Did anyone think it odd that the establishment speakers rallied against the PUM (Malaysian Muslim Scholars Association) for its insulting Islam stance contained in its memorandum to the Conference of Rulers and that they kept silent against the PUK (Kedah Muslim Scholars Association)-inspired ban on The Vagina Monologues ?

By establishment speakers, I am in this instance, referring to the voices employed by the government, including the writers in government-owned presses, whose recent views on the PUM saga were well covered in both print and broadcast media. It is quite inconceivable that these views are contrary to that of the top politicians in the government.

Both PUM and PUK are seeking to censor speech on a variety of issues including public morality and decency (the PUK complaint) and on Islam. Obviously the establishment silence against the PUK-inspired ban on The Vagina Monologues suggests that womens speech on sexuality is not political enough for this lot.

The recent Kuala Lumpur City Hall diatribe on alleged vulgarities and the disparaging of Islam in the script of The Vagina Monologues picked up by a local daily and in the Singapore press probably mirrors the PUK complaint. It suggests complicity and acquiescence to censorship of womens speech. City Hall was responsible for revoking the permit for the plays second run in the city.

State censorship laws

PUM was reported to have filed complaints under various state Syariah criminal law enactments against a number of speakers in its disapproved list for the offence of insulting Islam. In case we are missing the point, all state Syariah criminal enactments are made under this government.

Drafts of state criminal laws originate as a matter of practice from Pusat Islam (The Islamic Centre). Pusat Islam is headed by an officer responsible to the Prime Ministers department.

New reports state that a complaint has been filed also with the National Fatwa Council.

The ulama and supporters in the PUM saga are using current BN state laws which encourage censorship of certain types of speech. Why are the establishment speakers not thinking of looking into these laws per se? Dare we think that the establishment speakers may be quite happy to retain these laws and give their blessings in a proper prosecution of anti-government elements?

We might want to note that these laws are open to just about anyone to initiate a complaint, including PUM. By accessing these state laws and by taking the initiative to forward a memorandum to the Conference of Rulers, PUM is not doing anything out of the ordinary. In this light, the outright condemnation of PUMs use of these resources may not be quite fair.

Less than progressive

What requires vigilance is the manner of selection by establishment forces in targeting their concerns as reflected in the PUM-PUK saga.

This process of selection may single out the establishments less than progressive agenda on censorship. I would think that the absence of establishment comment on the censorship laws on the offence of insulting Islam per se puts them in the same spot as the ulama who have decided to champion these laws.

Having said that, the clarion call that the ulama as independent public intellectuals as opposed to officers of the executive arm of the government, quite unlike Pusat Islam officers, should have opted for a public dialogue rather than censorship, should be heeded.

Indeed we should also begin to investigate the role and powers of the ulama both as independent intellectuals and as officers of the executive. It is disturbing to know that the ulama could move City Hall to revoke permits as in the recent The Vagina Monologues ban and influence the non-inclusion of marital rape as an act of domestic violence several years ago without being accountable.

It is seldom that the ulama were put on the stand, as it were, to defend their protestations. I remembered that in that fateful meeting on the then draft domestic violence law, women insisted that the ulama who opposed the inclusion of marital rape actually attend the deliberations and defend their position. The request was not acceded to.

Upon reflection, it is a little strange that the government has allowed its institutions and departments to be manipulated without accountability. The ulama s views were allowed to prevail without question in these instances. Surely then the government must be made answerable for any fallout.

Public debate

For the ulama themselves, they have to realise that their public role will be irrelevant for as long as they refuse public engagement of their causes. It would be a useful reminder to all that historically the scholarship of the individual alim (singular for ulama ) or jurist is tested in the public space.

All the founders of the main Sunni schools of thought and disciples evolved their jurisprudence and methods through public debate. This precious tradition allows for disagreements. There is very little room for any one person to label views as an insult to Islam. There may even be disputes as to the methodology of arriving at an opinion. This means that are levels of disputations as well.

At the risk of being passe, we should acknowledge that there are new challenges facing Muslims which require a regeneration of thinking and methods of discovering the message of the faith. This envisages the possibility of a critique of traditional methodology as well.

The contemporary debate is the need for that internal dialogue. It is inconceivable in this day and age to think that time and thinking have stood still for Muslims. The ulama should be careful not to succumb to this.