Why
The Lies?
You will recall that I had alluded earlier to the difficulty faced by MCCBCHS in attempting to raise grievances of a religious nature with the Islamic religious authorities. These grievances invariably involved a complaint of some individual or some religious organization being adversely impacted by the subtle ongoing Islamisation. Conversion of minor non-Muslims to Islam and detention by Islamic religious authorities of apostates from Islam were some of the more common problems.
I have been told by those within the MCCBCHS leadership that at first instance, it was near impossible to get an appointment with the highest authorities within the Islamic religious authorities to discuss such grievances.
Sometimes, though, appointments would be fixed on a Friday at 11.45 in the morning. Before problems could be discussed, officers from the side of the Islamic religious authorities would indicate that it was time for Friday prayers so that nothing really got discussed.
If a real meeting was finally secured, the ‘sensitive issue’, ‘involves Muslims only’ and ‘anti-Islam’ arguments were invariably thrown at MCCBCHS making the prospect of addressing religious problems non-existent. If the issue was apostasy, MCCBCHS would be told that this was a serious crime in Islam and would have to be dealt with by Muslims according to Syariah law. No entry signs would be put up in respect of all such issues.
As long as the Islamic religious authorities had to deal with MCCBCHS or any other non-Muslim organization only, they were invariably able to get away with the ‘sensitive issue’, ‘involves Muslims only’ and ‘anti-Islam’ arguments. The Islamic religious authorities and the likes of ACCIN, BADAI, PAS and Teras could count on this continuing as long as non-Muslims generally regarded the Islamisation process as involving the Muslims only, staying away from any discussion on the same save and except when some non-Muslim was impacted by that process, in which event efforts would be made by the likes of MCCBCHS through the ‘diplomatic channels’ to find a solution on a ‘case by case’ basis.
As for the Muslims, rarely was there any attempt to question where this Islamisation process was leading to.
As noted earlier, this began to change. Muslims began to question and challenge this “Islamisation” process.
Perhaps the earliest efforts were begun by Sisters in Islam. SIS has played a significant role in debunking the notion that the interpretation of Islam belongs to a privileged few. It is impossible to do justice to their contribution in democratising the Islamic discourse in Malaysia in one paragraph in a paper of this nature. To fully appreciate this, you may wish to visit the SIS Website. What needs to be noted here is that SIS, in my view, has evolved from its early objectives and today is well-placed to play a leading role in the civil society movement that is beginning to challenge the Islamisation that is being inflicted on this nation.
I have already mentioned the challenge by the 29 Muslims in September, 2000 of the Restoration of Faith Bill. What was most telling was that whilst the federal government responded to this protest by a mere 29 individuals to halt the process of the Bill through Parliament, there was no reactions from any ‘Islamists’. They could not silence this protest with the ‘sensitive issue’, ‘involves Muslims only’ and ‘anti-Islam’ arguments! After all, the protesters were themselves Muslim.
Cases of renunciation from Islam had already been appearing in our civil courts. Lim Chan Seng and Mohd Hakim Lee are just two. However, prior to Lina Joy, Mad Yaacob Ismail, Daud Mamat, Mohd Ya and Kamariah Ali ( after this referred to collectively as the ‘4 Kelantan Apostates’ ) taking their renunciation from Islam to the civil courts in the year 2000, no Malay had yet gone to court asserting the right to renounce Islam, their religion of birth. The case of the 4 Kelantan Apostates had the added dimension of being heard in the Malay heartland, Kota Bharu, with Muslim lawyers arguing the constitutional right of their clients to renounce Islam.
The Lina Joy and the 4 Kelantan Apostates cases also saw, for the first time, challenges to the jurisdiction of the Syariah courts to adjudicate on this issue and the challenge to the validity of certain enactments relating to the administration of Syariah law.
The protest by the ‘group of 29’ and the law suits by Lina Joy and the 4 Kelantan Apostates were assertions for constitutionalism in preference over the process of Islamisation that was being pursued by certain quarters.
