Article by YB Dr Zul (MP Kuala Selangor) dated 31 Dec 2010
As the curtain draws to a close for the last year of the first decade in the third millennium, I wanted to just sit back and peruse the many edited writings and commentaries for my book “In Search of a Better Malaysia”. The indulgence was rather short-lived when it dawns on me that I have failed to provide any commentary on an equally troubling acrimonious debate that is raging dangerously in the nation. Yes, how could I miss that one?
Well, frankly I was neither excited nor felt provoked by it, when it came back on stage recently. My knee-jerk response was to evade and ignore it. I thought that the already-overloaded-and-overburdened Malaysian public could no longer stomach any more of such divisive issues. Truly, there has been an overdose of it of late.
But after thinking through and weighing the far-reaching implications, especially on the undiscerning citizenry, this writer could no longer allow it to fade into oblivion only to raise its ugly head again later.
Conscious of the fact that it could very well boomerang on me, I’m now willing to take the bull by the horn. As I embark this effort, a strange reminiscent of the discourse (read polemic) of past Muslim scholars haunted me.
Neither wanting to draw nor deserving of any intellectual parallel, I must say in all humility that I couldn’t help to be reminded of the great debate of the ‘Incoherence of the Incoherence’ (Tahaafut al-Tahaafut) of Ibn Rushd’s (Averroes) against the mighty Al-Ghazali’s Incoherence of the Philosophers (Tahaafut Al-Falaasifah). I honestly believe that this undertaking, at the expense of being crucified as ‘apostate’ is nonetheless equally noble, urgent and extremely pertinent in the bigger agenda of ‘In Search of a Better Malaysia”.
Yes if you are still wondering, I’m meaning the “The Religious Pluralism Debate”, organised by Muafakat, a Muslim NGO in the Federal Territory mosque a fortnight ago. For reasons only known to them, the forum was also supported by government agencies such as the Selangor Islamic Department (JAIS), Federal Territory Mufti Department, Federal Islamic Missionary Foundation (YADIM), Information Ministry’s Special Affairs Department (JASA) and the Institute of Islamic Understanding (IKIM).
In summary, the Muslim scholars and the newly-minted PhD holder Yusri Mohammad, an Islamic Law lecturer in the IIUM and the UKM’s Nur Fahana Abd Rahman included, asserted that Islam considers that not all religions are equal, and that the concept of ‘Religious Pluralism’ is antithetical to Islam as this belief stems from the idea that Islam is no more and no less equal to other religions ie promoting religious equality.
For the record, not only was Dato Seri Anwar Ibrhaim demonized for allegedly promoting ‘religious pluralism’ and undermining the Islamic faith, the Menteri Besar of Kelantan, Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat, who also is the Mursyidul Am of PAS, did not escape from their criticism for having previously attended an official function at a Buddhist temple in Kelantan.
In all fairness, it must also be registered that the scholars at the forum also issued reminders to other Muslim leaders, the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak included, to refrain from attending other religious celebrations, claiming that it would threaten the position of Islam as a supreme religion.
Dr Muhammad ‘Uthman El-Muhammady, another panelist and a fellow at the International Institute of Islamic Thought and Civilization (ISTAC) also echoed the others and called on Muslims to fight against those who promote religious equality as this is dangerous and a threat to the Islamic faith.
More assertively, the UKM’s Nur Fahana Abd Rahman, has asked Federal Islamic Authorities (JAKIM) to issue a guideline to prevent Muslims from celebrating other religious celebrations, calling it an element of religious pluralism.
Little wonder that the Mufti of Perak was recently reported (17-Dec, 2010, Utusan Malaysia) as saying that it (religious pluralism) needs to be rejected by all Muslims in our country as it could destroy one’s faith, and that those who believed in it are as good as being apostate.
Lest you think I’m afraid to stand my ground and categorically state my position (especially as a PAS Member of Parliament), you got me wrong again. If you have been following by writings and speeches, you know that I don’t double speak, much less to only appease electorates (especially my voters) for political support.
You now would surely want to know whether this writer would go along with the understanding of ‘religious pluralism’ as mentioned above and would this writer support the policy advocacy of the Muslim scholars.
Firstly, my response to religious pluralism. In all conviction and intellectual honesty, I must make it categorically clear that I’m against “Religious Pluralism” as it stands to be advocated by the ‘prophets’ (read philosophers) of this theology.
Just as you are about to despair or rejoice by this answer, let me hasten to add that I’m however, totally at loggerhead with and vehemently opposed to the policy advocacy of the Muslim scholars mentioned above that are arguably the genesis of a recent rise of religious bigotry and spate of religious extremism.
