Combating religious extremism through democratisation

Etymologically Islam is derived from the Arabic root word that means peace. Unfortunately as political commentator Fareed Zakaria notes, Islam today is more often than not associated with violence and militancy. Citing statistics by the US State Department, he asserts that seven out of the top 10 groups that perpetrated terrorist attacks in 2013 were Muslim. In most cases, these attacks took place in Muslim-majority countries.

Indeed, what is generally perceived in the modern day as terrorism usually carries an Islamic connotation. When one thinks of terrorist organisations, the names al-Qaeda, the Islamic State (of Iraq and Syria), the Taliban and, closer to home, Jemaah Islamiyah come to mind. On top of that, it is usually in Muslim countries and societies that we hear of honour killings, stoning of “adulterous women”, death for apostasy and other human rights abuses carried out in the name of God.

In this context, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the Muslim world is faced with the onerous challenge of religious extremism. In fact, some have even suggested that Islam is innately violent or, as Samuel Huntington puts it, simply antithetical to Western notions of democratic civilisation.

However, this primordial worldview is too simplistic and ignores the heterogeneity of Islamic traditions, as well as the fact that for most of world history, Christendom has been far more violent and barbaric especially with regards to the treatment of minorities (think of the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition and witch-hunting). Even more importantly, such a perspective also glosses over the fact that the evolution of religion, as with any other sociological ideology, is largely driven and shaped more by political interests than it is by divine doctrine.

Islam as a tool of authoritarianism

According to the Pew Research Center, 19 of the 24 most religiously restricted countries in the world are Muslim-majority countries. Unfortunately, Malaysia is included in this ignominious list along with the likes of Egypt, Syria, Afghanistan, Sudan and Iraq, where “government laws, policies and actions” impose very high “restrictions on religious beliefs and practices”.

However, before one hastily concludes that this proves Islam is conservative and suppressive, we should bear in mind that this same list also includes China, Vietnam, Myanmar, Russia and Eritrea, none of which are Muslim-majority countries, but all of which share a glaring lack of democratic space and some form of authoritarian-style governance.

Therefore, perhaps a more useful hypothesis is that the stronger the grasp of authoritarianism in a country, the more rigid and conservative the experience of religion becomes, precisely because the state will attempt to capture, define and control it. Hence, we see the growing encroachment and usurpation of Islam in Muslim-majority countries as a convenient tool for the dual purpose of suppressing ideological competition and legitimising authoritarian hegemony.

At this point, one may put forward the suggestion that perhaps there is something about Islam that makes Muslim societies susceptible to totalitarianism. However, as I posited earlier, any dominant ideology can and will be captured by an undemocratic regime. Substitute Islam with ethno-nationalism and we can imagine Nazi Germany, or with extreme agrarian socialism and we get Pol Pot’s Cambodia.

In other words, it is less to do with ideology than it is to do with politics and the distribution of power. In the hands of authoritarian regimes Islam can indeed be a potent ideological tool. But there are many instances where Islam can also be an enabler of freedom and enlightenment.

Think of the islah movement in Egypt in the 19th and early 20th century that was spearheaded by progressive thinkers such as Jamaluddin al-Afghani, Muhammad Abduh and Rashid Rida. Go back further and there is a rich history of Islamic advancement, particularly during the height of the Golden Islamic Age from the 9th to the 13th century, when Muslim scholars led the world in the fields of mathematics, physics, medicine and astronomy.

Who defines reality?

It is apparent that Islam can either be abused for hegemonic oppression, or used to enable freedom and enlightenment. These are two vastly different social realities, so the question is: what determines the path?

I would suggest that it depends very much on the dynamics that exist within the religious experience in a given country. Borrowing from sociologist Shamsul AB, a social reality can be “authority-defined”, that is to say determined by those in the dominant power structure, or “everyday-defined”, which reflects the experience of people in the course of everyday life. These two social realities are not mutually exclusive and in most cases exist in tandem, though they are often at conflict with one another.

Where democratic space is available, a more organic, “everyday-defined” experience of Islam would evolve and hold dominance. In this case, Islam would not only be more peaceful and tolerant, it would also enable civilisational advancement. The problem occurs when the state decides to exert increasing control.

Take, for example, the recent uproar surrounding the “I want to touch a dog” event held at Central Park in Bandar Utama, Selangor. When it was reported that some Muslim participants in the event had been pictured petting dogs, the National Fatwa Council gathered and decided that touching dogs is against the state-defined doctrine of Islam. This ruling not only ignores the myriad of scholarly views on the matter, but is also incongruous with long-established practices of Muslims the world over.

It is the same case with the confiscation of Malay Bibles, raids on churches that conduct services in Malay, as well as the banning of the use of the word “Allah” by non-Muslims. For decades, churches, especially but not exclusively in East Malaysia, have been using Malay Bibles, preaching in our national language and sharing the name of “Allah” in reference to God. And this has never been an issue in our society until today, when the state suddenly decided that such practices would endanger the faith of Malay-Muslims in the country.

Obviously, there is an underlying political agenda. The state is clearly attempting to impose an “authority-defined” version of how Islam should be practised, which, as the above examples illustrate, is usually provocative, illogical and contradictory to “everyday-defined” societal norms. For the most part, they are self-serving and designed to legitimise the power of the ruling elite.

Cultural democratisation

In contrast to the parochial nature of Islam propagated by the authorities, the “everyday-defined” Islamic experience in this region has always been accommodative, progressive and most importantly, peaceful.

Take the case of female leadership, the notion of which had been rejected by certain quarters during the recent leadership crisis in Selangor. Those who opposed the prospect of a female menteri besar cited culture and religion as their basis. Yet this narrow perspective actually belies the fact that female leadership is no innovation in the Malay world, as the historical experiences of Pattani, Acheh, Solor, Jambi and even Kelantan would prove.

It is the same with the obsession over Malay translations of the Bible. Today, the government defends extremists who make public threats to burn Bibles, on the basis that they are apparently protecting the sanctity of Islam. Again, this is entirely incongruent with the fact that Malay Bibles have been around since 1628 when the Dutch first produced an Indonesian version. Nearly four centuries on, the Malaysian religious authorities may be shocked to learn that Indonesia has not been turned into a Christian country. On the contrary, it houses the largest number of Muslims in the whole world.

It is clear from the experiences of our region that the ideas and ideals of Islam that are rooted in equality and justice, and social progress can and will flourish organically when they are not constrained by artificial controls imposed for political ends. Extremism arises when common sense and freedom is suppressed.

The struggle against religious extremism must therefore begin with the demand for more democratic space – politically, socially and especially culturally. It is only through empowerment and enlightenment that religion can be reclaimed by society, where it belongs, and kept away from the machinations of the powers that be. – December 9, 2014.

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