MGG Pillai Commentary View

<< Previous || Next >>

A kerfuffle over Islam Hadhari

A kerfuffle over Islam Hadhari

By M.G.G. Pillai - Friday, October 8, 2004, 06:07 pm

THE KERFUFFLE OVER ISLAM Hadhari has left us all shell-shocked. A scatalogical comparison of Islam Hadhari with money politics on a blog, which was quickly corrected and the writer banned, raised needless political pressure, fear and doubt if the prime minister, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's reform agenda is what it says. It showed, once again, that it takes little for UMNO politicians and its acolytes to instil fear on any who differs from its worldview. The National Front (BN) government it leads, not to be outdone, rise to the bait and make it real.

But it missed the point: if the scatalogical words were replaced with genteel words, would this keruffle have risen? It would not. Underlying it, but unmentioned, is the bad blood between UMNO's spinmeister and the blog owner. He picked the issue out of context and raised into an issue of defaming Islam, which it clearly was not. When UMNO political careers are fuelled by denouncing non-Muslim denouncers of Islam, what happened is not out of the ordinary. It quickly turned, as it always does, into one of national security. The Internal Security Act was brought in to threaten those who defame Islam.

This is where the difficulty begins. What is Islam Hadhari? Is it a religion? It is not. Muslims believe Islam is the most perfect of the Abrahamaic religions, and cannot be bettered. Is it a new Muslim school of jurisprudence? No. Islam has two major branches, Sunni and Shia. The Sunni recognises four schools of jurisprudence - Maliki, Hambali, Hanafi, Shafie, named after their progenitors. The Shia has its different schools, but it does not concern us here. In Malaysia, only the Shafie school is recognised, the others tolerated so long as they do not make a show of their faith. The Shia is all but banned, but Malaysian Sunnis converting to Shia have sometimes found themselves detained under the Internal Security Act. If a man converts to Islam here it is into the Shafie school. Islam Hadhari is not an Islamic school of jurisprudence.

Is it a sect like Wahhabism, the return-to-the-fundamental faith of Sunni Islam rooted in Saudi Arabia? Wahhabism is not allowed in Malaysia, although its teachings have seeped into pratice of the Shafiee faith in Malaysia. No. If Wahhabism cannot, nor can Islam Hadhari. Is it a philosophical erudition of Islam in the modern world? No. Even those who praise it the most are hard put to define it. Is it Islam as defined by Pak Lah, this brilliant academic scholar, as defined by his spinmeister though all he has is a degree in Islamic studies and, until he became prime minister, his academic brilliance and Islamic erudition securely hidden from the outside world? No.

Is it a political philosophy? No. When the concept of philosophy is absent in the Malay milleau he lives in, and one who thinks is to be distrusted, Islam Hadhari is neither a political nor a religious philosophy. Is it a political agenda? Yes. UMNO thought it, as usual without thinking what it is, to challenge Parti Islam SeMalaysia (PAS) and its fundamentalist Islamic vision. It is to tell Malaysians that UMNO Islam is more responsive to the modern world than PAS's. One can see evidence of it in how UMNO plays up Islamic Hadhari. If it is what UMNO says it is, it would have been discussed in detail with UMNO's own religious groups, amongst whom are the best Muslim scholars in town, and allow it to be discussed in public. It is not.

It is yet another weapon in the UMNO armoury to best PAS. It was concocted by the Government's Islamic adviser, Dr Hamid Othman, and the former Grand Imam ('Imam Besar') of the National Mosque ('Masjid Negara'), Pirdaus Ismail, who now sits on the UMNO youth executive and has decided his future is not in Islam but in UMNO politics. The former prime minister, Dr Mahathir Mohamed, would have none of it. But Pak Lah slurped it up. The spin followed. And the rest, as they say, is history.

Now comes the hard questions. The BN government Pak Lah leaders is committed to removing Islam from politics. It is aimed at PAS, the only theocratic political party in Malaysia. The law forbids anyone to use Islam for any political or business purpose. The registrars of companies and societies routinely strike out names containing Muslim and Islam in names to be registered. Then how is Islam Hadhari registered? Or is it at all? Since existing laws, and the Islamic clergy, especially those aligned to the government, would object when Islam is misused in politics, why have they been silent? Is it because they are prevented from objecting to it, or do they believe that their perks of office is more important than the fate of Islam in Malaysia or even their conscience?

Having declared Islam Hadhari to be a reality, without saying what it is or how different it is from Islam, the traditional veil of silence descended upon it. It is praised sky high, and all criticism is accepted so long as it is in favour and do not deviate from its officially ordained but unexplained orthodoxy. The moment you raise unanswerable questions or comparisons with the venal world, all hell breaks loose. The distinctions are blurred, and suddenly Islam is under attack. Blood is everywhere, and when the dust settles, the casualties are all on the attacker.

The New Straits Times and Berita Harian, took up the cudgels, and bayed for blood. It was a tirade, not a news story. The government reacted swiftly. The deputy internal security minister, Noh Ahmad, said the blog comparison of Islam Hadhari and money politics defamed Islam, and promised to use the ISA on the perpetrator. He insisted Islam Hadhari is synonomous with Islam, a notion even UMNO rejects. The police should have been called in, but it was not. When asked about it, the federal CID director, Musa Hassan, said it must first investigate if Islam was defamed and by whom. Pak Lah felt obliged to enter into the debate but backed out as quickly when he saw the dangers of this vendetta disguised as a national issue. And it turned Malaysia into a laughing stock, its promise not to censor the Internet thrown into doubt, and proved only that the fear beneath the quiet calm of Malaysia in the outside world lurks a nether world of irrationality that could, for no apparent reason, erupt. Whatever kudos Pak Lah obtained for his public positions since taking office are now in doubt.

Unfortunately, this streak of irrationality is inherent in the Malay mind. The word amok is after all a Malay word. One is not surprised at what happened. What makes it worse is that it strays into the political word and what should be a localised fear is now hurtled to confuse and frighten Malaysians and foreigners. This kerfuffle is but latest attack in a series UMNO and the government it leads: not so long ago, it was malaysiakini over a similar anonymouse letter it printed. You would recall that the Information ministry called on the faithful to break their way into the malaysiakini offices. It had no case. As there is none now. At no time, was an attempt made to ask the alleged perpetrators to explain. it wanted to score points politically. All it got was a political black eye. As now.

[A lightly edited version of this appeared as my Chiaroscuro column in malaysiakini (www.malaysiakini.com) under the same title today, 08 October 2004]

M.G.G. Pillai
pillai@streamyx.com