A couple of years ago, I found myself in Munich along with the Sudanese Islamist scholar Prof Abdullahi an-Naim, addressing an audience about the topic of Islam and Human Rights. We were there at the invitation of the Goethe Institute, as part of a series of inter-civilisational dialogues that were meant to address the question of religion and politics, civilisations and their respective approaches to civil society and human rights. (Sept 11 had not taken place yet, so nobody stopped the two of us when we arrived in Germany thankfully I was not asked to take off my shoes or any other article of clothing I had on at the time.)
Both our presentations focused on a similar theme: The need for Muslims to understand how and why the religion of Islam could and should be regarded as a basis for a new understanding of human rights and civil liberties. The point we were trying to make was simple that if, in some Muslim societies today, Muslims and Islamist scholars and activists in particular find it difficult to accept the entire corpus of Western liberal human rights discourse they should not abandon the concept of human rights and civil society per se.
As was pointed out by Abdullahi and myself, Islam already serves as a basis for an understanding of human rights and from such a 'localised' system of values and beliefs we can already develop a discourse of human rights that may have more resonance and meaning for ordinary Muslims themselves. There was nothing new or unique in what we were saying. The same idea had been brought up by countless other Islamist thinkers such as Fazlur Rahman, Abdulkarim Soroush, Tariq Ramadhan, Ebrahim Moosa, Nurcholish Madjid and others.
Non-Western perspectives
Related to this was the point that we wanted to drive home to our own local (German) audience. This was the plain and simple fact that just because some non-Western societies seem to reject the discourse of human rights as defined along Western eurocentric lines, we should not reach the over-hasty conclusion that they reject human rights per se.
The developments in Asia over the past century have shown very clearly that some of the most religious societies in Asia have themselves experienced major political upheavals where religion played a positive emancipatory role as a discourse of rights and liberation. Witness the role played by Buddhism in the pacifist and anti-militarist discourse of Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma, for instance. And the positive role played by Catholic pacifists in the struggle to oust the Washington-backed puppet regime of Ferdinand Marcos.
Our talk was therefore an example of cross-cultural engagement, where Abdullahi and I were trying to address a multiplicity of audiences at the same time: our own fellow Muslims, the local German audience and the hosts of the event, the Goethe institute. Taking into account the fact that the intended audience was a plural and heterodox one, our own approach and manner of speaking had to be flexible and plastic. It had to be a discourse pitched on a number of levels, addressing a myriad of semantic and semiotic registers.
Agitated critic
Just when we thought the session was over and we were free to take a walk in the freezing cold outside, one member of the audience stood up. Judging by his appearance and accent he seemed to be a German. He had a book in his hand, and appeared to be quite agitated at that point. He suddenly grabbed the microphone and said to both of us:
"People like you always come to us ( sic ) here in the West to tell us that your religion is open, tolerant, plural and peaceful. But I have read this holy book of yours, the Quran. In your holy book it says that Muslims must go to war with Jews and Christians, that you must kill us, that you must defeat us. How can we believe you when you say Islam promotes peace, democracy and human rights?"
The man was obviously in an emotional state, and both Abdullahi and myself knew that we were in for a hard time: this was going to be another one of those laborious and complicated encounters when we would have to explain ourselves carefully and with great sensitivity, lest the situation explode and the man with the book in his hand lose his temper. It was clear that for him, Abdullahi and I were nothing more than a couple of apologists for radical Islam (a charge that has been levelled against me time and again while working and teaching in Europe) and that he had come with his own agenda in mind.
So we took our time explaining to him the meaning of the verses he quoted from the Quran. We explained that many of the verses were universal in scope while others were revealed during specific moments of Islam's early history.
The references he quoted were those which were revealed at a time when the fledgling Muslim community was facing enormous persecution at the hands of its enemies, and the Muslims themselves were fearful of being wiped out for good. The call for self-defence found in those verses had to be understood in that light, bearing in mind the historically specific and particular circumstances of their revelation.
Miscommunication
Whether the man was persuaded or not by our arguments remains an open question. But the rest who were there agreed that the man was himself somewhat confused. This was a case where a few lines from the Quran were taken literally and out of context, and given a different interpretation not relevant to present times.
