The problem with Islamists, both in Egypt and Malaysia

AUG 16 — The violent clashes between pro-Mursi supporters and security forces in Egypt this week have been deplorable as hundreds from both sides have been killed.

There has been much violence in Egypt ever since the Revolution in 2011 — some against anti-Mursi supporters too — but the events this week have added one more bullet to the ammunition of Islamist supporters, even in Malaysia.

Islamist party PAS has since the July coup d'état highlighted the many incidents of violence against pro-Mursi supporters in its online mouthpiece HarakahDaily, so much so that you could be forgiven if you thought it has moved its headquarters to Cairo.

Party leaders have also frequently painted the ouster of the democratically-elected Mursi as a conspiracy funded by the US and Israel who wish to see an Islamist government fall.

“Israel representing the Jews, and America representing the Christians, have always attempted to put out Allah's light,” said PAS spiritual adviser Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat in July.

The much-invoked “enemies of Islam” were used as bogeymen, which are supposedly afraid of Quranic laws reigning supreme.

Together with another idolised Islamist leader, Turkey’s Erdoğan, Islamists around the world have proclaimed that Islamism can finally show the world what it is capable of and how much better the world would be if only governments can rule with Islam as the guide.

The coup d'état, they said, has not given the Islamists the chance to prove themselves to the world.

Except, Mursi and Erdoğan’s rule for the past year or so have been nothing of that sort. Supporters of Islamists in Malaysia tend to forget this simple fact, relying instead on the rhetorics of Muslim solidarity.

In truth, the politics of Egypt, much like Turkey and the Middle East, is much more complex than I care to — or could — explain in a brief column.

Perhaps New York Times contributor Samer S. Shehata said it best: “Egypt has a dilemma: its politics is dominated by democrats who are not liberals and liberals who are not democrats.”

The fragility of political movements in Egypt has caused its military to possess enormous powers, and as such felt it was its responsibility to effect social change in the name of “stability”.

As rationalist writer Kenan Malik has noted: “Secularism and ‘progressive’ politics have, as a result, long been associated not with freedom and democracy but with military power and authoritarian rule.”

That backlash against secularism itself has in part helped to propel Mursi’s rise.

Yet, despite being democratically-elected, Mursi failed to pay attention to those who elected him in the first place, including the liberals and minorities.

On top of his agenda had been to ram syaria law down the throats of Egyptians, replacing the already heavy Article 2, making “the principles of Islamic law the main source of legislation” to strictly recognise only the Sunni interpretation of jurisprudence.

This failure to listen has also been Erdoğan’s folly, leading to a revolt. When leaders do not listen to the people, Islamist or not, they will be rejected.

Therein lies the problem with Islamists. They would not settle for less than having Islamic and Quranic principles as the one and only guiding light of a nation.

There is no way that in a multicultural and multireligious society, following unbending and unquestionable principles enshrined hundreds of years ago can be fair and just.

This should hold true not only in Egypt, or Turkey, but especially so in Malaysia where the non-Muslim community might be the minority, but certainly not tiny.

Malaysia was founded as a secular country, but just look how that aspiration has been betrayed easily just with the insertion of a clause declaring one religion as the official religion of the federation above other religions.

It must be noted that the Malay sultans were against declaring an official religion, but it was inserted anyway since the commission drafting the Constitution could see no harm in having the religion of the majority being recognised and respected in official ceremonies.

Oh, just imagine their shock if they could find out that decades in the future, the provision, instead of allowing indulgences such as reciting doa in a ceremony, had gifted the majority an excuse to inflict injustice and tyranny over themselves and everybody else just because theirs is the official religion.

Many Islamist supporters claim that a “truly Islamic” country would, and could, be fair to all since Islam itself is supposedly fair towards all.

Fair as Islam may or may not be, the problem lies when leaders lead based on values and principles shared only by one community, instead of affirming shared and common values between all.

A witch-hunt has started in Malaysia against those who some Muslims feel have insulted their religion, and it is being backed by the state, just because that religion happens to be the official religion.

Perhaps somebody would like to convince all of us how things would be much better had that official religion been promoted to be the only supreme source of law, like many of the Islamists have pushed for?

Religion should be personal between man and god(s). Let us keep the state out of it.

* This is the personal opinion of the columnist.