IN this column I wish to ask one simple question. Before that I feel setting the scene is necessary. Firstly, what do I mean when I use the phrase Islamic Reform? Is it about cutting people’s hands, killing LGBTs, and stoning people? Is it about some race shouting Ketuanan Melayu or Ketuanan Arab or Ketuanan Kaum without regard for any sense of universal morality? Is it about ensuring the preservation of one kind of people of a status that seems to be beyond the reach of most mortals? Or is it about a more civilised society of Muslims living with other beings in the world, and being able to engage in a civilisational construct?
The second scenario setting is the period of the wave of Islamic Reform in Malaysia. It began in the 70s, reached a towering height in the 80s, matured in government in the 90s, changed itself into a civil force in the Reformasi age, and then … died in the second decade of the 21st century.
The third scenario setting is the philosophical construct of Islamic Reform vis-à-vis a nation building agenda. I have recorded in the following passages, quotes from a paper and speech given by one of the giants of Islamic Reform, Prof Datuk Siddiq Fadzil, recently awarded by the PH government the Maal Hijrah Personality Award. He gave the following speech in his impeccable and melodious Bahasa Melayu at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia last year and mesmerised me in the audience to a glowing silence. In his speech, he outlined his vision of Islam as a civilised and matured construct within a multiracial and multi-faith partnership of nationhood.
I have purposely left the quotes in Bahasa Melayu because, firstly, it is phrased in a most beautiful and high civilised form and secondly, I do not want to translate the wrong nuance, meaning or attitudes of the words crafted in the most intellectual and compassionate manner.
In the first quote, Siddiq Fadzil defines the nature of living with differences in a society construct:
“Budaya hidup bersama harus berpangkal dari sikap positif terhadap kepelbagaian. Seperti yang dinyatakan oleh al-Shakyh Abdu ‘Llah bin Bayyah bahawa untuk menangani masalah kepelbagaian dan pluraliti, perlu ada sikap menghormati dan menyenangkan kepelbagaian. Justeru, kepelbagaian adalah kekayaan dan keindahan.”
In this quote, to him, it was not enough just to tolerate differences but to welcome and be happy with them because differences afford the idea of richness and beauty. All of us have seen the beauty of the natural world, which is composed of many colours, shapes, and smells, as well as forms and touch. Nothing that is monotonous exists in nature. Being of one race is unnatural.
In a next quote, Siddiq Fadzil deals with the relationship attitude of differences as follows:
“Perbezaan tidak bererti permusuhan, tetapi kekuatan dan kekayaan budaya. Kata kunci dalam memahami tujuan penciptaan kepelbagaian (bangsa dan kaum) ialah lafaz lita’arafu dalam surah al-Hujurat: 13 yang biasanya diterjemahkan sebagai ‘untuk saling mengenal’, tetapi tentu sahaja tidak sebatas saling mengenal. Ta’aruf (saling mengenal) pasti ada kelanjutannya iaitu saling bekerjasama, saling memanfaatkan, saling memperkaya, saling memperkasa dan seterusnya.”
According to Siddiq, differences do not necessarily equate to enmity and animosity towards each other. Ta’aruf goes beyond knowing each other but also helping one another, complementing each other’s abilities and strengthening the whole entity of grouping.
Another beautiful quote that I found was about his definition of ‘dialogue’ between race, faiths and civilisations:
“Dialog yang sihat dan produktif hanya mungkin terlaksana jika didasari kesediaan menerima orang lain, dan bukan hanya orang lain, tetapi orang lain yang berbeza. Menerima orang lain yang berbeza tidak seharusnya menjadi masalah kerana premisnya adalah menghormati perbezaan dan menyenangi perbezaan sebagaimana yang telah disebutkan di atas.”
For Siddiq, dialogue means more than just the ability to accept another’s view point but being able to accept an opposing view point by a race or faith totally different than oneself. This should not be a problem if one has the right minded attitude of being happy with the presence of differences in one’s life as stated before.
One of the most important and critical quotes about handling differences is how one should treat the ‘other’:
“Antara nilai unggul yang harus sentiasa dijunjung tinggi ialah nilai kemuliaan insan. Manusia adalah makhluk mulia, terlepas dari persoalan bangsa, agama dan budayanya. Kemuliaan insan adalah kurnia Tuhan yang bererti Tuhan sendiri yang memuliakan manusia, dan kerana itu tidak siapa pun yang berhak menghina manusia dengan cara apa pun. Sebagai makhluk mulia, maruahnya harus dilindungi dan kebebasannya harus dijamin. Manusia tidak boleh diaibkan dan tidak boleh dibelenggu atau dipenjara tanpa dasar undang-undang yang adil.”
Siddiq reminds Muslims that man was a magnificent and precious creation of God and thus, no one has the right to deface, to degrade or to insult such a beautiful creation. Man must treat each other with absolute dignity and the question of embarrassing or degrading another is simply an anathema to Islam.
