Trying to Tell the World How It Should Spin: Finding the Axis of Malaysia's 'Islam Hadhari'

By Shanon Shah

The Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s new approach to Islamic discourse, Islam Hadhari, has created tantalizing ripples of interest inside and outside Malaysia. It is a very promising vision, but already hairs are being split and teeth are being gnashed as to what “Islam Hadhari” means exactly. As recently as late September, we were told that Islam Hadhari translates more appropriately as “civilisational Islam” rather than “Islamic civilization” because the latter has undesirable parochial connotations. It has also been pointed out that the translation of “Islam Hadhari” as “progressive Islam” is inaccurate, although it does demand a progressive outlook in efforts to achieve its goals.

Of course, efforts to advocate a concept like this to the public will have to face several challenges – chiefly, defining what “Islam Hadhari” really means. However, such semantic nitpicking could pose severe problems in the big picture. My concerns are articulated in the song “Baby, I Can’t Please You” by Sam Phillips from her “Martinis and Bikinis” album, in which she sings to a toxic lover:

I know you say “love” when you mean “control”
You buy the truth but your heart is cold
So you live in shadows

This is exactly what I am afraid discussions of Islam Hadhari in Malaysia could lead to.

But according to the Prime Minister, Islam Hadhari should be an approach that rejects violence and emphasizes development and enhancing the quality of life consistent with the tenets of Islam.

Will the real Hadhari please stand up?

I recently had what I thought was a rare privilege to listen to a high ranking government official speak about Islam Hadhari. Well, whaddaya know? It turned out to be one of the most excruciatingly disturbing talks I have had the misfortune of sitting through. It made me think fondly of my last root canal.

I mean, as someone who is not exactly uncomfortable with the label “progressive,” it’s easier for me to sit through a talk given by known conservatives, because I basically know what I’m in for. Sure, I might squirm every now and then at the various misogynistic, racist and homophobic comments that are made, but my jaw wouldn’t exactly drop to the floor.

But here, at this Islam Hadhari talk, I was expecting an interesting, articulate outline on the relationship between citizens and the state, religion and society. And why wouldn’t I, especially when the talk was called “Responsibilities of citizens to the state, religion and society”?

The first thing I noticed was that there were only ethnic Malay-Muslims in the audience. No Malaysians of other faiths were there. Why? Well, according to the speaker, the non-Muslims have been “smart” enough to exploit Malaysia’s natural resources for eons at the expense of Malay-Muslims, and so they don’t need to know diddlysquat about Islam Hadhari. And so, only Muslims were allowed to attend the talk.

The ethnic-religious homogeneity in the audience seemed to give the speaker license to get away with some weird comments. For example, he said that Malaysians could be classified according to three categories:

1. Indigenous tribes, i.e. native inhabitants of Peninsular Malaysia and East Malaysia, who may or may not be Muslim;
   
2. Ethnic Malays, whether those indigenous to Peninsular and East Malaysia, or those who migrated from Java, Sumatra, Thailand, Indochina and Mindanao;
   
3. The “immigrants.” The Malay word that the speaker used for “immigrants” (“pendatang”) is generally used in a pejorative way. It suggests a lack of legitimate citizenship, which is something the speaker spelled out quite explicitly when he claimed that the ethnic Chinese and Indians in Malaysia only became citizens because the British would not have granted the ethnic Malays independence otherwise.

What does one call this kind of outlook, I wonder? “Grudging pluralism”? Never mind the fact that Chinese, Indian and Arab immigrants have been coming to Malaysian soil as far back as 5 centuries ago.

For the record, there are Malaysians of all faiths who regard this country as plural, multi-religious and poly-ethnic, without ever stooping to delegitimize each other’s claims to citizenship.

But this is not to say that ethnic and religious chauvinisms do not dictate the mindsets of large chunks of the population. Also, the true significance of this speaker’s words can be understood after taking into account three things about modern Malaysia:

• The Federal Constitution defines “Malay” as someone who professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language and conforms to Malay custom. Hence, the ethnic identity of “Malay” is defined by the State, but in terms that can be (and have been) subverted.
  
• Islam is recognized as the official religion of the federation of Malaysia. For a long time, Malaysia identified itself as a secular state with Islam as its official religion. But Malaysia’s secular status has recently come under attack from many quarters. Some demand a full “Islamic state” characterized by total and literal implementation of Hudud laws, claiming that the present state is not Islamic enough. Others insist that Malaysia is already a model Islamic state. Either way, in Malaysia Islam is a highly state-regulated affair.
  
