PETALING JAYA: Muslims must show the same respect to their fellow Malaysians of other faiths, as given to them, says Permaisuri of Johor Raja Zarith Sofia Almarhum Sultan Idris Shah.
In a Facebook posting, she said Muslims in Malaysia are very lucky because they do not know what it is like to be part of a minority group.
“Those of us who have studied or lived abroad know what it feels like to be a minority, and we learn to adapt. At the same time, we see the kindness and the acceptance of those who are Christians, Jews, or of other faiths, when we are in their countries.
“I remember seeing photos of Zaharah Othman, the NST London correspondent, at a church, wearing her hijab. And she’s also told me how she was offered to perform her prayers in churches,” she said.
She also shared how her eldest son Tunku Mahkota Tunku Ismail, when he was leaving India after ending his service with the Indian army, was taken to the army mosque by his fellow officers.
“They were Hindus but they covered their heads with their handkerchiefs, and took their shoes off.
“We Muslims must show the same respect to our fellow Malaysians,” she said.
The long, divisive campaign for governorship of Indonesia’s capital city Jakarta is finally over, with unofficial results showing a decisive victory for the challenger Anies Baswedan over the controversial incumbent governor Basuki Tjahaja Purnama (popularly known as Ahok).
The election was the most politically significant regional election in Indonesia’s history because it wasn’t just about choosing the chief executive for the city’s 10 million citizens.
Rather, it became a referendum on the future of Indonesia’s ethno-religious diversity and tolerance after unwanted intervention by a number of radical Islamist groups, most notably the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI).
The blasphemy campaign against Ahok
These groups accused Ahok, a Chinese Indonesian who is Christian, of blaspheming last September by mocking a Qur’anic verse that allegedly calls for Muslims to reject non-Muslims as their leaders. Ahok criticised unnamed religious clerics (ulama) for using verse 51 of the Surah Al-Maidah that advises Muslims to avoid aligning with Christian and Jews.
Under pressure from these groups, the Indonesian government opened an investigation against Ahok and tried him for blasphemy. The trial was adjourned a week before the election.
Anies, a very astute politician, quickly capitalised on anti-Ahok accusations, by seeking and receiving an endorsement from Habib Rizieq Shihab, FPI’s supreme leader. He also started to portray himself as an “Islamic candidate” to win the support of Jakarta’s Muslims, who comprise 85% of registered voters.
The strategy seems to have worked, as an Indo Barometer poll in February indicated more than half of Jakarta’s voters would not vote for Ahok because they believed he had committed a blasphemous act against Islam.
The race between the two contenders was very tight, as indicated by a reputable Saiful Mujani Research and Consulting (SMRC) poll, which showed Anies leading Ahok with a margin of 1% (47.9% vs 46.9%), with up to 5.2% of voters still undecided.
The campaign took an ugly turn when an elderly woman, who had voted for Ahok during the first round and subsequently died, was allegedly denied a Muslim burial. And an Islamist activist made a Facebook post stating it would be religiously permissible for any women voting for Ahok during the run-off election to be gang-raped.
The election has serious implications for the future of Indonesian politics. Anies’ victory means he is in a stronger position to mount a challenge against President Joko Widodo in 2019, as a candidate of the Great Indonesia Movement Party (Gerindra), or with another opposition party.
A young, telegenic politician who has widely touted his Islamic credentials, Anies is perceived by Jokowi as a more formidable opponent than “old guard” elite figures, such as retired General Prabowo Subianto and former president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who are both widely expected to be contenders during the 2019 presidential election.
But more importantly, Anies’ victory is another sign of the growing Islamisation of Indonesian politics, which has been on the rise since the country made its democratic transition in 1998.
This phenomena can be seen throughout Indonesian society, from the promotion of Islamist prayer groups (pengajian) and study circles (halaqah) in public university campuses throughout the country; the proliferation of Indonesian women wearing Islamic veils (hijab); and the rapid increase in local regulations restricting alcohol consumption and the rights of religious minorities.
There seems to be an ideological and political convergence between Islamist groups such as FPI (an association of approximately 100,000 hardline Islamists with close ties to the Indonesian security apparatus) and Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia. This latter is known for its advocacy for a global caliphate.