In December, 2000, the Bar Council and HAKAM hosted a ‘Freedom of Religion’ forum in conjunction with World Human Rights Day. Members of civil society present were feted to presentations by representatives of the non-Muslim faiths as to the absence of compulsion in their respective faiths. Professor Shad Faruqi delivered a most illuminating account of the guarantees enshrined in the Federal Constitution on religious freedom and then proffered his personal view, as a Muslim, that there can be no compulsion in Islam. In contrast, Abdul Ghani Shamsudin, the representative from the Persatuan Ulama Malaysia ( PUM ), was plainly most uncomfortable with the subject of discussion and delivered a most indecisive paper.
It was against this backdrop that the pro-tem meetings of the IFC initiative took off in 2001.
You will recall that at these meetings, the initial concerns and reservations expressed by ACCIN were that :
1. ACCIN was not in favour of any intra-faith dialogue at the workshop;
2. discussions ought to be confined with the main stream of Islam;
3. ACCIN could not agree that the proposed workshop made provision for a speaker from a group of self-confessed deviants from main stream Islam;
4. the pro-tem committee should only deal with main stream Islamic groups;
5. allowing these deviant groups an avenue to speak would destroy the foundation of inter-faith dialogues.
Credit must be given to the non-Muslim representatives on the pro-tem committee. They saw what was happening. They were confronted with the threat by ACCIN to pull out from the IFC initiative unless ACCIN’s ‘deal with us only’ stance was agreed to. ACCIN touted the notion that without their participation, the IFC initiative would be a lame duck, having no semblance of Muslim participation.
I recall the look of impatience on Adam’s face at the fourth pro-tem meeting as Mr. Harcharan of MCCBCHS asked him to explain who determined which Muslim was mainstream and which Muslim was deviant! Almost unconsciously, non-Muslims partaking at the pro-tem were already exercising their empowerment that came from a realization that there were Muslims on their side who were prepared to take on the ACCINs and the ABIMs on the thorniest of issues: apostasy.
We know what happened after that. The non-Muslim representatives stuck to their guns and adhered to the all-inclusive principle upon which the initiative had begun. With that, ACCIN and their cohorts walked out of the initiative.
I had posed these questions earlier:
1. why the insistence that so-called ‘Islamic deviants’ be excluded from any participation at the workshop or national conference?; and
2. if ACCIN genuinely felt that intra-faith issues should not be on the agenda for discussion at the national conference, or should not come within the purview of the proposed IFC, why not participate at the workshop and share their misgivings with other participants?
In my view, the principle concern of ACCIN and their friends at this juncture was that Muslims who were identified as not being in favour of the ongoing Islamisation process should not be included in the IFC initiative. There were three reasons for this.
First, with the presence of these so-called ‘deviant’ Muslims on the IFC initiative, there would be no room for the ‘sensitive issue’, ‘involves Muslims only’ and ‘anti-Islam’ arguments. These only worked previously when the Islamic religious authorities had to deal with non-Muslims only.
Second, these so-called ‘deviant’ Muslims were about to be given a legitimate platform to mount a challenge to the aspirations of these Islamists to establish their Islamic state and all that it represented.
Third, and to my mind, most importantly, they saw the distinct possibility of this IFC initiative being the first collaboration between non-Muslims and the so-called ‘deviant’ Muslims in checking the Islamisation process. They feared that a multi-racial, multi-religious, pluralist civil society movement might be finding its earliest footing.
Having failed to persuade the non-Muslims involved in the IFC initiative to abandon the so-called ‘deviant’ Muslims, ACCIN then changed their ‘we’re the good guys; you’re cavorting with the devil’ stance taken with the non-Muslims. Now the non-Muslims, especially MCCBCHS, were the devils devising and leading an agenda to attack, undermine and destroy Islam.
Which brings me to my report. If you have not looked at it up to now, please do so now. You will see that it narrates the matter of the complaint of the ‘group of 29’, the problem of the 4 Kelantan Apostates and the matter of Arifin Mohamad, better known as Ayah Pin, having renounced Islam but still being dealt with by the Islamic religious authorities.