Anyone who has read the Quran in full and understood its overall meaning would know that Islam does not and has never condoned unprovoked violence of any sort. On the other hand, anyone who intends to misrepresent a text can easily do so by taking out sentences at random and twisting their meaning for other reasons.
No text is immune to such misappropriation and that happens to be another feature of how language works. As Jacques Derrida has argued: it is precisely the feature of miscommunication that makes communication possible in the first place. If anything could be communicated 100 percent in toto , with no loss or slippage of meaning, then 'communication' (understood as the transfer and exchange of meaning between two autonomous subject-positions) would not have taken place. To communicate means having to run the risk of miscommunication, but even miscommunication is better than no communication at all for the latter entails the negation of the Other.
Happily for Abdullahi and myself, most of those present did not leave thinking that we were a couple of militants dressed up as academics. The police were not called in to arrest us on the spot, and that night we managed to grab a couple of hours of jazz.
Multiple audiences
Which brings us to the present state of affairs in the Muslim world today.
Anyone who has read the papers in Malaysia recently would know that over the past couple of months there has been an unfortunate dispute between a number of Islamic scholars in this country. This dispute has more to do with the present state of disunity and fragmentation in the Muslim world than anything else.
Thanks in part to the accelerated pace of urbanisation, modernisation and the perpetuation of a divisive form of politics predicated on sectarianism and class differentiation, Muslim society today is fragmented and atomised.
The divisions we see in Muslim society today are not unique to it. Practically all societies have experienced similar disruptions thanks to the march of globalisation, which has divided them along cleavages of class, education, religion, ethnicity and other such variable factors. Alienation and anomie have become the norm in such dislocated societies.
But Muslim society in particular faces a number of additional challenges. The growing gap of income and power, coupled with the relentless onslaught on the political and economic sovereignty of many (if not all) Muslim states means that Muslims today are very much on the defensive. In many of these societies, Islam has also been used as a tool for political mobilisation and a discourse of legitimation (and delegitimation) by governments and opposition movements alike. Squeezed in between these powers is the struggling voice of moderate Muslims working towards the expansion of civil society and the promotion of civic concerns.
Among the most marginalised of these constituencies is the Islamist intellectual.
Intellectual bridge
To be a Muslim scholar or intellectual today is perhaps one of the most difficult things one can do. Caught as they are between conservative traditional scholars on the one hand and secular critics on the other, they are often attacked by both. In the West, they are deemed apologists for religious 'fundamentalism' (1) while in their own societies they are often branded 'Western', 'Secular' or even 'Orientalists'. Yet it is they who serve as a bridge between communities and discursive constituencies, as they have been schooled in both traditions.
Being a bridge, however, is no easy or pleasant task. (Ask any bridge and it will tell you). Bridges are not natural, they are man-made. They are also stepped on. But without such bridges, communication across the banks cannot take place. Being an intellectual bridge between communities is not easy either. Particularly in the light of present-day circumstances where communities are less inclined to talk to each other, trying to keep one foot on both sides of the divide is particularly difficult, if not unpleasant.
The modern Muslim intellectual has to speak in tongues. She or he has to be able to address a multiplicity of audiences and constituencies, some of which are distrustful of each other. She or he has to be able to articulate and communicate messages from both sides, across the divide. Unlike those of the traditionalist or secular camp, the modern Muslim intellectual's audience is not a captive one. She or he has to speak beyond the boundaries of his/her own community, trying to convince others who are less than persuaded. Often this means trying to communicate to those who are hostile or suspicious of their intentions from the outset. Stereotypes and misperceptions have to be confronted, barriers overcome, anger and suspicion disarmed.
Now in the midst of all this to-ing and fro-ing, such Muslim intellectuals and scholars will invariably encounter the problems and difficulties associated with the very medium through which they work: language.
Language, being the plastic and variable phenomenon that it is, is always a treacherous yet necessary tool. The fluid nature of signification means that slippages of meaning and miscommunication will always be the attendant features of any discursive enterprise. What complicates matters even further is the fact that Muslim intellectuals and scholars today have to address a number of constituencies within and without their own community.
