Highlights from Aliran Monthly
http://www.malaysia.net/aliran/
Islamic State Discourse: Chops and Churns

by Terence Netto

It may well go down in history as the `September 29 Pronouncement.' This was the announcement by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamed at the annual delegates conference of Parti Gerakan in Kuala Lumpur that Malaysia was already a "model Islamic country."

What the Premier said was a shade short of astonishing. Close observers of his 20-year premiership are familiar with his penchant for tactical surprise and unpredictability. But even they were taken aback by this move, interpreted as an attempt to pull the rug from under Pas, fervent proponents of the Islamic state and Umno's fierce rival for the Muslim vote in Malaysia.

Hitherto, Umno had maintained that Malaysia should not be an Islamic state because it would be unsuitable in a multi-racial, multi-religious country. Malaysia could have Islamic practices and laws in banking, insurance, family matters, and inheritance. But these would run parallel with prevailing secular laws and practices, a sort of one government-two nearly parallel systems that was pragmatic in that it would be able to appease fervent Muslims while reassuring non-Muslims.

But this type of government stopped short of calling itself an Islamic model of governance. For that you have to have the syariah as the overarching law in the country, like Saudi Arabia and Iran. That was not the case with Malaysia. A quasi-Islamic state it may well be. But an outright Islamic state required the enthronement of syariah as the supreme source of law. Reputable jurisprudential and scholarly opinion have held that the Federal Constitution was secular in character and that the provision on Islam as the state religion was confined to state rituals and ceremonies.

Predictably, the `September 29 Pronouncement' triggered a flurry of public debate. Non-Muslim components of the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition seemed to have no difficulty in accepting that Malaysia was already an Islamic state. This despite the fact that they had been niggling critics of the opposition Democratic Action Party (DAP) for alleged collusion with Pas to advance the cause of a Islamic state. The Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA) and Gerakan developed sudden amnesia over their former aversion to an Islamic state and acquiesced to Dr Mahathir's version. This apparent volte face did not induce any red faces on the part of Umno's allies in BN. For them it appeared you could call the Malaysian polity whatever you wished, so long as this did not entail a change to the Federal Constitution,

Across the political divide, the reaction was not monolithic. The DAP contented that it had nothing against Islam but was opposed to theocracies, period. To them it did not matter if the Islamic state was of the Umno variety or the Pas kind. Both versions would be ultra vires the Federal Constitution, the DAP claimed. In the case of Pas, they derided the Umno version of an Islamic state and said they would forward a blueprint of its version in due course. (Five months later, the Pas' version is still not public knowledge). Generally speaking, Parti Keadilan Nasional and Parti Rakyat Malaysia felt no compulsion to state their stance. To them it was apparently sufficient to confine their pronouncements to bland statements of fidelity to the Federal Constitution.

In the immediate aftermath of the `September 29 Pronouncement', the public, especially in the Klang Valley, was treated to a series of panel discussions on the issue. Sizeable crowds turned up to hear politicians and opinion-makers air their views and perspectives. Public interest in the issue was given added impetus by the events of September 11 in New York and Washington. The Islamic state issue had become a cause celebre. These talk sessions were not all organised by opposition parties and nongovernmental bodies; component parties of the BN, too, scrambled to hold sessions aimed at reassuring their supporters that they had not gone theocratic.

These sessions had the effect of educating public opinion. Attendance at them reflected public perception that the issue was urgent and of compelling public interest. Some discussions, like the ones organised by Sin Chew Jit Poh on 23 October 2001 and by the Catholic Research Centre on 6 January 2002 (both held in Petaling Jaya) drew overflow crowds, eager to listen and — judging from the questions that followed — avid for answers.

Though very little enlightenment was to be had on the shape and form of an Islamic state, the people who attended were in evident quest of what illumination they could obtain on aspects of Islamic rules, politics, history, and the position of women - matters that they were clearly keen to know with greater clarity that they previously did.

Not suprisingly, what certain speakers said in the course of the panel discussions and in columns and interviews in the print media drew the censorious attention of sections of civil society who were uncomfortable that the religion of Islam is being spoken about by people who supposedly do not have the theological credentials to hold forth on it. These would-be censors neglect a truth about democratic discourse: No subject is safe that shows it cannot bear discussion and publicity.

An ambivalence is discernible in the attitude of these would-be censors: they want the religion of Islam to be held with the highest sanctity. They would not hesitate to claim that an Islamic state is panacea for the ills of society. Therefore you would think that they would welcome the subject being inquired about and pored over with the sharpest scrutiny by those who would be affected by an Islamic governance.

By their frowning on aspects of the current discourse on Islam, they are causing doubt that the pluralistic beliefs essential to democracy are compatible with an Islamic state.

They seem blithely unaware that commitment to freedom and a humane society does not require acceptance of a religious faith or subscription to any theological or metaphysical creed. Though a free society is one that cherishes religious freedom, it also embraces the right to disbelieve or to be less than reverential.

______________________
Terbitan : 4 April 2002

Ke atas Home