REBUTTING IDEAS ON ‘BAD POLITICS IN MOSQUES’
I refer to an article written by Wan Saiful Wan Jan on IDEAS opinion section entitled ‘Bad Politics in Mosques’.
As much as IDEAS are too strong and clear for a word, I find that the article very much falls short of both intelligence and ideas. More so, the article formulates a narrow-minded, naïve and needless impractical technical analysis.
He brings up two issues to which I will respond accordingly. Here, allow me to spell out the paragraph which he is so concerned and disappointed about to the point of him leaving the sermon.
“We are thankful for our victory in bringing the motion on the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) (Amendment) Bill 2016 to Parliament in order to uplift the position of Syariah Courts in this country. And we are thankful that the High Court rejected the application by Sisters in Islam to challenge the decision of the Selangor Fatwa Council on liberalism in this state in order to protect the sanctity and the special position of Islam so that Islam is not denigrated by others.”
Is JAIS an agent of PAS?
First off, he starts by meaning to suggest that sermons have been mouthpieces of political stance with ulterior political motive. He says;
“The wrong thing was when JAIS claimed that Hadi’s action was “our victory in bringing the motion” to parliament. JAIS is a government agency. Hadi’s action was that of a political party. How is it that the action of a politician became JAIS’ victory? Is JAIS an agent of PAS?”
Firstly, the statement in the sermon does not mention JAIS or Tuan Guru Abdul Hadi and there is no mention of ‘JAIS unequivocally in favour of and supports Tuan Guru Abdul Hadi’ and the sermon, and sermons in general, do not even represent JAIS or any religious authorities’ official statement.
Secondly, the sermon is heard by Muslims regardless of race and political membership, affiliation or inclination. Was he the only one or were there many people who felt the heat and left the sermon anyway to avoid listening to the purported cheering for PAS?
Thirdly, he says that the sermon was produced and pronounced under the disguise of Islam to make good of what he wrongfully analyses as political support or affiliation or agency. However, he completely ignores the fact that the private bill introduced by Tuan Guru Abdul Hadi means a lot for Muslims and the perseverance of Islam and Syariah in this country.
Forthly, he is impaired to comprehend the overwhelming consistency as proof of how united Muslims and how unified their voices are across political parties, governmental agencies, Muslim NGOs and individuals.
Fifthly, as much as being a Chief Executive of IDEAS, he has no idea that there is a difference between making a political stance and affirming the ultimate aims Islam seeks to achieve.
Finally, I would say that the article is a poorly produced piece which is nothing less than an attempt to smear negative perception towards Friday sermons and religious bodies such as JAIS. This is unsurprisingly similar to the statement by Syafiqah Othman Hamzah in her article on the Malay Mail Online entitled ‘The Evil of Theocracy’ which accuses JAKIM sermon, in favouring the government, as creeping theocracy.
Liberalism but not religious pluralism?
The second part of his article mentions about the fatwa in which Sister in Islam is decreed as, among others, a group of Muslims promoting deviant teachings under the notion of ‘liberalism and religious pluralism’.
But what bothers him is the fact that the sermon did not specifically mention ‘religious pluralism’, omission of which may prejudice the whole meaning of the fatwa, he alleges.
Firstly, indeed liberalism and religious pluralism capture two different conceptions. It is worth noting that some would argue that religious pluralism may be a subset of liberalism which entails the idea of unparalleled way of thinking and interpreting religious texts.
This is somehow synonymous to the attempt by Farouk A. Peru in his article on the Malay Mail Online entitled ‘Exposing Isma’s Theocratic Acrobatic’ to promote the religious pluralism by mischievous liberal interpretation of the Quran verses.
Secondly, he attempts to compare the words ‘liberalism and religious pluralism’ with ‘Islamic State’. As much as he is being overly picky on the missing ‘religious pluralism’ from that particular statement in the sermon, he is ignorant or reckless in taking ‘Islamic State’ which does not even have the proposition ‘and’. I am writing this only to suit with his ‘logics’.
Thirdly, and more importantly, there is also lack of cautious judgment in suggesting that if one person or organization promotes the idea of liberalism but not the other, or alternatively promotes religious pluralism and not liberalism, it is not captured under the purview of the fatwa and therefore, they are not promoting deviant propositions.
IDEAS as liberal think tank
I would say that it is disappointing to see how strong and clear the word IDEAS is not represented by real ideas and substances which are worth to be discussed in the article.
Be that as it may, we must always be cautious of the left and liberal wings seeking to weaken the standing of Islamic institutions and our scholars in the eyes of Muslims and non-Muslims. As much as we would try to improve the situation, we will end up only making it worse.
If I may quote one of IDEAS statements on their Facebook page, it says;
“As a liberal think tank, we believe in the market of ideas – meaning that people have a right to have different perspectives and that individuals are allowed to choose and form their own opinions….”
I would love to pose a question to IDEAS.
How long do we need to suffer in silence under this purview of ‘entitled to own’s opinions’ without a consensus? The consensus is to refer to our Constitution and uphold its values and bring to life its meanings.
How are we able to portray Islam as the religion of the Federation if we are allowed to endorse unparalleled liberalism and/or religious pluralism?
How are we able to preserve Islam and its teachings if we were to allow liberalists to poison the masses in the market of ideas and liberalism be spread nationwide?
I believe I know the answer.
Danial Ariff bin Shaari
I-Peguam
