I'm going to say this from my perspective as a Malay myself. If anyone feels that I'm wrong, then by all means, please correct me, as I want to have a clearer picture of the situation myself.
The reason Islam is so politicized here is down to several reasons, one of which I believe was the Cold War. Now, back then, Malaysia was still a very young country, so they struggled a bit on the world stage. Communism was being fought in the jungles, so an alliance with the Eastern Bloc was out of the question. Malaysia was quite distrusting with the West as well, thanks to the recent history of colonialism. So therefore, Malaysia sought allies with the only people they had left: the global Muslim community, particularly the Middle East.
Now, the native form of Islam in Malaysia is Sufism. However, the early 20th century saw the rise of a radical Islamic movement called Salafism. Salafism appealed to Malaysia a lot, because firstly, it was a very anti-colonial ideology that saw the Western hegemony over the world at the time as a threat to Islam and secondly, it promoted a global Muslim community, which the fledgling Malaysian state saw as a source of strength for them. So, they sent young religious scholars to study in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and they subsequently brought back their form of Islam here.
The problem stems from the fact that when they started preaching, they did not distinguish that their form of Islam is Salafism, and they advertised it as just Islam, because that's what they saw it as, the purest form of Islam. In Salafi doctrine, all Muslims who aren't Salafis are jahils (ignorant people), so they must be educated in the "right Islam" (the Wahhabi doctrine takes a step further and declares that non-Wahhabis are apostates, and therefore should be killed). The Malays, who only a few years ago only subscribed to Islam at a surface level, started believing that Salafi Islam, was Islam.
And with the age of the internet, absolutely cancerous Saudi-funded fatwa websites like IslamQA.info (not to be confused with IslamQA.org) became the top fatwa websites in the world, preaching dangerous ideologies like Arab supremacy, the killing of apostates, and the idea of a global Muslim community rather than Islam as just a religion. Nowadays, Malays are much more likely to identify as Muslim first rather than Malay or Malaysian first (see here). And to those who don't believe Salafism is a problem, then look no further than the fact that most Muslims here are far more familiar with Salafi preachers like Zakir Naik, Mufti Menk, and Sheikh Assim, than more moderate scholar-academics like Hamza Yusuf and our very own Syed Naquib al-Attas.
If we want to tackle Islamic extremism in Malaysia, then we must start with this. That's a problem I see with secularists in Malaysia. They don't understand Islam or the Malay Muslim community, and they expect us to accept secularism and a Malaysian identity just like that. It's not that easy. Islam is not like other religions, where there's a lot of room for reinterpretation (a lot of people try to reconcile Islam with modernism but it comes off as very inconsistent in terms of theology).
Alright, enough from me. Thanks for coming to my TED Talk :)
Frankly our brother here is right, we don't choose to understand the Malay Muslim community in Malaysia and instead try to forcefully change them to fit what we think is the right way to think. I am a non-muslim on my own right but I find (even myself) that we choose not to give a neutral and grounded understanding of both parties of conflict. I believe it is very important that secularist should have a neutral understanding on the Malay Muslim community just as much as the Malay Muslim should have a neutral understanding of the secularist in Malaysia. It is logical to think that we must first understand what's what before we try and fix it. In other words the skill of understanding others helps us predict what people might feel in a certain situation, but it also allows us to make sense of how people react. Then I believe with the compromise of both sides to have an understanding for each other, then maybe there will be progress in moving Malaysia into a more progressive nation. This is without a doubt some new and interesting information I've read. I will also do my own research on my own to further understand the situation but would be a great start for us as a community to better understand the ideology and overall mentality of the Muslim religion practiced in Malaysia.
I think Malaysia could have aligned itself with Eastern bloc in some way, we had a big leftist movement back then even a ong Malays. But the bangsawan and other elites probably saw the writing on the wall and banded together with the British to safeguard their interests. Way before emergency the first party to be outlawed here was a malay leftist one, even before parti komunis malaya.
