Religious Freedom and Uncivil Islam
By Luthfi Assyaukanie
The last minutes cancellation of an international inter-faith conference in mid-May is a culmination of the crisis of religious freedom in Malaysia and itself is the real manifestation of the paradox of oft-campaigned Islam Hadhari. Since the last two years, under PM Badawi, Malaysian government enthusiastically promotes for the concept of “civil Islam” or Islam Hadhari, emphasizing that Malaysia is a moderate Muslim country which may become a role-model for other Muslim countries in harmony, progress, and economic development.
The cancellation was decried by some Malaysian Muslim leaders. No less than the former Deputy Prime Minister, Anwar Ibrahim, raised his voice, considering it as “a mockery of the government’s claims of being a moderate Muslim administration” (Malaysia Today, 16/5). The conference was supposed to be an attempt at minimizing the worsening tension between Islam and the minority groups in Malaysia. However, as it was called off, it only adds up the long list of religious disharmony in the country.
The relationship between Islam and minority groups in Malaysia has been declining since the last five years. Ironically enough that this situation takes place along with the government’s ardent campaign of Islam Hadhari. Two out of the ten principles of Islam Hadhari are “Freedom and independence to the people” and “protection of the rights of minority groups.” Yet the great problem that Malaysian government currently faces is the issue of freedom and religious rights.
In January this year, Islamic officials arrested a Muslim woman and sent her for rehabilitation. Her “mistake” was to have a non-Muslim husband. She was forced to divorce from her Hindu husband and asked to keep her baby aloof from the father in order to avoid of being converted to Hinduism.
In March, R. Subashini, a Hindu wife whose husband converted to Islam failed to have a divorce from Civil Court and instead was forced to proceed to the Shariah Court. According to the constitution, Shariah Court is created to manage Muslims’ affairs, while non-Muslims would go to Civil or Federal Court. By going to the Shariah Court, Ms Subashini was threatened to loose her rights to get custody of her children.
Another case, on 28 April, Islamic authorities raided a house belong to a couple of a Hindu husband and a Muslim wife. The authorities forced them to separate as they were charged to have had an illegal marriage. The authorities also took their 3-year old daughter in order to prevent her of being converted to a Hindu.
These recent cases add up to the mounting problem of the religious freedom in Malaysia. Other minority groups, particularly Christians, have also suffered various cases. The most wide-covered one was the case of Lina Joy, a Muslim woman who converted to Christian. Ms Joy was charged as “murtad” (apostate) and according to the Islamic law, an apostate is condemned to death.
All these cases are certainly the cogent evidence of the paradox of Islam Hadhari, which Abdullah Badawi tries to “export” to other Muslim countries.
Inside Malaysia itself, the concept seems to have no strong roots, despite Badawi’s claim that it is being accepted as an ideal model by all Muslims in the country. The problem is that there is no clear definition and government’s commitment to the concept.
For the secular and progressive Muslims, Islam Hadhari is an oxymoron since many Muslims in Malaysia still believe in the superiority of Islam over other religions. It is impossible to create a tolerant environment if one group feels more superior to others. In any case, Badawi’s Islam Hadhari seems to be against the spirit of the classical model of Islamic civilization, where dialogue and mutual respect became its distinct character.
This was particularly expressed by Anwar Ibrahim when he referred the recent cancellation of inter-faith conference as against the spirit of civilized Islam. Ibrahim said that “a dialogue can enable us to quell the tensions that arise from our differences. Islam has always enjoined Muslims to engage in dialogue with other religions, from the Abbasids in Baghdad to the Andalucians in Cordoba” (Malaysia Today, 16/5).
For the progressive Muslims, the model of Civilized Islam is certainly the golden era of the classical Islam, especially in Baghdad and in Cordova, where religious harmony and tolerance took place. Here comes the irony: for many Muslims in Malaysia, the role model of Islam is not Baghdad or Cordova, but “the pious first generation” or what they used to call “al-salaf al-salih,” from which the ideology of Salafism takes its root.
The later generation of Islam, including those who lived Baghdad and Cordova in the golden age, was rather considered as an aberration of Islam. It is of a common knowledge that many Muslims are against philosophy and speculative thinking, one of the most significant symbol of the Islamic golden era in the past.
Accordingly, the same spirit is demonstrated by the staunchest group of Malaysia’s political opposition, the Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS). PAS leaders often launch their criticism to Badawi’s concept of Islam Hadhari on the ground that it is too heavily emphasizing on the worldly aspects of life, neglecting the spiritual aspects exemplified by the early life of Islam.
Like many Salafis, the PAS leaders would prefer the life of the Prophet’s era as a model of the Civilized Islam rather than the later one represented by the Abbasids of Baghdad or the Ummayads of Cordova.
A clear definition and position of Islam Hadhari is extremely needed here in order to decide in which position the Malaysian government is going to stand. It seems that the lack of this conceptual ground and the commitment to its implementation that create a lot of paradox in Badawi’s Islam Hadhari.
On the one hand, Malaysian rulers want to make their country modern, progressive, and tolerant, but on the other hand, however, it has been powerless to secure civil liberty and religious rights for its citizens.
25 October 2009, 12:11