Let me begin my short discourse. Let’s get back to the substantive issue of the debate.
Going by The Oxford Dictionary, “pluralism” is defined as a “a condition or system in which two or more states, groups, principles, etc co-exist”, The search for a common understanding of the word ‘pluralism’ becomes evidently more complicated because it has been extensively used (and abused) unilaterally by almost everyone – religious leaders, politicians, journalists – without fully understanding what the concept actually means and implies.
Be that as it may, the debate and contention at hand is even more difficult as “Religious Pluralism” is simply not about religious diversity as implied by its literal definition. Contrary to the lay understanding, religious pluralism is not as innocuous (harmless) and naïve as you and I would like it to believe in. It is not merely semantic though.
It far surpasses the notional concept of accepting religious diversity as the fundamental basis for the peaceful and harmonious co-existence of all persons or all faiths, with each practicing his faith with sensitivity and due respect to people of other faiths.
I implore that you bear with me as I briefly expound and paraphrase my writing in my first political book the Blindspot (Harakah, 2007).
Islam Affirms Religious Plurality but Not Religious Pluralism.
Religious pluralism, like any other ‘ism’ ie theology or ideology, are propounded by its advocates and ‘prophets’. Ardent proponents of religious pluralist theology include renowned scholars amongst the like of Ernst Troeltsch (1865-1923), William E. Hocking (Rethinking Mission, 1923), Arnold Toynbee (1889-1975), Wilfred Carnwell Smith (1916-2000) and currently Professor John harwood Hick (1922-present). Diana L. Eck, Professor at the Harvard University researches extensively on religious pluralism. John Hick is undoubtedly the current iconic thinker of the pluralist theology.
Citing from John Hick, ‘Religious Pluralism,’ (Mircea Eliade(ed.), The Encyclopedia of Religion (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1987), Vol. 12, p. 331.
…the term refers to a particular theory of the relation between these traditions (religions), with their different and competing claims. This is the theory that the great world religions constitute variant conceptions and perceptions of, and responses to, the one ultimate, mysterious divine reality…the view that the great world faiths embody different perceptions and conceptions of, and correspondingly different responses to, the Real or the Ultimate, and that within each of them independently the transformation of human existence from self-centeredness to reality-centeredness is taking place.
John Hick concludes that “the great religious traditions are to be regarded as alternative soteriological “spaces” within which, or “ways” along which, men and women can find salvation/liberation/fulfillment” ( Problems of Religious Pluralism, pp. 36-7; and ———, ‘Religious Pluralism,’ p. 331). Hence all religions are essentially the same, authentic and valid.
Without going into the extensive discourse on religious pluralism by the various proponents of this theology, it could easily be summarized as advocating that all religions are equal, simultaneously denouncing and undermining the claim to absolute truth of all religions on the world stage.
It has ‘relativised’ all truth claims and has equated all religions to be essentially and relatively the same. Hick added that “all religions are equally valid to the same truth”. To proponents of “Religious Pluralism”, all religions are relative ie is limited, partial and incomplete, one way of looking at something. Accordingly, they pledged that all religions are the same and ‘all paths lead to the summit’.
In other words, religious pluralism transcends the conflicting and relative truth claims among religions, claims a façade of democracy and world peace and is the ‘absolute messaih’ to the phenomemnon of religious diversity.
The claim of exclusivity to its beliefs and teachings in Islam, like Christianity and Judaism and indeed all other religions, Hinduism etc, would surely be on a head-on collision with religious pluralism.
Contrary to religious pluralism, Islam is all for religious plurality and accords respect for all other religions as fully others without reduction, deconstruction or relativisation. While ‘pluralism’ is unwilling to allow others to be ‘exclusively and uniquely’ others, Islam acknowledges the plurality of religion and allows the adherents of all religions the plurality of laws to govern their lives within the aegis of their religious belief and precepts.
This is the perspective of Islam and as far as I could represent and speak for PAS, this is our stand and we uphold and advocate this position.
Islam perceives diversity and plurality (not pluralism) as a ‘Sunnahtullah’ (in accordance to the dictates of the creation of Almighty Allah). References to other religions could also be found, though indirectly as generically mentioned by the verse: And verily We have rasied in every nation a messenger, (proclaiming) ; Serve Allah and shun false gods..(16:36).indeed at the behest of His Majestic Being. Hence, a religious claim is an absolutist doctrine which must be respected as such, not simplified, reduced, relativised and much less negated.
More specifically Allah says it categorically that “Religion before Allah is Islam (submission to His Will) (Chapter Ali-Imran:19) and has decreed that ““This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you and have chosen for you Islam as your religion (Chapter Al-Maidah: 3). That is the claim of absolute truth found in the Quran.
