by Wan Saiful Wan Jan
Malaysia Think-Tank London
This is an abstract of the edited transcript of the speech delivered by Wan Saiful Wan Jan, Director General of Malaysia Think Tank London, at the Ibn Khaldun Seminar on 18 December 2007
Abstract
Having lived in the country for many years, a group of ethnic minority wants to contribute to making the country stronger and more prosperous. They decided to speak up and contribute proactively to ongoing debates on policy matters by presenting the views of their ethnic group to policy-makers. Among the things they asked for was for the majority to treat them as equals, and to allow them to practice their religion freely.
How did the majority community respond? They responded by saying that the ethnic minority group:
- may have hostile agenda
- is ungrateful and divisive
- does not respect the majority community
- is trying to change the socio-demography country
- does not respect the feeling of the majority
One politician said that the ethnic minority group is a minority population and should not try and punch above their weight in changing the country’s culture or policy.
In the UK, the Muslim minority is demanding that they are treated as equals. That they are allowed to practice and to preach their religion. That they be allowed to pray and fast while at work or in school. That they be allowed to wear what they want to wear, where-ever and whenever they want to wear it. That they are allowed to build more places of worship in the areas where they live in. And so on and so forth.
Looking at Malaysia from abroad, I see non-Muslim non-Malays in Malaysia also asking to be treated as equals.
In short, non-Muslims in Malaysia seem to be asking for exactly the same rights as Muslims in the West are fighting for.
It saddens me when I see and hear about how the majority tries to silence the minority. Only this time, it is the reverse of the situation on the UK. Over there the majority is the non-Muslim. Over here, the majority is the Muslims.
I propose that there are actually two layers of the problem, and these two layers have been mixed into one, making the composite problem ‘thicker’.
The first layer is essentially the differences between ethnic groups.
The second layer is the differences between religious groups.
Ethnicity and religiosity are supposed to be different issues. You cannot necessarily tell one’s religion based on one’s ethnic group. One ethnic group is not necessarily adherence to one particular religion. The Prophet Muhammad and Abu Jahal were both Arabs, but one was a Muslim and the other was not. Saidina Abu Bakr and Salman al-Farisi were not from the same ethnic group, but both were Muslim. So, in that sense, Malays are not necessarily Muslims. Chinese are not necessarily Buddhists or Christians. Indians are not necessarily Hindus. Ethnicity and religion are two separate things.
Unfortunately for us Malaysians, somewhere along the line, these two layers got mixed. That is when you start seeing Malay groups like UMNO claiming to defend Islam; Indian groups like the MIC fighting for Hindu temples, but not saying much when mosques were demolished, even though there are Indians who are Muslims; and groups claiming to be the defenders of Islam like PAS and ABIM seem to focus more on Malay rights when there are Muslims who are not Malays and Malays who are not Muslims. You also see a relatively new Hindu group - HINDRAF (Hindu Rights Action Force) - claiming to act for all Indians when not all Indians are Hindus, and not all Hindus are Indians. Somehow, the two layers – ethnicity and religion - became blurred and the actions of these groups make the problem worse.
So the question is, is Islam a blessing to Malaysians? Islam is a blessing to Malaysians if practised as it should be practised. The problem is not with Islam, but with Muslims, and with those who say they speak for Islam. In reality, some Muslims, and some groups who claim to speak for Islam, are simply disastrous.
Although Islam is a blessing to mankind, many Muslims (not all), and some Muslim groups (not all) are simply a disaster to mankind. They seek to impose their beliefs on others. They want to coerce others into living the way of life that they define as acceptable. Even within the Muslim communities - and note that I am saying Muslim communities in the plural because I do not believe there is only one interpretation of Islam - they say you must follow their interpretation because they know best what Islam is.
In short, we have living amongst us, Muslims who believe in coercion and imposition, not just coercing non-Muslims into living lives the way they say, but also coercing Muslims into subscribing to their version of Islam.
These people have forgotten that Islam is a non-hierarchical religion. We do not have a central religious body that decides what is Islamic and what is not. If we go back to the golden age of Islam, you will see that Islam was practised in different ways. I believe that that age was golden because learned Muslims at different places were able to interpret Islam in different ways, and subsequently there was competition between the different schools of thought.