Please recall that when Adam was urging the pro-tem committee to exclude so-called ‘deviant’ Muslims from the entire IFC initiative, my report was relied on by him to say who was deviant. Recall also that when this effort by ACCIN failed, no further reference has ever been made to my report thereafter. Instead, in their public attacks of the IFC initiative as being anti-Islam, the focus of ACCIN has been entirely on the MCCBCHS Report.
Why bury my report? Let me try to shed some light on this question by a reference to another controversy that unfolded about the same time that the pro-tem meetings were taking place, a number of controversial cases that have gone to court and a written protest to the Malay rulers in 2005 by 226 Muslims about some of the unIslamic Syariah enactments that have been put in place.
In 2001, the English mainstream media had carried writings and speeches of certain individuals, all Muslim save for one, that did not sit well with the ulama. In early 2002, the PUM took the lead in writing to the Council of Rulers to complain about these individuals.
Segments of civil society reacted in support of the individuals who were under attack. The Bar Council organized a ‘freedom of expression’ forum. Other groups and organizations issued public statements in support of those individuals. Most importantly and relevant to the point I am trying to make, at the height of this controversy, the English media were constantly running letters from Muslims to the editor supportive of those individuals.
These letters by Muslims to the editors send out an all-important message: apart from the usual Muslim activists involved in civil society efforts like the IFC, there were other Muslims in society who did not take kindly to the attempt by the ulama to stifle or silence the exercise of the constitutionally guaranteed right of expression. They, too, were advocating constitutionalism.
The controversial cases. In 2003 or 2004, Dato’ Zaid Ibrahim had commenced proceedings in the Federal Court to challenge the hudud enactments of Kelantan and Terengganu. Last year, Sulaiman Takrib filed proceedings in the Federal Court to challenge 2 sections in the Terengganu Takzir Offences Enactment, 2001. Sulaiman’s challenge is particularly significant in that sections 10 and 14, which in substance makes it on offence for a Muslim to hold a view contrary to a fatwa, are disputed on the grounds that the state legislature had no power to make these laws as well as an argument that they are unIslamic. Sulaiman, too, has advocated constitutionalism and has further staked his claim to the democratic space that Islam allows him.
And in April, 2005, 226 Muslims of diverse backgrounds signed off a petition to the Malay rulers seeking a review of the Syariah laws that have been passed over the years. The complaint was substantially that these laws introduced an element of compulsion in Islam that was not to be found in the Holy Qur’an and prohibited Muslims from undertaking their duty to think. Again, these Muslims turned to the Federal Constitution as their point of reference.
How many Muslims who make up the silent majority favour constitutionalism?
How many Muslims who make up the silent majority share concerns but remain silent about the loss, for Muslims, of the democratic space afforded them in Islam and recognized constitutionally, in the wake of the Islamisation process unfolding in this country?
Do ACCIN and their like truly represent the majority of Muslims in this country on every conceivable issue, as they claim?
What might encourage or embolden Muslims who make up the silent majority to enter the public fray and raise their concerns?
In my view, the more Muslims are seen and heard questioning the Islamisation process that ACCIN, Teras and their likes are pushing, the more Muslims who make up the silent majority will be encouraged, emboldened and empowered to speak up.
My report is precisely that. A document published by a Muslim for public distribution and consideration in which concerns about the impact of that Islamisation process are raised.
ACCIN claims they represent the majority of Muslims in this country. The last thing they want is to have this claim tested. The last thing they want is to have more and more Muslims raising questions about the Islamisation process, thereby also encouraging the non-Muslims to do likewise.
With that concern in mind, they buried my report.
And ACCIN went to town, condemning the MCCBCHS Report as an anti-Islam document evidencing an attack on Islam by non-Muslims, and the IFC initiative as the vehicle to further that attack.
The steering committee of the IFC initiative, through Malik Imtiaz, came to the defence of the IFC initiative.
