‘Covert operation’ to control info

It does not surprise me when Dr Syed Alwi Ahmad refers to some writers (or activists) who keep questioning religious orthodoxy as ‘frustrated’ Western-educated yuppies in his letter ‘Common ground needed for ulama, yuppie.’ (Malaysiakini.com, 19 May 2004)

If he ‘dares to know’ (as Immanuel Kant puts it), non-fundamentalist Muslim scholars worldwide have debated this matter. But you rarely stumble on this in Malaysia. Such debates are alien because of our rigidly conservative environment.

Furthermore, there has been a ‘covert operation’ to control information. The educated, the preachers and the activists have a narrowly selective approach. They highlight ideas, events and personalities that suit very well only their traditionalist, close-minded position.

For instance, the widely read Islamist publication Harakah does not report what has been going on in Iran in recent years -- the tension between the reformists and the conservatives there. Neither do other Islamic magazines or religious columns in our national dailies and TV programmes.

The opposition newsletter mentioned above also does not report fairly on the extensive debate on Islam, e.g. the emergence of ‘liberal Islam’ groups in countries throughout the world.

Non-fundamentalist scholars are never welcome. To these Islamists, their ideas are ‘less Islamic’ or not so authentic. Abdullahi Na’em, Mohamad Arkoun, Hassan Hanafi, Nawal El-Saadawi, Fazlur Rahman, Nurcholish Madjid and others are circuitously ‘banned’ or ‘censored’, not legally, but socio-culturally. Their works are not discussed, translated or quoted in popular forms.

An interesting example is Seyyed Hossein Nasr’s Traditional Islam in the Modern World, a critique on the fundamentalist approach to Islam which has not been popular, though his other books, criticising modernism and Western philosophy of science, have been well received.

But we have plenty from Syed Qutb, Yusof Qardhawi and Maududi. Qardhawi’s Al-Shahwah al-Islamiah baina al-Juhud wa al-Tatharruf (on extremism among Islamists) is much less popular than his Fatawa ma’asyirah (his religious opinions on recent issues) among Malaysian Muslims, for example. So is our treatment of Hassan Hudaibi’s Du’at la khuda’.

My contention is this: Why do such things happen? What do our choice of books and selection of issues imply?

We have to admit with full frankness, that with 30 years of Islamic revivalism and with the help of the government’s Islamic policies as well as pressure from political Islamists, we have not achieved much. One area, which is still lacking is the intellectual development.

“No in-depth analyses”, as Chandra Muzaffar put it in his Islamic Resurgence in Malaysia a long time ago. “Over-simplification and over-generalisation of Islam,” as Anwar Ibrahim once said in the United States some 20 years ago. They precisely vocalized then our current malaise.

Unlike our Muslim forefathers who fervently adopted or Islamised (whichever you like), ‘foreign’ ideas, we are terrified of contemporary Western ideas.

"I am not sure that Islam is compatible with Western liberal democracy because there are many teachings in Islam which cannot be altered simply on the basis of a majority vote," Dr Syed Alwi argues.

(‘Liberal democracy’ and ‘a majority vote’? Unfortunately, I don’t get what he is trying to say here. Public discourse, democracy and vote? It sounds like a ‘Malaysia-Boleh’ kind of concept for politics).

Although Islamic fundamentalist movements worldwide have been successfully attracting many modern-educated scholars and professionals, even from Western universities (see Karen Armstrong’s The Battle for God ***), traditionalists still reign tightly over the content and direction of our Islamic revivalism.

Or, can we safely conclude that the traditionalists have ‘hijacked’ it because of modern-educated and professional Muslims’ heavy reliance on their (the traditionalists’) religious interpretation?

Conservative ulama work hand-in-hand with these professionals in Islamic missionary works and the collaboration has allowed the gradual subversion of minds.

We refuse to acknowledge this because we trust them. The ‘green’ effect of religious confidence provided by the ulama helps reinforce the mental paralysis. Why do we place full trust, without critical appraisal, on them?

The clear answer: Ignorance of religious education that breeds inflexibility of minds. We want to be God-fearing creatures, so we accept conservative ulama interpretation whole-heartedly.

When it comes to the halal-haram decision-making process, we dump our critical minds aside. We don’t research more thoroughly on our own, for instance.

We willingly let the so-called ulama (or religious activists) decide (and manipulate) personal matters and public issues on our behalf. We surrender our mental powers to them. We believe unquestioningly in it, we faithfully practice it and we religiously disseminate it.

We don’t argue with the conservative ulama; oft-times they loathe – as Dr Syed Alwi said – to be argued with. "They prefer to stick to what the Qur'an teaches them – ‘we hear and we obey’. Absolute faith!" he writes.

Besides, the ulama also relentlessly gives the artificial impression (not to say ‘half-truths’) that they are the chosen ones (after the Prophet) and the most pious. Al-ulama warithatun anbiya (a saying of the Prophet) and innama yakhsa Allah min ‘ibadihi al-ulama (a Quranic verse), we are taught over and over.

After 30 years of Islamic awakening in Malaysia (and all over the globe), everyone is preaching a conservatively didactic notion of life. Malay entertainment journalists, artistes, creative writers and even disco-goers nowadays are somewhat ‘Islamic’ (in one form or another).

I deliberately refuse to argue further with Dr Syed Alwi simply because what he wrote has strengthened my argument that the public sphere is a real dilemma for Islamic activists.

My suggestion to have a vibrant discourse on the ‘Islamic conception of public sphere’ is left open. It is an on-going free-for-all participation - though not a seasonal fiesta!

By Fathi Aris Omar, Letter to Editor Malaysiakini (May 20, 2004)

*** Note: You must be wondering why Armstrong's The Battle for God: Fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity and Islam was banned in June 2006. Was it another "proof" of the conservatives' COVERT OPERATION?