For example, when sufism became widespread in the Muslim world, there were various different orders of tariqah. When Islamic fiqh was being developed, there was not just one school but several. Even in the matter of aqidah, there was not just one school, but several. It was the competition among the various schools that allowed the flourishing of knowledge and wisdom among Muslim communities.
So, let me come back to the issue of Islam being a blessing to Malaysians but many Muslims are a disaster. How do we move forward?
It is funny that in the UK, where Muslims are the minority, they feel they need to be defensive about Islam, but you also see the same thing in a country like Malaysia, where Muslims are in the majority. Muslims in Malaysia also feel that they need to be defensive about Islam, even though they are the majority. And their reactions to current issues are almost very similar. They group together to create an “us” versus “them” situation, and they appeal to the emotions of followers.
For Malaysia, in order to move forward I believe we, Muslims, have to stop being defensive. Islam is a confident religion. Why is it that Muslims seem to have lost our confidence? Why is it that when others disagree with us, we show them the keris, or we insist on putting our beliefs into law, which is, just like the keris, a tool for coercion?
I believe these are all signs of defensiveness, and I believe it is high-time for Muslims, and in fact, those of any religion, to stop being defensive, and go into what Professor Tariq Ramadan calls, a “post-integration discourse”. We are not, or no longer, victims. Even though we are a minority, we are an integral part of this society.
Let us debate substantive policy issues that will improve the country as a whole.
In order to move forward, we Muslims and Islamists must go back to the liberating values of Islam and formulate and propose policy ideas that are also liberating and fair for everyone. Non-Muslims should do the same and stop intentionally stirring emotional issues that would only create more division.
Let us move away from divisive emotional debates and try to focus about the very positive and liberating aspects of Islam, and other religions.
Islam promotes choice and defends the right of individuals to choose. That is positive. Let us stop all this rubbish about “Dalam Islam memang ada pilihan tetapi pilihan itu ada hadnya”. This type of statements is turning a positive into a negative. We should go straight into the positives of choice, and find ways to introduce choice into national policies.
Did Islam not teach us to be fair? If fairness means putting things where they rightly belong, surely the most rightful thing to do is to allow Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Baha’is and so on to learn about their own religion, because after all, they have paid for those services through their taxes. Is it fair to force them to pay taxes to ensure Muslim children get Islamic education, but at the same time depriving children of other religion from learning theirs?
Let us translate the Islamic value of choice into giving true choice to parents – give them the choice to decide what religion their children will study in schools. This should not be dictated by the state, especially when the diktat is unfair to those of other religions.
Let us go to a second example. Let us look at how to ensure consumers pay the lowest prices for the best products. Surely protecting the consumers and ensuring that consumers get the best deal is a very Islamic thing to do. How do we ensure consumers get the best deal? The answer is by providing a guarantee for choice and competition in the market place, by removing government intervention in the markets, and by allowing traders to compete with others freely to give consumers the best value for money.
We have seen how government interventions only result in cronyism. State interference in the marketplace must be removed, and the role of the state in the market place must be limited. Let us open up our markets for traders, so that they have to compete to give best value for money. Who will benefit? The consumers, of course!
Let us allow the Islamic values of competing to do good (fastabikul khairat) to also operate in the market place. This 'invisible hand' will push traders, in their quest to attract consumers, to do good for the consumers, by striving to provide consumers with the best value for money, even though the traders themselves may not be intending to do so.
Let us look at a third example - the New Economic Policy. I know many Islamists try to justify this pro-Malay policy by saying that the Malays need help the most, and therefore they must be assisted. I don’t know how these Islamists sleep at night because if they truly believe Malays need special treatment because they are all poor, they are either lying or are naïve. The reality is, there are Indians, Chinese, Malays, Ibans, Kadazans, Orang Asli, and many more who are also poor and are in need of help.
Islam is a fair religion, and there is nothing more fair than abolishing the NEP that favours only one skin-colour, and introduce a scheme to assist everyone who is in need. Yes, perhaps it should be done gradually. But there should be a clear target and we should develop a timetable towards that aim.
It baffles me to see our Muslim politicians battling each other to argue how Malays are still poor and that the NEP is still needed. This is like arguing that they have failed to do what they were elected to do. And the Malay voters are even more ridiculous. They keep on electing these self-confessed, failed politicians!