Members of both groups are developing a close relationship with the conservative elements of the Nahdlatul Ulama NU) and Muhammadiyah, Indonesia’s two largest Muslim organisations with generally moderate political leanings. They claim membership by 60 million and 30 million people respectively.
The MUI fatwa against Ahok was signed by Maaruf Amin, who, apart from being the council’s general chairman, is also NU’s supreme leader (rais aam).
These regulations require women to wear hijab in public, prohibit the consumption of alcohol and prostitution, and declare a number of Islamic minority sects, such as Ahmadis and Shiites, to be illegal within their respective localities. The groups have also encouraged acts of violence against both minorities over the past decade or so.
Rising Islamism and the renewed prejudice against ethnic and religious minorities pose a danger to the pluralist outlook enshrined in Indonesia’s official founding principles, which are collectively known as Pancasila. Made from the Sanskrit word for “five”, panca, and the Javanese for “principles”, sila, Pancasila states: “The one God system (monotheism), just and civilised humanity, the unity of Indonesia, democracy and social justice for all.”
These principles have underpinned equality for all Indonesia’s ethnic and religious groups since the country’s founding in 1945. Indonesian founding fathers who created Pancasila meant to give equal political and economic opportunities to all Indonesians irrespective of their ethnic and religious background.
Unlike Indonesia’s neighbour Malaysia, Pancasila grants no special status to Muslims and instead gives official religions status to a number of religions (Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism). It gives them equal legal recognition, and grants their members full religious freedom. Most significantly, adherents of all religions are free to run for and occupy any public office.
By creating these accusations against Ahok, the Islamists have refused to recognise the legal rights of Indonesia’s ethnic and religious minorities to run for public office. Ahok’s loss means that Indonesia’s ethno-religious diversity is the biggest casualty of this highly polarising election.
Marvel Comics is planning to take disciplinary action against an Indonesian artist who sneaked several controversial references into his artwork for the first issue of X-Men Gold, according to reports citing a statement by the comics giant.
X-Men Gold #1, which was published on Wednesday (Apr 5), was illustrated by Indonesian artist Ardian Syaf.
His artwork allegedly contained several hidden religious references and sparked an outcry by comic book fans on social media.
In one scene, Jewish mutant Kitty Pryde is seen standing in front of a crowd of humans. Her head is adjacent to a sign saying “Jewelry”, which some took to be a reference to her heritage.
In the same panel, there is a building with the numbers “212” on it – a reference to a mass rally by Indonesian Muslims on Dec 2 last year against Jakarta’s Christian Chinese governor Basuki “Ahok” Tjahaja Purnama. Ahok is on trial for blasphemy over accusations that he insulted the Islamic holy book, the Quran.
Another scene in the issue shows Colossus wearing a t-shirt with “QS 5:51” on it, a reference to a verse in the Quran used by some in Indonesia to support their view that non-Muslims should not lead the government.
Ardian shared artwork for the issue on his Facebook page on Thursday, in a post that has since been taken down. By Sunday evening, the post had drawn almost 200 comments.
Many criticised him for the alleged political messages. “The X-Men message at its core is integration, not division,” Facebook user Zauri Severino Junior wrote.
“It’s shameful to see (an) Indonesian artist make a fool of himself worldwide just because of his impaired religious views and racism,” another commenter, Nuri Agustiani Setiawan, wrote.
In a statement published by ComicBook on Saturday, Marvel said the artwork “was inserted without knowledge behind its reported meanings”.
“These implied references do not reflect the views of the writer, editors or anyone else at Marvel and are in direct opposition of the inclusiveness of Marvel Comics and what the X-Men have stood for since their creation,” the statement said.
Marvel added that disciplinary action would be taken against Syaf, but did not give further details.
It added that the artwork would be removed from subsequent printings, digital versions, and trade paperbacks.
In a Facebook post on Tuesday (Apr 11), Syaf said his career was “over now”.
He added: “It’s the consequence (of) what I did, and I take it. Please no more mockery, debate, no more hate. I hope all in peace.”
