WE refer to an article entitled ‘Dealing with Islamic State, Salafism and G25’ by Zaid Ibrahim on The Star Online dated 15th January 2016. He wrote the article in response to a lecture by a senior-ranking police officer on the dangers of Islamic State (IS), Syiahs and Salafis who use violence to achieve their aims which he found interesting to listen to until the police officer, sometime during the lecture, put IS groups alongside Syiahs and liberal organisations such as G25, and the likes of Zaid himself.
This was disturbing to Zaid. He claimed that;
‘It’s dangerous and unnecessary to lump these groups under one category with IS and other Muslim militant “warriors”. Shiite Muslims and groups like G25 are peaceful, even though they may not agree with the views of the police or local Islamic development agencies such as the Malaysian Islamic Development Department (JAKIM).’
First of all, Zaid has brought upon us a misconception trying to divert the attention solely to physical threats towards national security which are the violence, killings or bombings by IS militants which could also be found in our midst. He was trying to suggest that peace means absence of violence and threats alike, per se, but it is not.
Islam is peace, not liberal Islam. Liberalism is no lesser of a threat than those coming from IS militants. It is an ideological threat which destroys harmony and unity. It diminishes the sanctity of Islam as the religion of the Federation, the core principles underlying almost entire laws, regulations and local norms. It puts desires and human wants ever higher than submission to Islamic principles and guidance. It encourages Muslims to repel loyalty and provide choices not to abide the Islamic authoritative rulings in the name of personal autonomy and human rights. It builds up confusion among Muslims on controversial and tricky matters.
That is how dangerous a threat coming from the liberal ideology, not to mention it is an extreme ideology which gives birth to IS militants.
Secondly, Zaid put forth another misconception that being a good Muslim only means being a Sunni Cleric, a name which fits into the existing understanding of the imams, religious officers and ulama’ alike. This is a false representation of a good Muslim.
Generally, Muslims are encouraged to do good deeds and prevent violence and immorality inclusive of any acts of disobedience towards God’s instructions and commands. These good Muslims may be a police officer, a religious authority, a school teacher, a professional or even an ordinary citizen possessing the true definition of a good Muslim. The act of police to exercise his power to curb with the threat against his religion should not be criticized.
On the same point discussed, Zaid was trying to promote a secular view in that police officers, legal professionals or even the government should not base their judgments on actions to be taken and words to be spoken in the defence of any particular religion, well it is actually Islam really, and Islam should not in any way dictate or to any extent have any impact on the governmental policies, actions of the Executive branches and, having regard to the recent Indira case, decisions of the Courts, all these in the name of liberalism.
Thirdly, Zaid unequivocally admitted that he along with G25 members are liberal and they just have different ideas. It is worth noting that whilst different ideas is one thing, adverse and conflicting ideas is the other, and the latter fits into the liberal ideas sought to be replacing Islamic and Islamist point of views.
Zaid did mention in the article that G25 and other liberal groups may have different, but in real facts conflicting, ideas on certain matters say, the rights of transgender camouflaged with the rights of patients of gender identity disorder, the enforcement of laws on khalwat by the State religious body or it may even extend to laws involving other personal wrongs such as gambling or drinking among Muslims, or even going against Syariah courts over matters of conversion in Indira case.
These are the so claimed different ideas which are adverse and dangerous which would lead to a more degradation of faith among Muslims and morality among Malaysian citizens which regrettably are not foreseeable by him and the liberalists. For instance, on the issue of khalwat there could be an increase in number of cases of rape, sexual assaults or harassment when couples could not be prevented from sitting together in a hotel room, a matter in which the laws may not be enough to resolve and repay due to their decision of inaction and non-interference, not to mention the committing of ‘zina’ or unlawful sexual intercourse which is paramount to curb.
Finally, Zaid finished up his article by statements which we find contradictory to his earlier submissions. He took as an example, the emergence of Donald Trump as causing violence in America, and as much as we could recall, Donald Trump did not say any words on threat of violence in physical forms, no threat of killing or bombing, the worst would be to chase the Muslims off the American soil.
This is arguably an example of an extreme ideology at the one end of a continuum offensively going against Islam and IS at the other end of the continuum defending Islam in ways unprecedented from the Prophet’s exemplary methods. If this was what Zaid was trying to reiterate as a conclusion, it is inevitable that liberalism is a threat like IS and Donald Trump extreme views.
Rather than lumping G25, Zaid and other liberal groups and individuals into the same category as IS militants, it may be much more appropriate and necessary to group G25, Zaid and the rest into one other category. Peace means no war of armouries and ideas. Peace means Islam and no other.
Danial Ariff Bin Shaari (LL.B Hons)
Muhammad Akmal Bin Abdul Ghani (LL.B Hons)
I-Peguam
The editorial committee of ismaweb.net welcomes any writings in the forms of suggestions, articles and such for publications. Send your works to: [email protected].
