Muslim Heretics Conference

The seizure of Bibles by Malaysian customs officers, the activities of the morality police that spy on the private lives of Malaysians, the banning of books that are deemed ‘a threat’ to Islam and Muslims, etc. have all prompted Malaysians to ask: ‘What sort of modern, progressive Islam is this?’
And so, with the dissolution of the Malaysian Parliament on Wednesday, Malaysia is heading to the elections once again. The precise date of the 12th General Elections of Malaysia is yet to be known, but it is clear that this will be one of the more hotly contested elections that the country has witnessed.
Over the past two years alone, a string of controversies have stirred the Malaysian public’s interest in the country’s corridors of power. The highly publicised case of the murder of a Mongolian model has dragged many a famous name (including that of politicians) into the limelight; the revelation of irregularities in the appointment of senior judges has brought the judiciary into close focus; the destruction of a number of Hindu temples has aroused the anger of many Malaysian Hindus; while the plethora of on-going marriage and divorce cases between Muslims and non-Muslims has added to the widening of the gulf between the religious and ethnic communities in the country.
What is more, the spate of public demonstrations — many of which took place in the capital, Kuala Lumpur — would suggest that sections of the Malaysian public are more politically aware and politically literate than before. The BERSIH campaign calling for free and fair elections, for instance, was a movement that is rooted in Malaysia’s civil society and which cut across the racial, ethnic and religious divides which have always been the salient markers of the Malaysian political landscape. Conversely the demonstrations organised by the Hindu Rights Action Force (HINDRAF) would suggest that communitarian and sectarian political remains a defining factor of Malaysian politics till today.
All eyes will now be on the administration of Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who faces the tough prospect of retaining the public’s support for a second term.
Badawi came to power following the resignation of former Prime Minister Tun Mahathir Mohamad, who led — and in many ways transformed — Malaysia for more than two decades.
In the immediate aftermath of Mahathir’s unannounced resignation that stunned the nation, Badawi was chosen as his successor. Yet when Badawi came to power with an enormous mandate in the elections of 2004 (with one of the highest approval ratings ever given to any Malaysian leader) he promised a wide range of reforms that included the promise of greater accountability, transparency and a thorough overhaul of some of the key institutions of government including the civil service, judiciary and police force.
Four years on, there seems to be the widespread perception that the Badawi administration has failed to deliver. Despite earlier promises that the long-standing cases of alleged corruption and nepotism between government and the corporate sector were to be resolved, no major cases have been dealt with till now. Instead the Malaysian public has been witness to a number of embarrassing revelations about the murky dealings within the governmental system instead.
Another area where Badawi seems weak is his stand on Islam, which was encapsulated in his vision of a modern, progressive, ‘Islam Hadari’. While admittedly Badawi has expressed the keen desire to see Islam understood and practiced in a universal, inclusive and tolerant manner, the realities on the ground would suggest that the religious authorities in the country have not taken heed of any of the universal principles he has espoused all along. The seizure of Bibles by Malaysian customs officers, the activities of the morality police that spy on the private lives of Malaysians, the banning of books that are deemed ‘a threat’ to Islam and Muslims, etc. have all prompted Malaysians to ask: ‘What sort of modern, progressive Islam is this?’
But Badawi’s greatest challenge to date has been the pervading presence of his former mentor Tun Mahathir himself. More than the danger of increased communitarian and sectarian politics, more than the challenge of a resurgent Islamic party (PAS) waiting to regain control of the Muslim-majority states, more than the challenge posed by the new generation of politically-conscious urban civil society activists and dedicated professional classes, it is the dominating presence of Tun Mahathir that looms over the Badawi government at the moment.
When Badawi promised a new era of transparency and openness, many observers of Malaysian politics noted that this was a departure from the ways of the Mahathir administration. To some extent it has to be said that Malaysia’s civil society and media have indeed opened up, with issues being discussed in the public domain as never before.
But this has also incurred a cost to the Badawi government, and it has irked those who were more comfortable with the ways of the Mahathir era when governance was strictly a top-down unilateral process with less public participation.
The down-sizing of several mammoth projects that were initiated during the Mahathir period, the revelation of corruption and abuse of power dating back to the 1980s, the attempt to introduce some degree of accountability to the workings of the police and security forces; etc have been seen as a means of overturning many of the developments made during Mahathir’s time. The former Prime Minister has further upped the stakes by publicly stating that Badawi was perhaps not the best man to replace him, and to suggest that Badawi may eventually be a ‘one-term’ Prime Minister.
This, then, is one of the core issues that is being fought out in the coming elections of Malaysia. While the Badawi government is pressed to take on the opposition parties and to address a host of demands from a wide section of Malaysia’s now vocal civil society, the real — and perhaps only — threat to Badawi’s position in power comes from the old guard of the ruling elite and governmental system itself, who do not relish the prospect of real, long term institutional change, reform and modernisation.
The 12th General Elections of Malaysia will therefore determine whether the reform process continues, or whether institutional inertia will win the day.
Dr Farish A Noor is a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University of Singapore; and one of the founders of the www.othermalaysia.org research site