What could be more Islamic than campaigning for the abolishing of the NEP, towards the creation of a policy that truly helps those in need, regardless or race and religion? If “adil” means putting things where they rightly belong, then the most rightful thing to do with the NEP is to put it into the rubbish-bin.
I can’t really go into the details of each policy area as this would require more time and space that this short occasion. But my main point is, we should move away from debates on race and religion, and start talking about really substantive policy issues.
The Muslim Malays must grow up. This is not just a Malay or Muslim country. This is our country and you can see the diversity of our population as soon as you venture outside your own house. We have to realise that when people talk about Malay rights, it is not necessarily because they want to threaten the Malays, but it is because they want to improve the country as a whole.
So, let me conclude by saying this. I am a Malaysian Muslim. I consider myself an Islamist who believe in classical liberal values. I live in England where I am a minority. I know it is not easy being in the minority. When you speak up, some (not all) of the majority says that you shouldn’t punch above your weight. When you try to make constructive proposals, some (not all) of the majority say you are trying to change their country. But, in all honesty, all that you want to do is to make the country better for everyone, not just for yourself. Somehow, because you are a minority, you are looked at with suspicion.
That is why I am urging every Muslim to make Islam truly a blessing for all Malaysians by not going too much into emotive issues. And this is equally applicable to people of all religions. We all should stop deliberately stirring up emotions, and we should move towards debating policy issues using the moral values of our religions, if you really want to use religion as the basis of your thinking.
Let us stop debating and sensationalising things. Let us walk away from debates that appeal only to the emotions. Instead, let us debate policy issues, and appeal to the intellect. Let us debate things that really make a difference to the lives of everyone in this beloved country of ours. Let us think about how to introduce policies that can liberate the people from the grip of the state. Let us together find ways to give back freedom and liberty to the people, socially, economically and politically, while at the same time holding true to the values of our religions.
And, especially to Muslims, let us go back to the values of Islam that promote fairness, freedom and liberty, not the centralising and socialistic tendencies of some Islamists factions.
How did the majority community respond? They responded by saying that the ethnic minority group:
- may have hostile agenda
- is ungrateful and divisive
- does not respect the majority community
- is trying to change the socio-demography country
- does not respect the feeling of the majority
One politician said that the ethnic minority group is a minority population and should not try and punch above their weight in changing the country’s culture or policy.
In the UK, the Muslim minority is demanding that they are treated as equals. That they are allowed to practice and to preach their religion. That they be allowed to pray and fast while at work or in school. That they be allowed to wear what they want to wear, where-ever and whenever they want to wear it. That they are allowed to build more places of worship in the areas where they live in. And so on and so forth.
Looking at Malaysia from abroad, I see non-Muslim non-Malays in Malaysia also asking to be treated as equals.
In short, non-Muslims in Malaysia seem to be asking for exactly the same rights as Muslims in the West are fighting for.
It saddens me when I see and hear about how the majority tries to silence the minority. Only this time, it is the reverse of the situation on the UK. Over there the majority is the non-Muslim. Over here, the majority is the Muslims.
I propose that there are actually two layers of the problem, and these two layers have been mixed into one, making the composite problem ‘thicker’.
The first layer is essentially the differences between ethnic groups.
The second layer is the differences between religious groups.
Ethnicity and religiosity are supposed to be different issues. You cannot necessarily tell one’s religion based on one’s ethnic group. One ethnic group is not necessarily adherence to one particular religion. The Prophet Muhammad and Abu Jahal were both Arabs, but one was a Muslim and the other was not. Saidina Abu Bakr and Salman al-Farisi were not from the same ethnic group, but both were Muslim. So, in that sense, Malays are not necessarily Muslims. Chinese are not necessarily Buddhists or Christians. Indians are not necessarily Hindus. Ethnicity and religion are two separate things.
Unfortunately for us Malaysians, somewhere along the line, these two layers got mixed. That is when you start seeing Malay groups like UMNO claiming to defend Islam; Indian groups like the MIC fighting for Hindu temples, but not saying much when mosques were demolished, even though there are Indians who are Muslims; and groups claiming to be the defenders of Islam like PAS and ABIM seem to focus more on Malay rights when there are Muslims who are not Malays and Malays who are not Muslims. You also see a relatively new Hindu group - HINDRAF (Hindu Rights Action Force) - claiming to act for all Indians when not all Indians are Hindus, and not all Hindus are Indians. Somehow, the two layers – ethnicity and religion - became blurred and the actions of these groups make the problem worse.