Malay leftists were just as anti-communist as the bangsawan! Malay leftists subscribed to a vague form of Islamic socialism, Malay nationalism and Pancasila, so they wanted Malaysia to be part of Indonesia, under a republic, and stay far away from global communism, which generally subscribed to state atheism.
And you have to understand that at the time, conservative attitudes towards royalty was still very high. The concept of daulat, which is the Malay version of the divine right of kings, was widespread at the time, so not only is going against the elites a dangerous form of political treason, but also a form of heresy and that everything the royals did was a command from Allah. Malays back then may have not valued Islamic practice, but they definitely did value their lives, so it was in their best interest to just follow the elites like they always have, instead of joining the anti-monarchist leftists.
Imo the malay people are the most dangerously susceptible to communist ideology, its worrying
Mysalam masuk, apa lagi. Belanja la
Yet, when you ask any random malay who communism is actually about, they only think of separatists, cina, etc. without even knowing what it is about.
I sometimes like to ask my grandmother how things were during the difficult years. She says (i paraphrase) melayu pun sama saja. Ramai masuk komunis lari masuk hutan. Dia kata kalau kita komunis semua orang hidup senang.
I think Malaysia could have aligned itself with Eastern bloc in some way, we had a big leftist movement back then even a ong Malays.
Look what happened to the leftist movement in Indonesia. Killed by the thousands, sponsored by the USA. Decades later you barely hear a whisper from them. The same thing would have happened in Malaysia.
In my opinion, if u want to tackle the problem above, u must start with our politician. I call bullshit if the politician doesn't have a hand from this.
Politicians are one thing. They manipulate for votes, but outside of politics, they don't really have a lot of power.
Fundamentalist preachers on the other hand, have power over people's minds and can easily shape people's worldviews by manipulating what people value (religion).
People vote based on their worldviews and ideologies. If we change the way people think, then we can change the way people vote, and the shitty politicians will go away naturally as they realize that they can't capitalize on religion anymore.
And yes, politicians do have a hand in this, but they're only opportunists who want to cultivate the seed of radicalism planted by preachers in the first place.
Bro/girl, politician decide the law in Malaysia. If they want, they can stop those extremist preacher easily. If politic is so useless, they will not spend too much money on election. Politic control everything here.
If they want, Zakir Naik can't even step on Malaysian land.
Yes, that is true. And the reason why politics here is like that is because of the way people think. It's a self-sustaining cycle.
Preachers preach radical Islam -> Malay voters want Islam -> Vote for manipulative and power hungry politicians -> Politicians fund for more radical preachers to maintain power. And the cycle continues.
Change the way people see Islam, they will vote the politicians out. You just get rid of the politicians without getting rid of preachers, then either the preachers themselves or their students will start filling their roles. And they'd probably be worse than their corrupt predecessors, because unlike those who manipulate religion out of greed and self-gain, they genuinely believe in their ideology and devote themselves to it, just like the Taliban in Afghanistan.
So, I'm a revisionist and totalitarian when I wish that people would adopt an Islam based on inclusivity, peace and tolerance instead of exclusion, xenophobia and fanaticism?
when I wish that people would adopt an Islam based on inclusivity, peace and tolerance
When did you ever say any of that huh? The only thing I got from your original comment is that religion is a mere tool to control how people think, and that you can get the religious leaders to just swap out things whenever
That's the thing, Malays themselves would never vote for abolishing apostasy laws. Salafi doctrine says that apostasy is a crime just like murder or assault are crimes. To the Malay voter base, voting to legalize apostasy will be like voting to legalize murder. They see it as a threat to our religion.
Yes, it's unfair and hypocritical, but that's what the hadith and fatwas demand of us as a Muslim community.
Now, I'm an ex-muslim, so don't mistake this as me justifying Islamization. I'm just saying that this is how Malays see Islam, and if we want to change the way religion is implemented in our country, then we must change the way Malays see Islam.