 

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan - Comment: Between change and inertia —Farish A Noor

Islam and competing in doing good

Jennie S. Bev

Indonesia is a country with three legal systems: civil (continental), Islamic and adat (customary). Above all, Indonesia is said to be a country based on the concept of rule of law, which is reflected in the 1945 Constitution. But there are also gray areas throughout, and this unique environment serves as a fertile breeding ground for multitudes of interpretations in legal, political and cultural domains.

Based on the rule of law, no one is above the law and the truth occupies the highest form of intent. The continental legal system in Indonesia, which originated from the Dutch imperialism era, is based on this principle.

However, according to Seyyed Hossein Nasr, an Islamic scholar who was educated at MIT and Harvard, in The Heart of Islam (pg. 288), "The rights of God stand above the rights of human beings."

It is clear that these two systems interpret justice based on different standards. In Islam, there is an absolute body outside the realm of human beings, which is called God, whose final verdicts can never be contested. In short, the Islamic judicial system acknowledges the concepts of absolutism and absolute power.

In a country with three legal systems, whose historical origins and notions of justice differ significantly from one another, it would take a group of people with mantic capacities to push the country forward in light of being accepted as a part of international society with universal humanitarian standards. Because unless this occurs brazenly in continuum, Indonesia might need to accept the fact that it may degrade itself into the darkness.

A few Islamic scholars and activists have taken their stance in showing the world how Islam is a tolerant religion and that Islamic laws and jurisprudence are adaptable in modern society. Other than our own Abdurrahman "Gus Dur" Wahid, Azyumardi Azra and a few pluralistic ulema and scholars, professor of law at Emory University, Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im, and a research fellow at the Lokahi Foundation in Switzerland, Tariq Ramadan, who is nicknamed the "Martin Luther of Islam", are two other examples of outspoken moderates whose voices are heard by the world, including leaders in Western countries.

The world needs more people like them to break the silence of the moderate Muslim majority and to embrace the notions of diversity and tolerance, which the Koran has been preaching to the world but are rarely heard.

It would not be fair for Islam as an institution to be "represented" in the world by noisy fundamentalists and extremists. Because, after all, most Muslims long to live in peaceful coexistence with others.

Tariq Ramadan is one exemplary moderate scholar and preacher. In his book Western Muslims and the Future of Islam (pg. 202), he encourages interfaith and interreligious dialogue, as he believes that it is how God wants the totality of humankind to behave.

Ramadan explains, "If there were no differences between people, if power were in the hands of one group alone (one nation, one race, one religion), the earth would be corrupt because human beings need others to limit their impulsive desire for expansion and domination. So, just as diversity is the source of our test, the balance of power is a requirement for our destiny."

This statement is so beautiful that I would contemplate its profound meanings every night before going to bed. Islam is, indeed, a great religion for acknowledging the rainbow of humankind in a balanced mind-and-heart perspective.

Realistically speaking, back to Indonesia, the gray areas in the intertwining legal systems have proven to be very costly. This was evident when Home Minister Mardiyanto did not have a second thought in declaring that the government did not see any need to revise the 600 sharia-based and sharia-inspired bylaws, regardless of the catastrophic consequences that might follow, including opening a Pandora’s box to an unjust society and to the end of a democratic republic.

This is quite bothersome because both the people and the religion of peace itself are greatly affected.