Unfortunately, MCCBCHS and Harcharan did not refute the lies about the MCCBCHS Report. Their failure to react appropriately lent credence to the lies. ACCIN took these lies to the mosques and into the homes of the average Muslim. The silent majority of Muslims, understandably concerned with this allegation of an attack on Islam, continues to remain silent.
The Article 11 coalition and its forums, in the eyes of BADAI, PAS and Teras represented another civil society effort that was availing a very public platform for so-called ‘deviant’ Muslims to raise difficult questions about their Islamic state agenda. The open letter to the government launched at the PJ Forum was a thoughtfully drafted document that truly reflects the aspirations of a multi-racial, multi-religious plural citizenry that was sending a very clear message to the government : uphold the secular state established under the Federal Constitution of 1957 and the rejection of any notion of a theocratic state.
The PJ forum, in particular, saw a reasonable number of Muslims in the audience. More important was the concerns by Muslims from the audience about the Islamisation unfolding in the country and how it was impacting on the rights of Muslims.
The Article 11 coalition and its forums was emerging as a far more formidable multi-racial, multi-religious, pluralist civil society movement involving non-Muslims and Muslims than the IFC initiative. Unlike the IFC initiative, the Article 11 coalition was emerging as a ‘people power’ movement.
As noted earlier, BADAI, PAS and Teras could not openly oppose the aspirations outlined in Article 11’s open letter. To do so would immediately expose their ambitions to establish, in the long term, a theocracy.
So BADAI, PAS and Teras seized on the plan to identify the Article 11 coalition with the IFC initiative. If this ruse was effective, the lies about the IFC being an anti-Islam effort would also stick to Article 11.
One problem was that the forums had already built up a certain momentum and there was no guarantee that the lies about the Article 11 coalition and the IFC effort being one and the same would be effective. Even if these lies were effective, there was no guarantee that the Article 11 coalition could be intimidated into halting the forums, which was the real concern. So they now combined the lies with violent demonstrations outside the forum venues in Penang and JB and threatened that unless the forums were halted by the government, tensions were going to escalate into uncontrollable violence.
And to neutralise the Muslim factor in this emerging civil society movement, key Muslim players were demonised as ‘deviant’, ‘pseudo-Muslim’, ‘secular Muslim’, ‘hyper-liberal Muslim’ ‘apostate lovers’. I will deal with these allegations in detail in the Second Paper.
The plan worked. In July, 2006, the Prime Minister did a complete about turn from his earlier stand in May that the forums were a legitimate exercise of civil rights.
Why the lies? Anyone sincerely concerned with where the Islamisation process is taking our country and wants to check the erosion of civil rights as a direct consequence of that process must fully understand this question.
BADAI, PAS, Teras, ACCIN and their cohorts are a long way from their hope of establishing their model of an Islamic state. They are a long way from winning the psychological battle over the non-Muslims and the Muslims who are distrustful of their Islamisation.
They have lost the ‘blank cheque’ they once had in the implementation of their Islamisation process and they do not relish the prospect of having more and more Muslims and non-Muslims scrutinising their plans.
BADAI, PAS, Teras, ACCIN and their cohorts lied to create the spectre of Islam being under siege to create a diversion so that the focus of the silent majority of Muslims might not turn to how unIslamic their Islamisation process really was. I will deal with the unIslamicness of the ongoing Islamisation process in detail in the Second Paper.
BADAI, PAS, Teras, ACCIN and their cohorts lied to create the spectre of this nation being on the brink of a civil war so that the non-Muslims might be bullied into returning to their previous silent suffering of the erosion of rights.
“We have sent them the Truth, but they indeed practice falsehood” – Surah 23 verse 90 of the Holy Qur’an.
BADAI, PAS, Teras, ACCIN and their cohorts lied to divide and break the emerging civil society that does not care for their envisioned way of life.
“It is those who do not believe in God’s revelations that fabricate falsehood. It is they who lie.” – Surah 16 verse 105 of the Holy Qur’an.
Time will tell if they have succeeded.
Back to : ACCIN Lies : Post Conference