So the question is, is Islam a blessing to Malaysians? Islam is a blessing to Malaysians if practised as it should be practised. The problem is not with Islam, but with Muslims, and with those who say they speak for Islam. In reality, some Muslims, and some groups who claim to speak for Islam, are simply disastrous.
Although Islam is a blessing to mankind, many Muslims (not all), and some Muslim groups (not all) are simply a disaster to mankind. They seek to impose their beliefs on others. They want to coerce others into living the way of life that they define as acceptable. Even within the Muslim communities - and note that I am saying Muslim communities in the plural because I do not believe there is only one interpretation of Islam - they say you must follow their interpretation because they know best what Islam is.
In short, we have living amongst us, Muslims who believe in coercion and imposition, not just coercing non-Muslims into living lives the way they say, but also coercing Muslims into subscribing to their version of Islam.
These people have forgotten that Islam is a non-hierarchical religion. We do not have a central religious body that decides what is Islamic and what is not. If we go back to the golden age of Islam, you will see that Islam was practised in different ways. I believe that that age was golden because learned Muslims at different places were able to interpret Islam in different ways, and subsequently there was competition between the different schools of thought.
For example, when sufism became widespread in the Muslim world, there were various different orders of tariqah. When Islamic fiqh was being developed, there was not just one school but several. Even in the matter of aqidah, there was not just one school, but several. It was the competition among the various schools that allowed the flourishing of knowledge and wisdom among Muslim communities.
So, let me come back to the issue of Islam being a blessing to Malaysians but many Muslims are a disaster. How do we move forward?
It is funny that in the UK, where Muslims are the minority, they feel they need to be defensive about Islam, but you also see the same thing in a country like Malaysia, where Muslims are in the majority. Muslims in Malaysia also feel that they need to be defensive about Islam, even though they are the majority. And their reactions to current issues are almost very similar. They group together to create an “us” versus “them” situation, and they appeal to the emotions of followers.
For Malaysia, in order to move forward I believe we, Muslims, have to stop being defensive. Islam is a confident religion. Why is it that Muslims seem to have lost our confidence? Why is it that when others disagree with us, we show them the keris, or we insist on putting our beliefs into law, which is, just like the keris, a tool for coercion?
I believe these are all signs of defensiveness, and I believe it is high-time for Muslims, and in fact, those of any religion, to stop being defensive, and go into what Professor Tariq Ramadan calls, a “post-integration discourse”. We are not, or no longer, victims. Even though we are a minority, we are an integral part of this society.
Let us debate substantive policy issues that will improve the country as a whole.
In order to move forward, we Muslims and Islamists must go back to the liberating values of Islam and formulate and propose policy ideas that are also liberating and fair for everyone. Non-Muslims should do the same and stop intentionally stirring emotional issues that would only create more division.
Let us move away from divisive emotional debates and try to focus about the very positive and liberating aspects of Islam, and other religions.
Islam promotes choice and defends the right of individuals to choose. That is positive. Let us stop all this rubbish about “Dalam Islam memang ada pilihan tetapi pilihan itu ada hadnya”. This type of statements is turning a positive into a negative. We should go straight into the positives of choice, and find ways to introduce choice into national policies.
Did Islam not teach us to be fair? If fairness means putting things where they rightly belong, surely the most rightful thing to do is to allow Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Baha’is and so on to learn about their own religion, because after all, they have paid for those services through their taxes. Is it fair to force them to pay taxes to ensure Muslim children get Islamic education, but at the same time depriving children of other religion from learning theirs?
Let us translate the Islamic value of choice into giving true choice to parents – give them the choice to decide what religion their children will study in schools. This should not be dictated by the state, especially when the diktat is unfair to those of other religions.
Let us go to a second example. Let us look at how to ensure consumers pay the lowest prices for the best products. Surely protecting the consumers and ensuring that consumers get the best deal is a very Islamic thing to do. How do we ensure consumers get the best deal? The answer is by providing a guarantee for choice and competition in the market place, by removing government intervention in the markets, and by allowing traders to compete with others freely to give consumers the best value for money.