In February, a video of Imam Nalla Mohamed Abdul Jameel reciting a prayer in Arabic that said “God help us against Jews and Christians”, among other things, was circulated online.
He was charged in court and pleaded guilty last week to promoting enmity between different groups on the grounds of religion, and committing an act prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony.
He also apologised to Christian and Jewish religious leaders for his remarks. He was fined $4,000 and has been repatriated back to India.
The issue has come to a closure in a “uniquely Singapore” way. It judiciously combined the application of law via the courts, lots of community engagement efforts by Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs Yaacob Ibrahim’s dialogue, and with religious leaders of different faiths. Mr Shanmugam also met the imam for a cordial breakfast.
Few countries in the world have the opportunity to adopt this balanced approach to resolve a sensitive issue, because it needs the existence of social peace and religious harmony, which Singapore works very hard to preserve.
With this closure, it is useful now to deal with the “elephant in the room”, which is Islam’s doctrinal position on the “religious other”.
This discussion is important to make clear to non-Muslim Singaporeans that enmity towards non-Muslims was never a part of Islamic doctrine.
ISLAM AND NON-MUSLIMS: A HISTORY
Islam’s position on non-Muslims was first shaped by historical conditions. This early position evolved over time so that it remained appropriate to the context of the day as the dynamics in the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims changed.
The Quran spoke warmly of Christians because they were more receptive to the message of monotheism, compared with local idol-worshipping tribes in Mecca, when Islam first came.
Furthermore, it was the Christians of Abyssinia (present-day Ethiopia) who gave refuge to Muslims who fled Mecca to escape persecution.
Similarly, Muslim-Jewish relations in the early Islamic era were positive as they were shaped by an agreement that manifested the congenial dynamics between the two faith communities.
More importantly, early Muslims conceptualised the community of believers to be originally independent of confessional identities.
They regarded Christians and Jews to be members of their community.
It was only later that membership in the community of believers came to be seen as a confessional identity in itself, and this had a lot to do with the prophethood of Muhammad.
Tensions, therefore, occurred in Muslim-Christian as well as Muslim-Jewish relations and due to sharp differences in a number of other doctrinal matters.
Notwithstanding these fundamental differences, the special relationship among the three religions as part of the Abrahamic family of religions was preserved.
The divisive issue of Prophet Muhammad’s prophethood was played down and, instead, the focus was on what bound the three faith communities together.
These are the belief in monotheism, the Last Day and the importance of doing good deeds on this earth.
The attitude of early Muslims was to preserve unity of the community of believers so that they could be assured of Jewish and Christian support to defend their city, Medina, against the common enemy in Mecca, who were not monotheists.
This explained why Muslims did not force Jews and Christians to accept the status of Prophet Muhammad as their prophet, too, but chose instead to focus on teachings that could be accepted by all three faith communities.
But the bigger cause of conflict and division was less religious and more political. It was the violations of parties of the agreement to honour it and fulfil their obligations. These violations were seen as tantamount to treason.
Violators were severely dealt with as traitors and put to death – a punishment that was the norm during wartime.
Despite challenges in keeping alliances and violations of the agreement, Jews and Christians were not regarded by Muslims as enemies.
Who, then, were singled out by early Muslims in their supplication?
THE REAL ENEMY
The supplication by Muslims was for divine help in their war against the disbelievers in Mecca, who were superior both in numbers and strength.
They were the enemies of the early Muslims only because they wanted to kill the Prophet, annihilate Muslims and extinguish Islam from the face of Arabia. It was, therefore, a matter of life and death for the Muslims.
The Prophet’s mission spanned over 23 years, out of which 16 years were spent in a state of heightened tension and war with the disbelievers of Mecca.
Twenty such wars were fought and the Prophet was pained when about 1,000 of his companions were martyred.
The Prophet supplicated to seek God’s help against disbelievers using verses from the Quran that specifically mention them (kafirun and mushrikun).
There is an important qualification, though.
The supplication was not targeted at all disbelievers. It was specifically aimed at disbelievers whose plan was to kill Muslims, drive them out of their homes and destroy Islam.
Disbelieving people who were not engaged in such sinister plans were not the ones Muslims supplicated against.
