt, anyone who decides to get married at a young age would face some serious challenges. I have never failed to caution students who have consulted me, about these challenges that they should be mentally prepared for. Certain sacrifices of course need to be made, but rather than making things more difficult, the society can and should facilitate young married couples. At IIUM, back in the 1990’s, married students received additional allowances for living expenses. In fact, family apartments for married students were part of the original design of the university’s main campus in Gombak. Such facilities should be reintroduced and offered by other social institutions.

What we have now is more cultural than religious. When religious values and socio-cultural expectations collide, religion values must and should always prevail.

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.