A Muslim’s faith is firmly based and premised on the conviction that the source of his religion Islam is Allah and Muhammad is the last and final Prophet on the Earth. A true Muslim holds that Islam is not just one of the many religions, but The Religion or Way of Life (Ad-Deen), the only true religion of Allah, the religion of the created natural order (Deen-al-Fitrah).
Incidentally, YB Lim Kit Siang posting a peice from Thomas Lee ( MYSinchew.com) commenting on the debate has this to say.
“As a Christian, I can understand the IKIM position, since my faith is also an exclusive one. No Christian will dispute or challenge my contention that Christianity also claims exclusivity to be the only way of salvation for mankind, and that the Lord Jesus Christ is “the way, the truth, and the life” and “No one comes to the Father (God) except through me (Jesus)”. (John 14:6), and that “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).
Be that as it may, we now come to the most contentious aspect of the debate.
While I may hold similar conviction to those who are against Religious Pluralism, I must say that I’m extremely baffled and most appalled by the ‘narrow-mindedness’ of these Muslim scholars and the various religious authorities. The kind of ‘siege-mentality’ is so evident and regrettable while the unwillingness to ‘engage’ is a far cry from embodying the true spirit of Islam.
The paranoia is deplorable at best and a disservice to Islam at worst. Incidentally, will this writer, a Member of Parliament for Kuala Selangor who regularly visits Churches and Temples in the constituency, be seriously monitored by the authority for bordering into the practice of religious pluralism?
It must be made known to these scholars and religious authorities that the issue before us is not about anything theological or matters pertaining to belief and belief-system. Those are exclusively the right of all faiths. Having said that though, the bone of contention is about how to relate an exclusive faith to other religions in a multi-racial, multi-religious, multi-cultural, and multi-lingual demographic make-up like Malaysia. That is the challenge at hand.
It is here that we are in dire need of the engagement of Islam as an essentially a “Way of Life” (Ad-Deen) that provides for a Universal Justice for all and a “Mercy Unto Mankind” (Rahmatan LiL ‘Aalamin).
It is the vital and critical role of man as the “Vicegerent of Allah on Earth” (KhalifatulLah fil ‘Ard) that now awaits the Islamic Leadership together with the bigger constituency of the nation-state in providing the moral and intellectual leadership, in ‘The Search for a Better Malaysia’.
Muslims must engage and not disengage in all public sphere in promoting peace and harmony among the people. It is not participating in an inter-faith worship service which the nation is in dire need of but a mutually rewarding dialogue and discourse. Not in matter of faith but in the dimensions of good-governance, justice, righteousness, equality, freedom, human, civil and constitutional rights.
PAS will endorse and support any inter-faith engagement and “dialogue” as we have clearly stated in our Manifesto. The Pakatan Rakyat similarly espouses and advocates such religious discourses that are mutually rewarding in nature.
These are social policies of PAS and Pakatan that are positive for the development for the common purpose of nation-building, and are jointly dealing with many fundamental and structural issues relating to their role as citizens, hence, the need to come together to talk and discourse.
Admittedly there are numerous religious and racial fault-lines that are dangerously lurking ahead. Assuming a ‘strict and rigid position’ and seemingly ‘intolerant measures’ as advocated by the above mentioned Muslim scholars so as to safeguard the purity and sanctity of the Islamic faith will surely become fodders for more intense religious bigotry and chauvanism.
We have had enough of the incidences of cow-heads, sacrileges of places of worship, the debilitating debate of the name of Allah etc. PM Najib and his cahoots must state their position loud and clear and not talk of ‘moderation’ on world stage and become so parochial, extreme and narrow in defending both racial and religious bigots on our own shores. That is hypocrisy at its worst.
Thanks to the former and current Mufti of Perlis, Dr Juanda Jaya and Dr Mohd Asri respectively. The latter is recently is reported to have commented that the nation is going down the Taliban route if we start persecuting other Muslims because they don’t subscribe to our brand of Islam.
In them are embodiments of the moderate Muslims scholars that have invariably not failed to contextualize to the “Purpose of Syari’ah” (Maqasid as-Syariah) and to the greater public interest (Maslahah Al-Ammah) and to the agenda of nation-rebuilding.
To evade the discourses by offering lame excuses that the citizenry are not ready is an unacceptable denial of reality and a continuous assault on Reason. It is to shirk from the shared responsibility of Change and Reform.
We do so at our own peril and have only ourselves to blame!
I rest my case.
Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad, Member of the PAS Central Working Committee.
Tiada ulasan:
Catat Ulasan