We have seen how government interventions only result in cronyism. State interference in the marketplace must be removed, and the role of the state in the market place must be limited. Let us open up our markets for traders, so that they have to compete to give best value for money. Who will benefit? The consumers, of course!
Let us allow the Islamic values of competing to do good (fastabikul khairat) to also operate in the market place. This 'invisible hand' will push traders, in their quest to attract consumers, to do good for the consumers, by striving to provide consumers with the best value for money, even though the traders themselves may not be intending to do so.
Let us look at a third example - the New Economic Policy. I know many Islamists try to justify this pro-Malay policy by saying that the Malays need help the most, and therefore they must be assisted. I don’t know how these Islamists sleep at night because if they truly believe Malays need special treatment because they are all poor, they are either lying or are naïve. The reality is, there are Indians, Chinese, Malays, Ibans, Kadazans, Orang Asli, and many more who are also poor and are in need of help.
Islam is a fair religion, and there is nothing more fair than abolishing the NEP that favours only one skin-colour, and introduce a scheme to assist everyone who is in need. Yes, perhaps it should be done gradually. But there should be a clear target and we should develop a timetable towards that aim.
It baffles me to see our Muslim politicians battling each other to argue how Malays are still poor and that the NEP is still needed. This is like arguing that they have failed to do what they were elected to do. And the Malay voters are even more ridiculous. They keep on electing these self-confessed, failed politicians!
What could be more Islamic than campaigning for the abolishing of the NEP, towards the creation of a policy that truly helps those in need, regardless or race and religion? If “adil” means putting things where they rightly belong, then the most rightful thing to do with the NEP is to put it into the rubbish-bin.
I can’t really go into the details of each policy area as this would require more time and space that this short occasion. But my main point is, we should move away from debates on race and religion, and start talking about really substantive policy issues.
The Muslim Malays must grow up. This is not just a Malay or Muslim country. This is our country and you can see the diversity of our population as soon as you venture outside your own house. We have to realise that when people talk about Malay rights, it is not necessarily because they want to threaten the Malays, but it is because they want to improve the country as a whole.
So, let me conclude by saying this. I am a Malaysian Muslim. I consider myself an Islamist who believe in classical liberal values. I live in England where I am a minority. I know it is not easy being in the minority. When you speak up, some (not all) of the majority says that you shouldn’t punch above your weight. When you try to make constructive proposals, some (not all) of the majority say you are trying to change their country. But, in all honesty, all that you want to do is to make the country better for everyone, not just for yourself. Somehow, because you are a minority, you are looked at with suspicion.
That is why I am urging every Muslim to make Islam truly a blessing for all Malaysians by not going too much into emotive issues. And this is equally applicable to people of all religions. We all should stop deliberately stirring up emotions, and we should move towards debating policy issues using the moral values of our religions, if you really want to use religion as the basis of your thinking.
Let us stop debating and sensationalising things. Let us walk away from debates that appeal only to the emotions. Instead, let us debate policy issues, and appeal to the intellect. Let us debate things that really make a difference to the lives of everyone in this beloved country of ours. Let us think about how to introduce policies that can liberate the people from the grip of the state. Let us together find ways to give back freedom and liberty to the people, socially, economically and politically, while at the same time holding true to the values of our religions.
And, especially to Muslims, let us go back to the values of Islam that promote fairness, freedom and liberty, not the centralising and socialistic tendencies of some Islamists factions.
31 comments:
Hmmmm "liberal muslim" ? Or just liberals.
If the definition of "liberal" still held on the hand of few that claim to be themselves as the sole speaker, it is not liberal.
--------
IMHO, the real problem are ruling entities trying to monopolies the "rights of interpretation" to seek control. And we are not stranger of it, George Orwell already told us in Animal Farms.
OTH.
In the Tao philosophy and Buddhism Mahayana teaching, the main requirement are to seek self-awareness than follow blindly. Both has aware the danger of misguide and abuse of word/books/sutra by others.
The bible has state "False Prophets". Quran also has similar say. Alas, those with power always claims themselves as the "true guidance", true follower.
Moo_t,
I think you must read the whole speech of Wan Saiful to fully understand his viewpoints.
I believed his view is rational and logical. Wan Saiful is much respected.