Try as they might, their message cannot reach out to all of them. Some constituencies will be more receptive to the message than others, which is how the present impasse between traditional and modern scholars in this country has come about.
Face to face with my detractors
This fact was brought home to me during the forum on Freedom of speech and expression in Islam that was organised by the Malaysian Islamic Youth Movement (Abim) recently. I have to state here that I am particularly grateful to Abim for offering me a forum to explain myself and my work at the height of the controversy, when I was deprived of any public forum to defend myself.
After stating my position on the issue (which is quoted below, (2)), the floor was opened for questions and comments. Among those who raised their points was an elderly man who confessed that he himself had 'little time for politics'. Though I did not have a chance to thank him for his frank statement, I have to say that he raised a question that got to the heart of the matter immediately. He asked: "If you wanted to write about Islam's positive view of humanity and inter-personal relations, why didn't you quote the Quran directly?"
This, for me, is the predicament faced by Muslim intellectuals today. Working as we do in this transcultural contact point between communities, belief systems and discursive economies, Muslim intellectuals have to be sensitive to the needs and wants to their audience which is multiple and heteroglot. The radical difference between us and more traditional scholars is that we do not work in an exclusively-Muslim environment where our audiences are entirely Muslim. Our ideas are being communicated to a different, more diverse constituency. We write for Muslims and non-Muslims as well, knowing that not all of them have read the Quran or are be prepared to do so. (Those Muslims who may object to this approach should ask themselves the question: How would they react to a non-Muslim whose discourse is couched solely in terms of the Bible, Talmud or any other non-Muslim holy text? How many Muslims have even read such texts, and understood them?)
As liminal bridge-builders who straddle the divide between such diverse audiences, our discourse would therefore have to be hybrid, eclectic and multiple. We are forced to communicate the same message, but using terms and styles which are not the same as our traditional counterparts. This should not, however, lead one to the conclusion that the message is radically different. (An 'apple' is still an 'apple', regardless of which language one uses to describe it.)
Intellectual middle ground
The most salient point raised in the course of the evening came from Ustaz Uthman al-Muhammady, who again called on Muslim scholars and intellectuals to work together instead of going at each other's throats. Calling for an 'intellectual middle ground' he appealed to all Muslim scholars to realise the importance of the so-called 'secular' disciplines as well, and praised the works of successive generations of Muslim intellectuals like Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Sina, Ibn Rush and al-Ghazali whose intellectual legacy has remained as a gift to the world, though sadly neglected (and even vilified) in some conservative Islamist circles.
Like the Muslim intellectuals of our age, men like Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Sina and Ibn Rush were misunderstood during their time. Some thought that their work and ideas were 'contaminated' by ideas and values imported from outside. The fear of contamination remains with us till today, for there still exists many Islamist groups that think in terms of a politics of authenticity and purity, dreaming of a pristine golden age that has been elevated to the status of some metanarrative.
But it was thanks to the bridge-building efforts of men like Ibn Khaldun that the Muslim world managed to make the successful transition to a modernising society, equipped with the tools of rational enquiry and scientific analysis. Poor Ibn Khaldun was stepped on quite a lot during his life, though that being one of the hazards of being a cross-cultural bridge builder.
To sum up, bridges are often necessary even if we take them for granted and step on them without thinking. The Muslim intellectuals, scientists and philosophers of the past were the bridges that helped the Muslim world step into the future, and no doubt the present generation of Muslim intellectuals, philosophers and scientists will also have a role to play in bridging the ideological, cultural, epistemic and discursive gulfs between the Muslim world and the rest. Though I certainly do not count myself as being in the same category of the great bridges of the past or the present more a small rickety plank across a puddle than anything else I do hope that this society of ours will come to terms with the need for such bridges, big or small, beautiful or ugly, as we walk along the uneven path of history.
Endnotes.
To be called an apologist for 'Islamic fundamentalism' is one of the most common attacks that any Muslim scholar faces in the West today. This applies to those who have written positively about Islam or Muslim concerns, be they Muslims or non-Muslims.