INCLUSIVE CATEGORISATION
Another pertinent fact is that, besides Christians and Jews who occupy a special relationship with Muslims as People of the Book, there are also a number of other religious communities who enjoy this special status in the eyes of Muslims.
The Quran has categorised Sabians as People of the Book, while there are scholars who also included Zoroastrians.
There are other less known facts.
For example, there was a religious ruling issued in AD710 by Islamic scholars in Kufa, Iraq, to accord Buddhists the same status as monotheists.
This ruling was in response to a query by a young general of the Muslim army, Muhammad Qasim, who upon conquering Sindh province in India was petitioned by the local Buddhist community to allow them to continue to practise Buddhism and preserve their temples. The ruling accorded the Buddhists in question the same status as monotheists (like Jews and Christians) and provided privileges to them, considering them People of the Book, but they were obliged to pay taxes.
Similarly, from an early period, when Muslims arrived in India, Hindus were designated People of the Book, a practical solution that allowed Muslim rulers to permit Hindus to live in peace within the Muslim empire as long as they paid taxes. This also explained why some Muslim mystics consider the Hindu scripture, the Vedas, as a revealed Book and believed that Lords Rama and Krishna could be prophets of God.
As for Taoism, the former grand mufti of Egypt (Sheikh Ali Gomaa) was asked at an inter-faith dinner during his visit to Singapore in June 2014 whether Taoists are People of the Book. He turned to Taoist leaders and asked if their teachings were based on a sacred text, to which an affirmative reply was given. The former Egyptian mufti stated his position that Taoists are People of the Book.
A word of caution is needed here.
It is never claimed that all religions are the same and that religious pluralism is advocated here. All religions are different, although they share the same roots. Religions are like the Banyan tree – they have shared roots, appear to have many trunks (although there is only one trunk) and have many branches that sprawl in different directions as they reach for the sky.
The Prophet of Islam respected all religions; he never denigrated any religion or prayed for the destruction of any religious community. Muslims supplicate for divine help against those, regardless of religion, who wish to harm them in any way.
This is a summary of my thoughts that I shared at a Discussion Session with undergraduates from the University Scholars Program at Cinnamon College, NUS on 3 Apr 2017.
I was asked to broadly comment on the following issues:
Given the varying responses to the Reserved Presidency, how this will affect the unity of the Malay community.
How this will affect the standing of the Malay community in Singapore’s political landscape.
The announcement of the next Presidential Elections in Singapore being reserved for a Malay candidate has evoked mixed reactions from the Malay community in Singapore.
There are 3 broad reactions to the notion of a Malay Reserved President.
Disinterest. This is not so much driven by apathy, but a sense of resignation that the limited role of the Presidential will not have much impact on the Community, or that the outcome is a foregone conclusion (with the Government-supported candidate winning). It did not help that Mdm Halimah Yacob has been referred to as “Madam President” in Parliament by Minister Chan Chun Sing (albeit by mistake).
Agreement. The reactions from this group within the community stem from a belief that it is important for the Community to have a reference point as a beacon of hope for the community, and to also project the President as a symbol of multiculturalism in Singapore. There are those who express an underlying defeatism – that the Community will not get a chance to have a Malay candidate through meritocratic process. An IPS survey to the effect that Singaporeans will vote along ethnic lines is thrown in to support this view. There are also those from the Community who exhibit opportunism – an attitude of “it’s there, so just grab the opportunity, and don’t be apologetic.”
Disagreement. I belong to this group.
What are the Objections?
The Malay Community has never asked for a reserved Malay president in recent times. This was never raised as an issue by any Malay-Muslim Organization (MMO), any Malay Member of Parliament or any thought leader within the community.
In fact, the announcement of a presidential race for Malays came as a complete surprise to most within the community.
This announcement came as the Community grapples with are more fundamental problems that need fixing – gaps in educational attainment (relative to other communities in Singapore), lower socio-economic standing, over-representation in crimes/drugs, discrimination.
A prevailing sentiment was that if there was indeed a commitment to uplift the Malay community, why not fix the various gaps and issues within the Community? The Community would want to product a Malay presidential candidate can make the qualifying criteria and be elected in a national elections on his or her own footing.