Mave, his asserted values are not liberating. I have little interests in wasting time going over those ever rehashed materials.
An idealist view - I don't see it being practised anywhere.
The Mid East countries also have layers of society ( him terminology )that hold fast to their advantages / preferences and do not show any willingness to do away with it. That is human nature.
It is much to ask that man do away with his bestial instincts.
"It is funny that in the UK, where Muslims are the minority, they feel they need to be defensive about Islam, but you also see the same thing in a country like Malaysia, where Muslims are in the majority. Muslims in Malaysia also feel that they need to be defensive about Islam, even though they are the majority. "
My hypothesis is that minority Muslims in UK feel a need to defend in view of perceptions of terrorists. Hence, there is a need to make society aware that the religious misuse is the act of a small minority.
In Malaysia, the majority Muslims feel a need to defend because they are aware of the larger misuse ?
Is Wan Saiful right? I am not sure since i am not Muslim...
But compare to those "politikus" in Malaysia, he gained my respect...
Can "tikus" read about it and think bout it????
Best wishes to our country...
It can be done, it can be practised. People just need to learn to accept and respect each other's choices and beliefs. The problem with our country is everyone is selfish. Everyone has their own agenda. Everyone wants everything to be done according to how they want it.
If everyone thinks that this is rubbish, that this idealism is nothing but a waste of time and space, then nothing will be done...
Maybe it is difficult to change people's mindset.. but it is not impossible and we have to start somewhere...
Wits0,
You may not have grasp the logical expressions of Wan Saiful.
I agree with Hopeful Pessimist's viewpoint.
Jefus,
I don't think it's idealistic. Wan Saiful's view and suggestions are pragmatic and rational.
Dazed & Confused,
We have a need to defend when under pressure or forced to, where the risks of not defending could result in consequences that we would not want.
In the West, where the Muslims are minority and where their religion-specific needs are not met or are being threatened, then they had to declare an open stand in defence of their beliefs, or to secure specific functional rights.
Here in Malaysia, the nation was declared as an Islamic State but the Muslim leaders are so fragile and confused within themselves pertaining to Islamic Values, and many of those who could not secure political power and position have to resort to religious position to serve as means to their ends, and it gets ostensible authority because their statements are made in the name of God as if mandated by God himself.
Boon,
Your stand on this matter is upright and fair.
Hopeful Pessimist,
I share your viewpoint and I believed you have much insights on the contentual and contextual of the speech.
first demand for right of attire-headscraves, time for prayers. then they demand for place to worship and mosque to be built. then and again, they demand islamic banking. after all these, they WILL demand law to suit islam - be it sharia or hudud. Islam is not MERE religion they will say, it is "WAY OF LIFE", and unlike christian, buddhist, etc, islam is political. we're in 21st century and not in inquisition era, do we see countries with christian, buddhist law ? but we see countries like saudi, taliban and iran (and malaysia) with islam law! i'm not surprise if country like UK pay serious attention on islam compare with other religion.
correction: Malays are not necessarily Muslims - that's absolutely not true. malays are muslim, coz to become malay you must be muslim. e.g our ex-pm!
Next, they will demand that they be protected by a Malaysian-style NEP for the next 100,000 years
Denzook,
You are somewhat right; the Malays are Muslims by law, in Malaysia but not elsewhere.
and about the author, i don't understand when he wrote I am a Malaysian Muslim. I consider myself an Islamist who believe in classical liberal values. I live in England where I am a minority. what a joke - he claimed he's minority - he should say himself as foreigner (or expat?) instead. Is he implying that if he's christian he's better treated and not treated with suspicious? compare his saudaras in malaysia treated other race as kaum pendatang even they have mykad, born and bred in malaysia........
quote: You are somewhat right; the Malays are Muslims by law, in Malaysia but not elsewhere. well, don't think ppl in UK and US can distinguish btw malay and chinese - they see it as malaysians instead. so it is not somewhat but absolutely right, malays are muslim.....
Denzook,
Wan Saiful is stating a fact; the fact that he is a Malaysian Muslim residing in UK and of which the Muslim community in UK are a minority in a country that is largely Christian populated.
Read his views and statements with an open mind and we will be able to understand the viewpoints of another scholar.
It is ok to be critical of viewpoints if we differ in thoughts and doctrines.