On the aspect of politics of citizenship Siddiq would frown upon such calls of pendatang or orang tumpang and the likes by Malay politicians and extremist groups because to him we, all the citizens, are related in ‘brotherhood’! What brotherhood you might ask?
Siddiq describes it as follows:
“Agama, khususnya Islam, harus berfungsi dan berperanan membangun budaya damai dan seterusnya menjayakan agenda pembinaan bangsa. Sikap menghargai perbezaan dan kepelbagaian harus dipupuk berasaskan kefahaman terhadap sunnah penciptaan dan hikmah di balik ayat-ayat Tuhan. Sementara itu nilai persaudaraan perlu difahami dan diamalkan dalam erti yang luas, tidak terbatas hanya dalam lingkaran persaudaraan seagama (ukhuwwah dinniyah), tetapi meliputi persaudaraan setanah air (ukhuwwah wataniyyah) dan seterusnya persaudaraan kemanusiaan (ukhuwwah insaniyyah).”
From Siddiq’s perspective, we Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Taoists, Malays, Chinese, Indians, Kadazan, Orang Asli, are all brothers in humanity or ukhuwwah insaniyyah and brothers in citizenship or ukhuwwah wataniyyah.
Finally, Siddiq would be most distressed and concerned if Malays call others ‘kafirs’ and ‘dhimmys’, for to him such classical narrative during war time Islam has no relevance for a modern and civilised Malaysia:
“Merajut damai dalam kepelbagaian memang memerlukan tahap toleransi yang tinggi. Untuk itu istilah-istilah tertentu dalam sejarah politik silam yang kini sudah tidak relevan dan tidak dapat diterima, seperti istilah kafir harbiy dan kafir dhimmiy seharusnya digantikan dengan istilah lain yang dapat diterima dan lebih menepati realiti hari ini. Sesuai dengan semangat kebersamaan istilah yang realistik ialah al-muwatnun atau warganegara, istilah yang inklusif dan meliputi semua – Muslim dan bukan Muslim.”
Also, when some Islamic Party decrees that voting for a non-Muslim is a sin and that they do not belong in a leadership capacity of a majority Muslim country, Siddiq quotes historical precedence on cases that would put those proponents of destruction to shame as follows:
“Fiqh politik yang realistik harus dapat menerima hakikat perlunya perkongsian kuasa Muslim-bukan Muslim demi maslahah hidup bersama. Untuk itu prinsip keadilan dan kewajaran harus menjadi asas perkongsian kuasa dengan mengambil kira keseimbangan proporsinya dan keserasiannya dengan kenyataan kesejarahan dan kebudayaan negara ini. Dalam sejarah pemikiran politik Islam, perkongsian kuasa Muslim-bukan Muslim telah diwacanakan dan dilaksanakan. Al-Mawardiy misalnya, membolehkan orang dhimmiy menjadi Wazir al-Tunfidh (Menteri Pelaksana). Dari segi praktiknya pula, Dr. Hamid ‘Abdu ‘Llah Rabi’ dalam ulasannya terhadap manuskrip Suluk al-Malik fi Tadbir al-Mamalik oleh Shahab al-Din Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Abi al-Rabi’ yang ditulis untuk Khalifah al-M’tasim bi ‘Llah al-’Abbasiy, menyebut bahawa zaman pemerintahan al-Ma’mun dicirikan oleh tahap toleransi yang luar biasa sehingga jawatan Perdana Menterinya disandang oleh seorang Katolik ia itu Fadl Ibn Marwan (Rabi’ Hamid ‘Abdu ‘Llah, 1983:240-241).”
In the historical past of Islamic governance, civilised Muslims who understood living with differences valued the abilities and talents of the ‘other’ to complement a nation building construct and to rebuild the human civilisation based on trust and mutual cooperation.
After all this beautiful language is quoted and deep discourse presented, my one simple question is … where are the Islamic reformists now? Where were the reformists in Abim or Ikram, or our many public universities paid by the taxpayers of different faiths and races when Malay politicians called for Jihad against the non-Muslims of this country? Where were the reformists when muftis encouraged using the word kafir on non-Muslims? Where were the reformists when the words and phrases of pendatang, Cina Babi, and orang tumpang were hurled at our brethren citizens?
I could call out the names of the first and second generation Islamic reformists but I will not. Is Islam against the ICERD and the Rome Statute to protect a certain race and a certain social status in performing untold harm to the innocents? Where is the Islamic reformist discourse? Why the silence? Why the disappearing acts of the personalities?
When Suhakam announced its findings on enforced disappearances, which everyone knows to be religious in nature, where was the Islamic defence that the narrative which caused the hideous incident is not the Islam of Prophet Muhammad but a narrative of hate and narrowmindedness?
As I had predicted after May 9, 2018, the battle for Islam would set the tone for the New Malaysia. Unfortunately, the Islamic reformists are either ill prepared, indifferent, or have changed colours to board the platform of exclusivity and extremism. Are there any reformists left that can save Islam against itself and for this nation?
Comments can reach the writer via [email protected].