• The overall affirmative action policy is drawn mainly along ethnic lines. The reality is that Malays as a race were humiliated into socio-economically servile positions during British colonial rule. Post-independence affirmative action was thus, rightly or wrongly, drawn along ethnic lines to improve the socio-economic position of the Malays. However, when coupled with the constitution’s regulation of Malay-ness and the state’s regulation of Islam, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that this affirmative action is very often abused in order to distribute privileges along ethnic-religious lines.

“Them damned immigrants stole our jobs and cars and all!”

So yes, it is undeniable that in pre-independence Malaysia, the British had bashed the Malays into submission, and economic power was largely placed in the hands of the Chinese. But there is a difference between trying to transcend the disgusting practice of divide-and-rule, and going back into some corner to celebrate the victim-hood of Malay-Muslims at the hands of “immigrants” and “Western imperialists.”

Here’s the thing. This parochial worldview is inconsistent – even with itself. On one hand, Malay-Muslims are reduced to sitting in the corner, licking their wounds and cursing at the “immigrants” and the “Westerners” for our lack of opportunities. On the other hand, Malay-Muslims are fed on delusions of grandeur, that we are indeed the greatest of the greatest and that we don’t need anyone else’s permission for us to bask in our greatness.

And when people with such delusions think that they have the highest laws of the country on their side, what we really have is a recipe for a nightmare.

Also, where we once celebrated the diversity of Malay-ness – the potpourri of origins we trace back to Java, Mindanao, Thailand, Burma and Sumatra – we now demonize and persecute the migrant workers and refugees who come from these very same lands. At one point, the Islam Hadhari demagogue I have been referring to actually said that it is easier for an Indonesian migrant worker to own a Mercedes Benz than it is for an “average Malaysian.” Such a sweeping statement denies and silences the already marginalised experiences of migrant workers in Malaysia.

Palestine and Iraq: who wants to play “Blame the Victim”?

I suppose the clincher was when this guy said that we Muslims in Malaysia should not become like the Muslims in Iraq and Palestine. Apparently, those Muslims are now suffering because they have descended to the depths of “kufr nikmat” – they are ungrateful for Allah’s blessings.

Imagine! According to this guy, the reason why the Israeli Defense Force bulldozes over the homes of Palestinians and kills innocent Palestinians is because the Palestinians do not pray at the Al Aqsa mosque – a sign of their “arrogance,” for sure. And the reason why U.S. bombs and artillery rip the flesh and bones of innocent Iraqis apart is because the Iraqis were not grateful for the exemplary leader they once had. The speaker mentioned no names, but who on Allah’s earth could he have meant by “exemplary leader” other than Saddam Hussein?

I suppose my reaction to the description of Islam Hadhari given by this government official is akin to a patient who is told by his doctor, “Look, there’s bad news and there’s good news. The bad news is that we made a mistake and amputated both your legs instead of putting reinforcements in them. The good news is that we kept your socks.”

Pluralism NOW!

I suppose I am also reacting this way because the Prime Minister has been saying some very wonderful things lately, which are incongruous with the chauvinistic tirade I was subjected to. Is it not the Malaysian Prime Minister who said that he is not the Prime Minister of Muslims only, but that he is a Muslim Prime Minister for all Malaysians? Is it not our enlightened Prime Minister who announced that the gates of ijtihad must be opened again in order for Muslims to be able to deal effectively with the challenges of modernity? The Prime Minister has been consistently stressing the need to celebrate pluralism and diversity in Malaysia, and not just in the let’s-exchange-our-cultural-cuisines way.

What then has led the Prime Minister’s articulate and intelligent discourse of Islam to be used in a way that reinforces the old ethnic, religious and misogynistic chauvinisms while simultaneously undermining a more pluralistic, democratic vision for Malaysia?

There are two possible explanations running through my head right now. I don’t necessarily think they are connected to the sincere vision of the Prime Minister. Rather, they are connected with the directions in which his discourse could be taken.

Islam Hadhari and the Philosopher’s Stone

The first explanation has to do with how Islam Hadhari, according to the Prime Minister, aims to achieve ten main principles:

1. Faith and piety in Allah
   
2. A just and trustworthy government
   
3. A free and independent people
   
4. Mastery of knowledge
   
5. Balanced and comprehensive economic development
   
6. A good quality of life
   
7. Protection of the rights of minority groups and women
   
8. Cultural and moral integrity
   
9. Safeguarding the environment
   
10. Strong defenses

This is a good and admirable set of principles to aspire to. But some background needs to be given in order to fathom the problems that it could pose (and which it is already posing, judging from the numerous references made to “Islam Hadhari” now).