There is also strong perception that genesis for the Reserved Presidency was to exclude a certain Chinese candidate from qualifying. Hence, the perception was that the Reserved Presidency was not borne out of a desire to promote the interests of the MMC. Consequently, those who hold that perception felt upset that the Malay community is used an instrument in this game.
The Government has always said that meritocracy is sacrosanct. That was what defined Singapore and made us different. This mantra was oftentimes cited as a differentiating factor for Singapore in the wake of Singapore’s eviction from Malaysia. This call was made consistently, even long after Singapore’s independence.
Interestingly and perhaps ironically, Madam Halimah Yacob herself, during her speech during a National Day Rally in 2012 mentioned the significance of meritocracy in Malay (obviously addressed to the Malay community):
“Kita perlu beri sepenuh perhatian dan jangan jemu jemu bekerja keras demi kebaikan semua.
Tuan-tuan dan Puan-puan, Saya yakin dibawah sistem meritokrasi, dan bermodalkan usaha gigih kita, masyarakat Melayu/Islam mampu mendaki tangga kejayaan yang jauh lebih tinggi.”
English translation: “We have to give full attention and cannot shun hard work for the collective good.”
“Ladies and Gentlemen, I am confident that under our system of meritocracy, and based on our hard work, the Malay/Muslim community can ascend the steps of success”
In trying to address this anomaly, an argument had been made is that the principles of meritocracy is not sacrificed as a Malay candidate will need to meet the stringent qualifying criteria for President.
However, meritocracy is not just about setting minimum qualifying standards for a candidate. It is about picking the best person for the job.
This was the argument made by the Establishment in the past against any ethnic-based affirmative action programs.
But yet, we make exceptions to meritocracy where it appears to be expedient to do so.
This gives rise to a slippery slope – where do you stop disapplying meritocracy? Apart from the reserved Presidency, the Group Representation Constituency, which guarantees minority representation, is another instance of meritocracy being disapplied (though the evidence seems to point towards more minority representation in parliament before the GRC were introduced, but that is another matter).
So where do you stop in disapplying meritocracy?
Should we have a reserved Prime Minister?
A reserved Deputy Prime Minister?
Reserved Ministers in “heavyweight” ministries (such as Finance, Defence, Trade and Industry, Foreign Affairs) ?
Reserved Permanent Secretaries?
The argument – that the elected Presidency embodies the multicultural aspect of Singapore – must similarly apply to other roles above.
It can be argued that it is important to have multicultural representation on senior policymaking roles, no?
Lest I be misunderstood, I am not advocating reserved positions or ethnic-based affirmative action programs for these position.
But by having a Malay reserved President, have we set a wrong precedent for Singapore?
Another argument against the Reserved Presidency is the belief that contrary to the IPS survey, Singaporean voters will not be blinded by ethnic affiliations in voting. Consider the fact that the GRC led by Tharman Shanmugaratnam had garnered the highest percentage of votes at the last General Elections. Muralidharan Pillai, a first-time candidate, had defeated Dr Chee Soon Juan at the Bukit Batok By-Elections. There is thus evidence that Singaporeans look beyond ethnic affiliations.
There is yet another disconnect. On the one hand, statements have been made to the effect that Singapore is not ready for a minority Prime Minister (even if polls done by research company Blackbox Research show that DPM Tharman, a minority, is seen as the most credible candidate for Prime Ministership).
And so, in the context of the Prime Minister’s position, the assertion is that minorities are not ready to assume leadership of Singapore as a country.
However, a diametrically-opposed position is taken for the Presidency – in that it is now important for Singapore to have a minority as the President.
Why the contradictory stance?
Crutch Mentality. The other fear is that having a reserved presidency perpetuates the perception that the MMC will not succeed unless there is affirmative action.
Will a Malay Reserved President therefore have the legitimacy and respect?
Already, there is already resentment amongst quarters of the non-Malay Singaporean community.
Also, if Singapore wants to be truly inclusive, why not reserve the Presidency for women? Or for people coming from lower socio-economic backgrounds? True inclusivity must move beyond ethnicity.