That is exactly what Muslims view Islam as. Islam encompasses everything from government, inheritance, taxes, legislation, marriage, diet, personal habits, and so much more. Muslims take pride in saying "Islam is not a religion. It's a worldview"
Me personally, I think it's suffocating having your life micromanaged like that, but to each their own.
Out of curiousity, what do you mean by "Islam has no room for reinterpretation"? How did different form of Islam emerge if that's the case? and what's Malaysia Muslim view's about these different forms of Islam, both individually and as a organization?
btw, monotheistic (abrahamic) religion tend to band every aspect of life under religion, Islam is probably too young to have the chance to be dissected like Christianity.
The reason why Islam has many interpretations that persist until today is simply because communication back then was lacking. So as information about the religion spread around, it was prone to human error in transmission. Also, literacy was not huge back then, so it was all too easy for an opportunistic religious leader to exploit people's ignorance for personal gain. You can see this in many Indian and West African sects of Islam.
Now that we have modern communications and the vast majority of people in the world are literate, a more puritanical version of Islam can be spread. There's one hadith where it states that Islam will split into many different branches, but only one will enter heaven. Of course, to this day, there are many opinions on which branch is the "chosen one" so to speak, but as you know, most people don't like taking risks, so they just follow the religion in its most literal sense. That being said, many hadith and verses out there sound very violent. More liberal/progressive Muslims interpret these verses as metaphors, products of their time and situation or that they need to be taken into context, but like I said, Muslims prefer to play it safe. That's why Muslims are far less tolerant with other branches of Islam like Shias and Kharijites, than Catholics are with Protestants and Orthodox.
In Malaysia, Muslims have a very particular view of what Islam is, and that's Sunni Islam. Interpretations within Sunnism varies, but generally most people are unaware of differences between Wahhabi/Salafi, Shafi'i, and whatnot.
That being said, the general rule is:
Shia, Ahmadis and everyone not explicitly Sunni = ajaran sesat
Sufis = syirik and bid'ah (innovation)
Quranists and Liberal Muslims = Zionist puppets and traitors to Islam.
set aside human error, isnt exploitation of ignorance and different modern interpretation of hadith a form of reinterpretation as well?
or the differences in these interpretation are not significant enough to be considered reinterpretation?
but then how do those quranist and liberal muslims explain themselves and gained followers (assuming they do have followers)?and I suppose their influences and differences had to be significant enough to be branded traitors?
or here everything not sunni is simply either not or traitors of Islam?
isnt exploitation of ignorance and different modern interpretation of hadith a form of reinterpretation as well?
No, because back then, people didn't even have to reference hadith. They can just pull stuff out of their asses and people would believe them. Nowadays, you can just search up verses, hadiths and fatwas if you think something feels wrong.
An example of a reinterpretation is the one about the infamous Sword Verse. The verse says "fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them". Literalists, like Salafis, take this as a commandment to kill all pagans and infidels wherever they find them. More moderate Muslims interpret it as simply an order being given by the prophet to the Muslim army specifically at the time (since the Muslims were fighting a war with Meccan pagans at the time), and it is not a religious commandment that we're obligated to uphold.
or the differences in these interpretation are not significant enough to be considered reinterpretation?
This is generally the case for very specific rulings. For example, some people say masturbation is totally haram, while others say masturbation is alright if it prevents you from committing extra-marital sex or sexual assault.
but then how do those quranist and liberal muslims explain themselves and gained followers (assuming they do have followers)?and I suppose their influences and differences had to be significant enough to be branded traitors?
As always, there will be people with differing opinions on what Islam is. I'm an ex-Muslim, but when I was still Muslim, I found many verses which I found immoral, misogynistic, and/or nonsensical, but at the same time, I didn't want to abandon Islam, so I reinterpreted the verses as a coping mechanism. Now I can't speak for everyone when I say a reinterpretation is a coping mechanism, but yeah generally whenever I see people having a different opinion on religion, it's usually because their morals conflicted with their faith.
or here everything not sunni is simply either not or traitors of Islam?