In Malaysia’s somersault from a largely agricultural post-colonial economy to an aggressive industrial economy, the government required the large-scale participation of citizens. Along with the government’s efforts at improving the socio-economic status of ethnic Malays, this resulted in an intensive focus on the development of science and technology. The pursuit of knowledge in the fields of science and technology was privileged over other forms of knowledge. Scholarships were abundantly given to Malaysians to study in disciplines directly related to science and technology, but very rarely for studies in the arts and the humanities.

And we are now paying for neglecting the pursuit of knowledge in the humanities. Malaysians often look down on our brethren in Indonesia, but with ulamas and imams who studied disciplines in the humanities like philosophy, sociology and anthropology, there are growing nuclei of Indonesian Muslim organizations that seem to be more equipped to harmonize the ideals of Islam with the modern world compared to their peers in Malaysia.

Prima facie, the ten principles aimed for by Islam Hadhari do not exclude knowledge in the arts and humanities. However, the prevailing mindset among many Malaysians already puts knowledge related to science and technology on a pedestal. Thus, it would not surprise me if Islam Hadhari could then be used to reinforce the pursuit of purely technical and technocratic knowledge at the expense of the arts and humanities. In trying to forge a modern, civilisational Islam, we could be neglecting the rich and diverse intellectual heritage from the great Islamic civilizations of Al-Andalus, Baghdad and Alexandria. True, the Prime Minister has said that “[a]ll Muslim students should be aware of Islam’s contribution to science and technology that brought about the birth of the Renaissance in Europe.” But by limiting the debate within the boundaries of “Islam” and “science and technology,” we could inadvertently be excluding ourselves from learning about other exciting intellectual developments that occurred during the Renaissance. For one thing, the study of philosophy – whether Eastern, Western or Islamic philosophy – is something that is in a dire state of neglect in Malaysia.

You say “love” when you mean “control”

And this brings me to what I perceive as the second problem in the language that is being used to define Islam Hadhari. Definitions are being structured such that “Islam Hadhari” could be used by certain parties to make sinister agendas sound warm and fuzzy. And this is not just a problem with “Islam Hadhari.” Politicians all around the globe are constantly saying one thing but meaning and doing something completely different. And yes, some people really did believe President Bush when he said that what he really wanted to do was “liberate Iraq.”

But Islam Hadhari is a concept that is still being defined. It is something that has captured the fears and hopes of many Malaysians. Some have dismissed it is a heretical mazhab, and they have declared that the Prime Minister is an apostate – talk about paranoia! Many others have started to pin their hopes for a better society on Islam Hadhari. All this is happening in a country that is socially and culturally conservative, and not quite mature in the political sense. Our civilian institutions are still weak, and public discourse is still restricted by legislative and extra-legislative mechanisms.

Given this climate, a phrase like “cultural and moral integrity” could very well be used to arbitrarily define what is “immoral,” effectively persecuting those who fall under this definition. Similarly, “protection of the rights of minority groups and women” could somehow be used as a mask for ghetto-izing minority and women’s issues. This is not such a far-fetched fear, since history has witnessed these tactics being used over and over again. For a long time, the apartheid regime in South Africa got away with racist policies that it disguised in the discourse of “protecting minority interests.”

In the song I quoted at the beginning, Sam Phillips continues to articulate my fears:

You take the words I say and make them mean

Everything they don’t – baby, you’re obscene

You don’t listen, you don’t hear

You’re blinded by the fear that surrounds you

Confessions of a dreamer

But let me also stress that I still support and admire the Prime Minister’s vision for a “civilisational Islam.”

And as a Malaysian who aspires to a Malaysia that is plural, just, democratic and respectful of the universal human rights of its citizens and residents, I intend to continually assert the alignment between my own principles and my Prime Minister’s vision. As a Muslim, I will follow my Prime Minister’s lead – the Prime Minister of all Malaysians who happens to be Muslim. Because in my heart, I firmly believe that I do not and should not claim special privileges over other Malaysians – I just happen to be a Malaysian Muslim who shares this country with all Malaysians regardless of faith, race, economic status, gender and sexual orientation. And I will let this belief of mine dictate the way I treat others, because this is my sincere expression of what Islam Hadhari means to me. Of course, some may then question whether I have just abused my Prime Minister’s definition of Islam Hadhari to fit my own agenda? To answer this, I can only borrow a response from Sam Phillips: “Baby, I can’t please you.”