AUG 19 — In an article last Friday, columnist Zurairi AR wrote about what he thought the problems were with Islamists in Malaysia and Egypt.
Though later down his article, he conceded that he neither cared about nor can explain the complexities within the Egyptian situation, evidently he still felt that he has a good enough grip on the situation to draw out lessons from recent happenings.
Unfortunately from his understanding of both the Egyptian and Malaysian Islamist situations, it is clear as day that he hasn’t understood either of them.
Chief of which is the presence of mind to realise that there isn’t a universal agreement over what the word “Islamist” means. A cheat sheet definition would suggest that an Islamist is anyone who wants the rule of Islam to be the supreme law in the country, but that glosses over the many, many contradicting and opposing positions that exist within that broad definition.
For example, in Egypt you have the Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party, an Islamist party, on the receiving end of a brutal crackdown by the police of an interim government that has the support of the Nour Party, also Islamist. The presence of the Nour Party in the committee drafting Egypt’s new constitution also means that much maligned clause in Egypt’s draft constitution restricting the sources of Islamic law to the four schools of Sunni Islam won’t be going away anytime soon.
It doesn’t get any less confusing in Malaysia, where we have many different “Islamists” vying for influence from different corners of the political spectrum — PAS’s “Ulama” and “Professionals”, Arus Baru/Isma, Umno’s very prominent Ilmuan Muda, the NGOs Islamic Renaissance Front, ABIM, Ikram, and not forgetting the fringe pro-caliphate group Hizbut Tahrir and other shadowy jihadi groups.
They all share the common element of being Muslim and bearing “Islamic” agendas without a clear consensus on so many purportedly integral parts of the Islamist movement: hudud, dhimmitude, caliphate, democracy, privacy, armed jihad, Israel etc.
To cherry pick a quote by Tuan Guru Nik Aziz, and claim that his reductive view of the world is representative of the wide range of movements that are dubbed “Islamic” isn’t only dishonest, but also shows a sloppy attitude towards a range of beliefs harboured by many in this country, just because they don’t conform to an accepted “liberal” narrative.
It is ironic then that Zurairi quotes that line from the New York Times because it aptly describes his point of view. Much like the Egyptian “liberals”, his public unwillingness to budge from his decided stance that religion must only be within personal realms and shouldn’t bleed into wider society, laws or governance.
The problem is, dear Zurairi, we are, flawed though it may be, a democratic country and the government’s heightened concern for religious matters is greatly reflective of the wider Malay society. If you can take some time to listen to the everyday folk speak (in Malay), you will find that what we see today is a logical extension of how a lot of people feel about things in this country.
You and I may not necessarily like or be comfortable with some of the things that are happening, but we have to respect the democratic process and its outcomes. In this regard, the AKP in Turkey, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and to a certain extent PAS here in Malaysia have clawed their way from state-led repression to gain substantial electoral success through grassroots work through the democratic spaces available.
In the process, they have contributed to Malaysia’s transformation into a more religious-minded society and today Islamic forms of expressions can be seen even in the mainstream media and official institutions. Yet even this widespread “Islamisation” has not amounted to an agreement on the country's direction between the different Muslim groups, and they continue to organise.
Liberal elements in this country and elsewhere must realise that the only way to counteract this growing role of religion is by doing the same thing: organisation and ensuring relevance to the community at large.
What I won’t disagree with is his contention that Islamist or not, an inept government will face revolt. This is a no-brainer, and we see this happening all the time.
However, I would emphasise that there is a big difference between a revolt that takes place on the streets by the people as part of the democratic process and one that begins as one and ends up hijacked by the military.
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malay Mail Online.