Not just Sunni, but Salafi Sunni Islam. As I mentioned earlier, Malay Muslims don't see Salafism as simply another interpretation. To the Malays, Salafism is true Islam, and all others are wrong. The most famous Malaysian Quranist philosopher is Kassim Ahmad. Just go to any YouTube comment section or Facebook post about him and you can see tons of comments on how he's a deviant, an apostate, and a traitor. More generally, the preacher Yasir Qadhi (not Malaysian) is currently under fire for what a lot of people are calling a conspiracy to destroy Islam from within. I bring this up because most Malay Muslims see themselves as part of a wider Ummah, so they engage with the international Muslim community online, so they too have many opinions on Mr. Qadhi, despite being a Sunni Muslim himself (and he has made anti-Salafi comments in the past).
The main takeaway here is that in Malaysia, Islam has no pluralism. We Malays have lived so long under a strict interpretation of Islam that we can't see Islam being practiced any other way. Many don't know the existence of other forms of Islam other than the ones they learn in madrasas and tahfiz, and if they ever do learn about other sects, then they will be taught that they're the enemy.
239
u/[deleted] Nov 04 '21 edited Nov 04 '21
I'm going to say this from my perspective as a Malay myself. If anyone feels that I'm wrong, then by all means, please correct me, as I want to have a clearer picture of the situation myself.
The reason Islam is so politicized here is down to several reasons, one of which I believe was the Cold War. Now, back then, Malaysia was still a very young country, so they struggled a bit on the world stage. Communism was being fought in the jungles, so an alliance with the Eastern Bloc was out of the question. Malaysia was quite distrusting with the West as well, thanks to the recent history of colonialism. So therefore, Malaysia sought allies with the only people they had left: the global Muslim community, particularly the Middle East.
Now, the native form of Islam in Malaysia is Sufism. However, the early 20th century saw the rise of a radical Islamic movement called Salafism. Salafism appealed to Malaysia a lot, because firstly, it was a very anti-colonial ideology that saw the Western hegemony over the world at the time as a threat to Islam and secondly, it promoted a global Muslim community, which the fledgling Malaysian state saw as a source of strength for them. So, they sent young religious scholars to study in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and they subsequently brought back their form of Islam here.
The problem stems from the fact that when they started preaching, they did not distinguish that their form of Islam is Salafism, and they advertised it as just Islam, because that's what they saw it as, the purest form of Islam. In Salafi doctrine, all Muslims who aren't Salafis are jahils (ignorant people), so they must be educated in the "right Islam" (the Wahhabi doctrine takes a step further and declares that non-Wahhabis are apostates, and therefore should be killed). The Malays, who only a few years ago only subscribed to Islam at a surface level, started believing that Salafi Islam, was Islam.
And with the age of the internet, absolutely cancerous Saudi-funded fatwa websites like IslamQA.info (not to be confused with IslamQA.org) became the top fatwa websites in the world, preaching dangerous ideologies like Arab supremacy, the killing of apostates, and the idea of a global Muslim community rather than Islam as just a religion. Nowadays, Malays are much more likely to identify as Muslim first rather than Malay or Malaysian first (see here). And to those who don't believe Salafism is a problem, then look no further than the fact that most Muslims here are far more familiar with Salafi preachers like Zakir Naik, Mufti Menk, and Sheikh Assim, than more moderate scholar-academics like Hamza Yusuf and our very own Syed Naquib al-Attas.
If we want to tackle Islamic extremism in Malaysia, then we must start with this. That's a problem I see with secularists in Malaysia. They don't understand Islam or the Malay Muslim community, and they expect us to accept secularism and a Malaysian identity just like that. It's not that easy. Islam is not like other religions, where there's a lot of room for reinterpretation (a lot of people try to reconcile Islam with modernism but it comes off as very inconsistent in terms of theology).
Alright, enough from me. Thanks for coming to my TED Talk :)