DECEMBER 11 — In order to communicate effectively, we need to be cognisant of the subtleties of language. Language is both a democracy and an ecology.
It is a democracy because everyone uses language and in doing so, add their own shades of meaning. It is an ecology in the sense that words are organically born, mature and may eventually die.
The IT revolution is the best demonstration of this ecology. Ask any youngster what a “floppy disk” is and you may get some blank looks. Yet for people of my generation, the 5 and ¼ inch floppies were what we used back in the day and we needed dozens of them for a single programme sometimes!
Sisters in Islam’s (SIS) recent call to “not fear Islamisation” was met with significant disbelief from the Malaysian left. If one observes the reactions in social media, they were generally showing the understanding of “Islamisation” in the conventional sense of the word.
Language, after all, is convention and given the normal meaning of the word, who could blame them for having such a reaction?
I have been familiar with the work of SIS for more than 20 years. In that time, they have been foremost in the promotion of social justice, especially compensating the lack thereof for Muslim women.
Therefore, when SIS’ executive director Ratna Othman pleaded with Malaysians not to fear Islamisation, I can easily surmise that that was what she meant. However, because “Islamisation” has acquired a somewhat different meaning in recent years, her statement was highly misconstrued.
What does “Islamisation” mean in the Malaysian experience? Thanks to opportunist politicians and corrupt religious leaders, “Islamisation” has been reduced to nothing more than the affectation of ancient Arabic culture.
Malaysian Muslims now show a great propensity towards this. Even our formerly unique words like “agama”, “sembahyang” and “hari raya” have been respectively Arabicised to “deen”, “solat” and “eid.”
Other cultural elements like clothing and the arts have also experienced the same effect. Perhaps this is what Najib Razak sought when he pushed the idea of a Shariah index in which, apparently, Malaysia occupies a respectable place.
It has to be cultural because it is certainly not ethical. According to the higher purpose of Shariah (maqasid al-shariah), a case like the RM2.6 billion in a personal account would have certainly warranted being disclosed to the public and not just behind closed doors. Malay-Muslims are foremost in Islamisation except it comes to “small” matters like transparency.
In my reading of the Quran, I would not define “Islamisation” as anything cultural. The word “Islam” comes from the more fundamental idea of “salam” which means peace, security, deliverance and implies to become whole (“salim”).
Therefore, “Islamisation” of self and society should bring about those conditions. If one reads the narratives of the Quran, there are programmes which are intended to generate peace and security.
Perhaps the most obvious of these are the reforms of Musa, the Quranic personality mentioned most in the text. One thing is for certain to me though, the Quranic “Islamisation” is not a programme where people who do not subscribe to it are forcibly co-opted.
Neither can it be a programme which segments people according to their religion. Even more unthinkable is the Quranic “Islamisation” existing in a racially discriminating environment.
No leader in this “Islamised” administration would need hundreds of thousands of ringgit to fly VIPs overseas. If the VIP was true to “Islamisation”, he would have flown economy without needing any entourage and foregoing any kind of golfing. That is the result of true “Islamisation.”
In short, the Quranic “Islamisation” which is what SIS most likely meant, is the opposite of the cultural indoctrination of Umno and now that we mention it, PAS. It would certainly not be something Malaysians need to fear.
Having said that, in the current religio-political climate, the word “Islamisation” has taken on a fascist overtone (hence why I use the term “Islamofascism”) and so perhaps a more prudent phrasing is more expedient to convey the intended meaning.
* This is the personal opinion of the columnist.
