Deconstructing Mardhiyyah and her ‘kafireen’

I was somewhat amused when I read the rather seemingly sincere advice given by one Mardhiyyah Nor Azizan in a piece entitled ‘Menjadi kafir Malaysia’ published on September 6.

While the article quotes various studies and philosophers, I’m sorry to say that despite Mardhiyyah’s seemly conciliatory attitude, her language and suggestions betray a sense of entitlement which cannot be included in a fair discussion.

In this way, Mardhiyyah was no different from the notorious Siti Azzahra, the young lady whose video went viral some months ago in which she complained of her lack of success despite it being her right to have.

Zahra, as she is popularly known, also had the privileged position from which she excluded others who did not have that privilege.

Mardhiyyah is like Zahra except she employs a religious privilege and not a racial one.

We must begin this critique with the eponymous word “kafir” itself.

By the very use of this word, Mardhiyyah has created a privileged barrier between her and her target audience whom she deems as “kafireen” (the plural of the word “kafir” which conventionally means infidel).

Her essay intends to set forth a code of ethics to which the “kafireen” must adhere in order for us to have religious harmony (and thus racial harmony for obvious reasons) in Malaysia.

This title in itself shows that it is not about a member of the rakyat giving humble advice to other members but rather (perhaps unintentionally) saying, I have the privileged position to tell you how to do this.

I will demonstrate this intent with the rest of her essay in due course.

Next, we must look at this word “kafireen”. This word is loaded with negative connotations from its religious origins.

It is used in the Al-Quran more than 600 times, all of which are in negative connotations. Muslims use it in a colloquial sense to refer to non-Muslims without realising the simplistic nature of their analysis.

Anyone who isn’t like them is simply a “kafir” (even Shi’ite, Quranist and Ahmedi Muslims) and their fate is sealed. Is this usage correct?

Let us consider the following.

Firstly, the word “kafir” comes from the root “ka fa ra” which means to conceal, reject or even efface.

Contextually speaking, a kafir is one who rejects God, His signs, his messenger, his scriptures etc.

Not only that, “kafir” is often used with the phrase “ba’da al-imaan” (after belief) hence one can only be deemed a “kafir” if one has truly come to belief and thus rejected it.

Does Mardhiyyah possess the knowledge to determine which of our friends of faith has come to actual faith in Muhammad’s message?

Moreover, those who carry Muhammad’s message (i.e. the Malay Muslims) are also racists who have betrayed his message.

Can we then call our friends of faith “kafireen” if they reject our call to Islam? Perhaps it is we ourselves who are kafireen for rejecting Islam’s principle of racial equality!

This brings us to another point. Is it really about Muhammad’s message?

The Al-Quran told him to declare that he did not bring anything new among the messengers (Chapter 46 Verse 9) and that the essential message remained the same (41/43).

The Al-Quran even calls itself a reminder (20/3) which emphasises this effect. Not only that, the Al-Quran as traditionally understood gives a list of religions which shall have “no fear not grief” (2/62, 5/69).

There are, in fact, a multiplicity of Islams but it is inexpedient for Mardhiyyah to acknowledge that. Hence everyone else are simplistically “kafireen”.

Mardhiyyah also warns the “kafireen” not to criticise the text of the Al-Quran ostensibly to not hurt the feelings of the Muslims.

However, does she mention that there are rather annoying Muslims who do that very thing to our friends of faith?

Muslims take special delight in criticising Christianity and the Bible yet when it comes to the criticism of our scripture, we warn people against it.

Perhaps Mardhiyyah does not know that within Islamic tradition itself, there are reports (hadith) which render the authenticity of the Quran suspect.

Not least of this is the report that the verse of stoning was lost as it was eaten by a goat! Mardhiyyah needs to understand that not everything is as faultless as it seems.

She went on to claim that Harussani Zakaria “misunderstood” the hadith which proclaims women must submit to their husbands even if on backs of camels.

Has he indeed? If so, how? Mardhiyyah does not expound but seems to expect our friends of faith to know that Harussani was mistaken.

Why is the onus on our friends of faith to know the difference? The responsibility should be with the government to appoint more competent people to the job.

All in all, I can barely find the sincerity in Mardhiyyah’s letter. Perhaps it is there but it not apparent from the derogatory language she uses and the sense of privilege she exhibits.

If we are to attain racial and religious harmony, we must do on equal footing, nothing less. – September 12, 2015.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.