Denzook, the British reads news and blogs and are quite well informed generally, although not absolutely.
I have many British and Australian friends who are now calling me a Malaysian Chinese; no more as Malaysians as when we were college mates and colleagues. They understand our political scenarios and dogmas.
Mave - thanks for putting up this post. Unfortunately, as some of your commenters have exhibited, the mere mention of Islam conjures all kinds of misgivings. And looking at the Malaysian situation, I do not blame them.
I for one would agree that the problem is not with Islam, per se, but with those who profess to the religion, i.e. the Muslims. But the root cause of this Muslimophobia, IMHO, is not religion, per se, but religion being used as a political tool, whether up-front, or clandestinely. It's politics that's the root of all evil, not Islam, or any other system of faith.
The NEP (as it is today), for instance, is far from Islamic, as has been pointed out - if it were, assistance and special privileges would be accorded to ALL Malaysians in need, and not only to those fitting a narrow (and many times unfitting) demographic. And yet, "Islam" (in quotes for a reason) is used to justify the perpetuation of this unfair policy.
I for one, being a Muslim, totally support the separation of religion and state. Religion, especially only one religion, has no place in formulation of national policies, especially when narrow, self-serving interpretations of said religion are used as formulation justifications.
Fairness, for example, is a universal moral value that is not exclusive to only Islam, but I daresay, a key tenet of all religions. And therein lies the problem - the claim of exclusivity, whereas just and efficient public policies can as easily be formulated if they were based on universal values, and not only on those purported to come from one religious source alone.
My apologies for this rambling comment... But the key thing here is that there is a whole heck of a lot of re-evalutation to be done - on personal, social, political and governmental levels. And at the end of the day (and this comment), isn't equitable treatment what every human being seeks, after all?
Thanks Mave.
---------------
denzook, I'm sorry, I will have to disagree. Not all malays are muslims and vice versa. We should stop looking at people's skin colour, religion and race and focus more on them as a person.
And why is it that the mere mention of Islam gets everyone all worked up? Islam is a religion, it's the same as Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity. The basic teachings are the same.
The quality of a belief is not determined by what those who profess the belief do or not do. Just because people who sincerely claim to be religious do bad things, it does not follow that the religion is bad.
Forget the "hollier than thou" attitude...
Most faith-related problem we're facing nowadays had nothing to do with religion. It's just pure and simple human greed. The greed for control and power.
Religion/faith just makes one hell of a compelling and noble excuse.
"Islam is a religion" - to non-muslim like you and me and average joe, it appears so. but to muslim, it's way of life, and it clearly describe in quran. that's why we come into islamic banking, hudud law, sharia law, etc..... it becomes political. I'm not against islam as religion, but the prob is unlike christian and buddhist and other religion, we have islam dictates punishment for murder, robbing, stealing, raping, finance activity and even quiting.....
Walski69.
The root cause isn't Islamophobia nor Muslimophobia, nor religion, nor politics. It's perception formed by empirical observation of abuses and discrimination mandated in the name of religion and Allah, to serve the interest of those who utilizes it, as a means towards an end of the leaders who had access to such power and influence.
Somehow, many had decided to close their mind and chose to remain calcified in their thoughts and will.
The NEP was a good policy; it was design to eradicate poverty and enhances the living standards of those who are in need of positive assistance. At that time in 1970, the majority of the Malays were backward economically and commercially. Their way of life is much of farmers and fishermen and they lack commercial knowledge to partake in business management. They lack capital and experience. As such, it was necessary for a good government to enforce positive and affirmative actions to drive the change. However, the NEP was not intended to exclude all others of different races; it was silent and since the Indians and the Chinese did not understand the privilege offered and the opportunity offered, largely due to the fact that MCA and MIC leaders were major participants in commerce and business and were making tonnes of monies, the ordinary Chinese and Indian citizens were ignorant of the fact that they were such assistance given by the government and it is entirely up to their political representatives to lobby and secure the financial assistance. This, they did not do.
Over time, since UMNO is the only political party championing the Malays, without any resistance from the other races, and without any objections, the exercise and practices becomes a rightful privilege and becomes a legal right by convention and implied concurrence.