The German scholar Annemarie Schimmel, author of dozens of books on Islam and the tradition of Tasawwuf (Islamic mysticism, also known as Sufism) was attacked in 1997 by a broad coalition of German secular scholars on the grounds that she was defending a 'militant' faith which other secular German intellectuals (like Gunter Grass) compared to Fascism and Nazism.
Other Muslim scholars like Tariq Ramadhan (grandson of Hassan al-Banna) have likewise been accused of being apologists for Islamic 'radicalism'. Ramadhan's book To be a European Muslim was maliciously criticised by secular European intellectuals who regarded it as a 'blueprint' for the Islamic 'takeover' of Europe despite the fact that Ramadhan was calling on fellow European Muslims to think of themselves as European citizens.
I myself was attacked during my term at Essex University where I was doing my doctoral thesis and teaching. Branded a Muslim 'fundamentalist' by my own supervisor, I was finally forced to lodge a complaint with the university authorities and had to change supervisors in the end but that is a different story that need not detain us here.
Excerpt of the presentation delivered at the Abim Forum on Freedom of speech and expression in Islam, Feb 21, 2002:
' Pendirian saya ' oleh Dr Farish A Noor
Dewasa ini saya dan beberapa individu lain telah dituduh 'menghina Islam' oleh beberapa individu dan persatuan tertentu. Bagi saya, sebagai seorang Muslim yang begitu komited kepada perjuangan Islam dan yang telah membela hak ummat Islam di merata dunia melalui tulisan-tulisan saya, tuduhan yang begitu tajam terasa begitu pedih sekali. Oleh kerana saya tidak diberi peluang oleh mana-mana pihak untuk berdialog, menyatakan pendirian saya dan membela diri saya sendiri, saya ingin mengambil peluang ini untuk menjelaskan pendirian dan pendapat saya tentang isu tersebut.
Saya telah dituduh 'menghina Rasul' oleh kerana saya pernah menggunakan istilah ' tribal leader ' dalam tulisan saya tentang sistem pentadbiran politik pada zaman Rasullullah. Kenyataan saya telah diambil keluar dari konteks yang asal, dan ayat itu telah diberi suatu tafsiran yang lain dari apa yang dimaksudkan. Pengkritik-pengkritik berkenaan tidak mengambil kira konteks dan tujuan asal artikel yang saya tulis itu. Saya hanya bertujuan untuk membetulkan persepsi dan fahaman yang salah di antara beberapa intelek dan ideolog Islam yang telah mengelirukan keadaan dengan menggunakan istilah yang tidak berpatutan.
Saranan saya ialah, pada zaman Rasullullah memang tidak pernah wujud suatu 'negara Islam' ( Islamic state ) seperti yang difahami dalam zaman kita ini. Ini merupakan suatu hakikat yang tidak dapat ditolak. Bukan sahaja tiada suatu 'negara Islam', malah tidak ada apa-apa sistem negara-bangsa ( nation-state ) pada masa itu, tidak kira negara Nasrani, Hindu, Buddha, dan lain-lain. Rasullullah tidak pernah menyatakan bahawa dia memimpin sebagai seorang Perdana Menteri atau Presiden. Istilah-istilah moden sebegini tidak digunakan pada zaman itu.
Dalam artikel saya itu saya tidak langsung menyentuh tentang hal-hal aqidah. Status Nabi Muhammad sebagai Rasullullah tidak langsung dipersoalkan. Pencapaian Rasul juga tidak dipertikaikan. Saya tidak pernah dalam mana-mana tulisan saya mempersoalkan status Nabi Muhammad sebagai utusan Allah di dunia ini.
Tetapi, sebagai seorang akademik dan penganalisis sains politik, saya rasa bahawa kita patut menghormati norma-norma akademik dan berhati-hati apabila menggunakan istilah politik dalam tulisan kita. Ini merupakan suata ciri adab akademia dan ia juga merupakan suatu rukun dalam adab ilmuan Islam.