A good analysis was put forth by Prof. Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im in Toward an Islamic Reformation: Civil Liberties, Human Rights, and International Law (pg. 8-9): "If historical Shari’a is applied today, the population of Muslim countries would lose the most significant benefits of secularization. Even Muslim men, who are the only full citizens of an Islamic state under Sharia, stand to lose some of their fundamental constitutional rights if Shari’a is restored as the public law of the land."

Under sharia public law, freedom of belief, expression and association of Muslim men would be greatly affected by the law of apostasy and the ruler’s powers.

This is a valid argument, as Indonesian analysts point out that substance-wise the sharia-inspired bylaws go against the democratic principles contained in the 1945 Constitution. Articles 28D and 28I state everyone should be free from discrimination and entitled to equal treatment before the law.

An-Na’im also offered a solution that we all need to ponder upon: "The only way to reconcile these competing imperatives for change in the public law of Muslim countries is to develop a version of Islamic public law which is compatible with modern standards of constitutionalism, criminal justice, international law, and human rights."

While An-Na’im gave examples of Islamic countries, which Indonesia is clearly not, Indonesia should be able to grasp the insightful statements as a way to resolve the gray areas between national civil law and Islamic public law.

The 1945 Constitution, in fact, was the brainchild of our founding fathers, most of whom were well-educated and broad-minded moderate Muslims. Thus, in the case of Indonesia as a modern nation, there is no need to reformulate another version of Islamic public law.

For Indonesia to stand tall and be accepted as a member of the international community, which is dignified and democratic with high humanitarian standards, we need to remember that God intended to create communities so we all can compete in doing good for one another and to be each other’s check-and-balance. After all, the world does not revolve around Indonesia; Indonesia revolves around the world.

The writer is a columnist, a former law lecturer and an adjunct professor based in Northern California. She graduated from University of Indonesia Law School. She can be found at JennieSBev.com.

The Jakarta Post - Islam and competing in doing good

Let’s listen to the quiet man

Never mind the firebrands. If anyone is capable of representing Muslims, it’s Malaysia’s Abullah Badawi

Alex Bigham

 

If you ever wonder who may have the credibility to be a leader of the diverse global Muslim community, there may be a tendency to consider the firebrands who attract headlines.

Would it be Hassan Nasrallah, whose campaign against Israel made him the pin-up of choice from Cairo to Marrakech? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose defiance of UN sanctions and bellicose rhetoric is popular outside Iran? Or even Osama bin Laden, the self styled "Sheikh", whose hate-filled campaign of terror is seen by some as a just jihad against the hegemony of the west?

But such poster-boys of hate reflect reality less accurately than they do prejudices against the Muslim community. It should go without saying that the majority of Muslims, whether they live in Karachi or Kuala Lumpur are moderates. And one of the leaders of this moderate majority is the prime minister of Malaysia, ">">Abdullah Badawi.

Precisely because he is a quiet moderate, many will have heard nothing of his leadership of the Muslim community. But by the middle of March, Badawi will have completed Malaysia’s four-year stint as chairman of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the second largest intergovernmental organisation after the UN.

It comprises 57 Muslim states, ranging from Saudi Arabia and Indonesia to Morocco, and describes itself as "the collective voice of the Muslim world".

Malaysia goes to the polls on March 8 2008. The west should take a little bit more notice of this moderate Muslim leader because Badawi, as prime minister and chairman of the OIC, has been playing an important role in building bridges between the Muslim world and the west, and in trying to make real improvements to the lives of people living in Islamic countries.

His contribution - like his personality - has been made in a modest, thoughtful and deliberate way, but that should not detract from the efforts he has put in.

Unlike Iain Duncan Smith, he is a "quiet man" politician who has actually achieved something.

Another stereotype that is important to break down is that the Muslim world is populated by universally oil-rich, resource-rich countries. Of the 57 countries in the OIC, some 31 are classified as among the world’s least developed; the bottom five of the list are all Muslim countries.

Together, the OIC accounts for 20% of the world’s population but only 5% of global GDP.

Badawi refuses to accept as "inevitable" that unemployment rates in Muslim countries are double the global average, that nearly one third of the populations are illiterate, and that women continue to face many disadvantages.
Quite apart from the increasing importance of trade from and among Muslim nations as a result of globalisation, Badawi’s argument has been that the cause of much of the social unrest, terrorism and extremism lies in the poverty, ignorance and squalor of much of the population of the Muslim world. Tackling these threats to peace, progress and stability have been central to Badawi’s tenure at the OIC.