In the passing years that followed, UMNO becomes more and more greedy and built up a bigger and larger stomach. This was when Tengku Razaleigh was made the Finance Minister and later, Daim Zainuddin was brought into UMNO to spearhead the build up of a coterie of Malay multi-millionaires and billionaires with the mission of making Malaysian Malays the first breed of Fortune 500 billionaires; the 1st Malaysia Boleh Vision and Mission. Remember BMF, MMC tin ore ordeal and Guthrie Dawnraid at the London Commodity Exchange.
There is generally no Islamophobias except the fear of the Taliban-style Islamization which denotes extremism, which was a direct result of Saud-Americano economic collaboration. The Israel-Philistine conflict was needed to justify American's military presence in Saudi which was intended to protect the Saud family against Arab insurgency within the kingdom and suppress any possible attempt to usurp power from the Kingdom's ruler.
Politics can do nothing with religion but religion can take control over politics. So, the argument that religion was used as a means towards an end by politicians is empirical and real.
Walski, your points of contention and the contextual explanation are good and justified. I agree with you generally except your 1st para which you state about the conjuring of Islam and all kind of misgivings towards Islam. Generally, nobody feared Islam and in China, we have millions of believers of Islam and nobody in China nor the govt feared Islam. Instead they feared the Dalai Lama's influence. But in Malaysia, we feared those Muslims who uses Islam as a means to achieve the end which are generally discriminatory to all others, and the Muslims are not excluded from these imposing discriminations.
Hopeful,
Many do not understand that religion and God was a necessary towards a way of life. Buddhism is a way of life, Christianity is a way of life as profess by Jesus himself, and Hinduism is also a way of life towards eternity. Islam is but the same philosophical and ideological religion of Abraham, Moses and Noah which consist of the teachings and thoughts from the Old testament.
You are right; the basic fundamentals of all religion is the same; the believers and the interpretations are not; for they are human desires.
Helen,
You are right and I agree.
Denzook,
All religion exist to provide the concept towards "a way of life"; you can read it from the Bible, the Quran, Buddhist teachings, Hinduism, etc.
Mave, you're right, I cannot bear to read any more those convoluted stuffs and therefore is uninterested in his argument.
But you're wrong to say that "the basic fundamentals of all religion is the same". You may have to tear yourself away from the imponderable that one that denies the Golden Rule of Man is not the same as others.
There's a gulf between reality and political correctness which your druther has cast a veil of idealism upon.
Walski is rare blogger with much better understanding than other peudo types. Kudos.
For the bottom line, it may be said that until ppl are willing to accept criticism deserved and think outside the box, no progress is indicated or possible.
come across this book in popular bookstore in sg - The Assassins: The Story of Medieval Islam's Secret Sect author by bartlett that shows how islam influence in political.
quote: it took 3 centuries for christianity to establish in roman empire, but 3 quarter of a century for islam to expand from india to east europe.....
islam is a political doctrine masquerading as a spiritual path.
Jed Yoong,
Islam is a religion, not a political doctrine.
Mave, a religion is a Persuasion, not expected to function as a Compulsion. Therefore to say that anti apostasy is justified makes it a NON Persuasion.
Wits0,
Religion was a discovery by men to look towards a life beyond, and largely was needed as a truism in a society which by nature in itself is selfish and geared towards individual interests which caused much of the insecurities.
As religion is made by man and not the law of the land, it is persuasive in nature. But where the doctrines of a religion is made the law of the land, it becomes and function as an "Ought" which means any act that is inconsistent to the doctrine will thus face some form of sanction as stipulated.
As such, the Syariah Law is an example of a religious "Ought".
Denzook,
That book is a dramatic and sinister story. It is about the Ismaili Sect whose activities has them fighting with the Turks or rival Muslim sects. Due to strict Ismaili beliefs on unity and obedience to their Imam, the Assassins devoted most of their time to taking down the Sunni Turks whom they considered heretics and usurpers.
Bartlett's study reveals how the Assassin myths have developed over time, and how these myths continue to have an impact on the popular imagination.
Hahaha, Mave, its "the doctrine of a religion" that makes a religion what it becomes.
All religions, belief systems have their own doctrines but these doctrines are infused with unreasonable dogmas, they ceased to be anything persuasive and the whole system becomes cultic and compulsive as any detrimental absolutist ideology.
It's not "Ought", Mave, it's about "must obey", or else.
Post a Comment