Islam, and its adherents, has been very much  writer Kassim Ahmad; columnist Akbar Ali; Universiti Malaya academic Dr Patricia Martinez; lawyer Malik Imtiaz Sarwar; and executive director of Sisters in Islam, Zainah Anwar.

This controversy captured the attention of the mainstream press. For instance, Berita Harian in its editorial on Feb 7 had urged all relevant parties not to restrict the discussion on Islam only to the ulama because it felt that other Muslims, too, have the right to voice their opinions. Mingguan Malaysia on Feb 10 carried a news report, headlined  PUM, penulis diminta dialog  (PUM, writers urged to dialogue), in which Deputy Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi called on the ulama and the writers concerned to engage in a dialogue to solve the problem amicably.

The New Sunday Times on Feb 10, however, was blunt and bald-faced in its criticism against PUM. More than half of its editorial page was dedicated to the PUM controversy via its editorial of the day, headlined A case of misplaced wrath; and an opinion piece penned by writer Shamsul Akmar, headlined Case of selective persecution.

The NST editorial lambasted PUM for having taken such a drastic action against the writers and intellectuals concerned, an action, it claimed, tantamount to shielding the ulama from criticisms. The editorial also expressed its fear that such a move — that would result in the banning of religious discussion and debate among ordinary Muslims — could also lead to the ossification of Islam.

Double standards

Shamsul Akmar, on the other hand, questioned what he perceived as double standards of PUM. Why, he asked, did PUM not raise a hue and cry over certain statements made by certain political leaders, particularly PAS, that he considered theologically problematic? The subtext is that he took a swipe at the opposition.

On NST s op-ed page, Askiah Adam, in her Weekend Guest column, headlined Every reason to argue intellect plays primary role in faith, lamented the decision of PUM not to engage in a dialogue with the very people whom it criticised. The association, she opined, should take this opportunity to defend the integrity of the ulama . Besides, she added, this dialogue would go a long way towards developing a strong intellectual tradition among Muslims in Malaysia, something that is in dire need.

The long and short of this is that the mainstream newspapers, especially NST and Berita Harian , had strongly urged the ulama , particularly PUM, to open the door to dialogue, and not to resort to measures that would in effect muzzle the writers concerned and other people of similar wavelength.

Indeed, the ulama should take this as a golden opportunity not only to defend themselves intellectually, but also engage in a meaningful discourse with these writers and intellectuals and other interested parties as well. For this intellectual contact would in the long run help strengthen the intellectual tradition among Muslims in particular, and Malaysians in general.

It is also through discussion and debate that the general public can gain useful insight into Islam, especially at a time when Islam is often misunderstood as a faith that encourages and condones violence, and not as a religion that puts high premium on peace, knowledge, reason and intellectual growth, particularly among its ardent followers. Besides, calling for a ban on theological discussion may not only be construed by the general public as anti-intellectual, but also undemocratic and elitist.

Different views not appreciated

Having said that, though, this  ulama episode must be seen in the context of the larger Malaysian society where opinions that are generally perceived to be different from the powers that be are likely to be curbed, and indeed have been suppressed. Differences are often taken by the authorities as irritants, not rich resources to be exploited in the overall development of the country. Different views, held by people in a peaceful and non-violent manner, are not always appreciated, much less celebrated.

The worst scenario is that these different people are often made out to be anti-national elements, subversives, anti-development types, or even extremists, whatever these really mean. It appears that these different people, from the viewpoint of the government, have to be alienated, and not engaged in a dialogue.

The curbs on public expression take various forms, ranging from the suspension of publishing permit to self-censorship to detention without trial. Whats even worse is that the Sedition Act can be used in a less prudent fashion to essentially silence critics and dissent. In other words, a political culture of restricting certain people from expressing their opinions in a peaceful way and within the democratic structure in Malaysia has been cultivated over the years.

Given the prevailing situation, it is incumbent upon the mainstream media to strive to shoulder as much as possible the social responsibility of providing equal access to groups irrespective of their political alignment, if any, should there be a need to have open dialogues via these public spaces. It is of course not sufficient, let alone ethical, to only allow people to express views about Islam that somehow coincide with those of the powers that be.

Worse still, it does not augur well if the government-biased media, in providing a selective access to certain people, have an axe to grind, that is to single-mindedly thrash the opposition. It is worthwhile to remind ourselves that a party who feels maligned by news reports or writings in the mainstream press, for example, must be given recourse or opportunity to respond and defend itself. This is as Islamic as it is democratic.

There has to be a conscious endeavour to be open-minded, to cite the general sentiments of delegates of the recently held conference on the Issues and mind-opening process of the Muslim-Malay community, on the part of the parties concerned. One would like to believe that, for example, the publishing of a letter ( Ulama concerned over wrong interpretation) from the chairperson of the Kedah Muslim Scholars Association, defending the position of the ulama , in NST s letters column on Feb 12, is not mere tokenism to the effort of creating an open dialogue. The letter was situated next to one — headlined Study the Quran, Hadith and judge what is right — written by a reader critical of the ulama .

Unless access to the media is made to all and sundry, and freedom of expression is well entrenched, the different groups in society — be they the ulama , the government leaders, the intellectuals, or the opposition leaders — would often be left to engage in their own respective monologues of sorts. No one profits from, to put it metaphorically, a dialogue of the deaf.