As a result, the OIC agreed a new development agenda in December 2005 with the signing of the Makkah Declaration. The declaration focused firmly on the need for economic and social development in the Muslim world to help resolve the challenges of poverty, illiteracy and backwardness, and to promote quality of life issues, prosperity, peace and stability. The Makkah Declaration is a success for Badawi’s moderate and mainstream brand of progressive Islam.

That said, Badawi has not had it all his own way. Insufficient progress has been made towards achieving the declaration’s objectives. Of course, there are criticisms that he should have gone further and faster on anti-corruption measures. Badawi needs to renew his push toward eliminating corruption - something that features in his election manifesto.

Indeed there are ongoing concerns about corruption, in the police, for example. But compared with its neighbours, such as Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines, Malaysia has made progress.

Addressing the annual meeting of the World Islamic Economic Forum (WIEF), held in Kuala Lumpur last year, Badawi asserted that there is a need for a clear and shared commitment to eradicate poverty, illiteracy and unemployment across the Islamic world.
Badawi was the driving force behind the creation of the WIEF, which brings together government, business leaders, academics and other leaders to promote greater commercial links between Muslim states and identify best practice in business development and trade.

The emergence of a new economic agenda for the Muslim world rests on three pillars, according to Badawi: enhancing economic and commercial links within the Muslim world, advancing a modern progressive interpretation of Islam, and - crucially - improving cooperation between the Muslim world and the west.
But Badawi has also been at pains to make the case that development of a new economic agenda also requires reform within the Muslim world and the emergence of an Islam with a progressive worldview.

This is not a one-way street. There is a strong recognition that in order to gain improved cooperation with the west, there has to be an understanding in the west that Islamic countries should not be stereotyped, when some are modern, progressive and even liberal democracies.
In his opening address to the WIFE, in May 2007, Badawi took a stand by saying that poor governance was still a regrettable feature of many Muslim countries. Quite bravely, he argued that tackling corruption and the abuse of civil and political liberties are central to creating a literate and informed society.

"[The] Muslim world will progress farthest when it unlocks and develops this potential, through quality education at all levels," he argued, stressing that this "will never be achieved if some Muslims continue to neglect the right to education and work for women".
Badawi’s vision of a progressive Islam has also been at the heart of his engagement with the west. He advocates a theory known as Islam Hadhari, or "civilisational Islam", which argues for a positive relationship between Islam and economic and technological development.

In January, Badawi was a key participant in the Alliance of Civilisations forum, hosted by the Spanish prime minister, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, in Madrid.
As Dr Farhan Ahmad Nizami, director of the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, has said, Malaysia’s leadership in this dialogue is crucial:

This is one of the most important issues of the modern world: better understanding between the Islamic world and the west. What is needed is really the building of bridges between Muslim and western societies, bridges which are strong enough to carry the weight of differences and that can cover the divide that separates them. It is therefore important that a prosperous, self-confident nation like Malaysia is playing a pivotal role in this dialogue.

It was this argument that Badawi made to the international community at Davos recently. He used the opportunity of a shared platform with Tony Blair and other leaders to make a proposal that there should be a new era of building bridges between east and west, that it was crucial to develop concrete initiatives for inter-faith cooperation, and that only with real partnership rather than rhetoric could the world hope to tackle extremist tendencies.
Such leadership can be dangerous in the face of a radical Islamist minority viewpoint - of the kind espoused by Nasrallah, bin Laden and the like. The bold and imaginative approach taken by Badawi to build bridges with the west, drive a progressive Islam, and tackle corruption and poor governance in the Muslim world, has not always made him friends at home. In fact, in the election campaign he is currently fighting, the challenge comes from an alliance of opposition parties led by a conservative Islamic party committed to introducing Sharia law.

Despite this, Badawi has stuck firmly and resolutely to his own vision of Malaysia as a modern, progressive Islamic country, a multiracial, multicultural and multiparty democracy that looks outwards to the rest of the world and rejects the insularity and isolationism of the extremists.

It is time we in the west recognised and supported this brand of moderate leadership.

Comment is free: Let’s listen to the quiet man