Apa yang saya hendak sampaikan dalam artikel itu adalah kita, sebagai ahli akademik dan ideolog Islam, tidak patut mereka-reka dan menulis kembali sejarah tamadun Islam dengan sewenang-wenangnya. Memang tidak dapat dinafikan bahawa pada zaman Nabi Muhammad sistem politik yang dominan pada masa itu bercorak ' tribal ' (puak dan kaum). Ini merupakan suatu fakta sejarah yang telah dibangkitkan oleh beberapa generasi ilmuan Islam, dari masa Ibn Khaldun, pengarang buku Muqadimmah , yang merupakan kitab sains politik yang pertama dalam sejarah dunia, sendiri. Jikalau kita menggunakan istilah-istilah moden untuk menerangkan dan mengkaji keadaan yang lama (dan sebaliknya), kita akan hilang halatuju dan kompas sejarah kita sendiri. Saya hanya cuba mengkaji peranan yang dimainkan oleh Rasullullah dalam konteks zaman baginda sendiri. Mengapakah ini dianggap suatu penghinaan terhadap Rasul?
Selain dari itu saya telah dituduh 'menghina Rasul' kerana menulis tentang hubungan seksual antara Nabi dan isteri-isterinya. Sekali lagi ayat-ayat dalam tulisan saya itu telah diambil keluar dari konteks yang asal dan diberi tafsiran yang lain daripada apa yang dimaksudkan. Dalam artikel yang asal itu, saya telah cuba memperbaiki imej Islam yang telah rosak oleh kerana beberapa kenyataan yang dibuat oleh beberapa pemimpin politik, yang telah menyatakan bahawa wanita yang ' dress provocatively ' sengaja minta dirogol dan lelaki yang merogol itu hanya mengikut nafsu semulajadi mereka. Saya berasa bahawa kenyataan-kenyataan begini telah memberikan suatu gambaran negatif tentang Islam dan memburukan imej Islam lagi, sehingga Islam itu dianggap suatu agama yang represif terhadap wanita.
Dalam artikel saya itu, saya telah cuba membuktikan bahawa Islam merupakan suatu agama yang begitu positif terhadap hubungan seksual asalkan ia dilakukan mengikut had dan norma yang ditentukan oleh Shariah. Jika dibandingkan dengan agama-agama lain, Islam merupakan salah satunya agama yang tidak menganggap seks sebagai suatu perkara yang kotor, jijik dan berdosa. Malah, seks dianggap sebagai suatu anugerah dari Tuhan, suatu yang bersih, suci, malah terpuji.
Maklumat yang ada dalam artikel itu dipetik dari buku yang ditulis oleh Prof Abdelwahab Boudhiba, seorang pakar sosiologi Islam di Universiti Tunis, yang berjodol Sexuality in Islam . Jika ada apa-apa kesilapan fakta atau maklumat dalam buku Prof Boudhiba itu, kesilapan saya ialah saya telah memetik maklumat itu tanpa merujuk kepada sumber-sumber yang lain.
Tetapi tujuan saya menulis artikel itu jelas sekali apabila kita membacanya dengan ayat yang seterusnya: " And it is precisely here that we find the kernel of the miraculous in Islam: that a mortal man with physical needs may nonetheless be inspired by the word of God. This vital connection between humanity and the divine, which is the essence of Islamic worship and Islam's view of humankind's relation with the absolute Other, has to be one of the most enlightening principles of Islam itself. "
Berikutnya saya telah menulis: " One would be hard pressed to find another example of such a beautiful, liberating and poetic vision of sexuality and spirituality combined these days, living as we do in a world animated by cheap sensationalism and sensate thrills."
Tujuan saya menulis artikel itu dan beberapa tulisan saya yang lain adalah untuk memperbaiki imej Islam yang telah dikaitkan dengan fikiran sempit lagi konservatif. Niat dan tujuan saya menulis artikel-artikel itu adalah baik dan ikhlas, dan saya berasa sedih sekali apabila beberapa ayat dalam tulisan saya itu dipetik keluar dari konteks yang asal dan diberi tafsiran yang berbeza. Jika saya telah menyinggung perasaan mana-mana pihak dengan tidak sengaja, maka saya, dengan tulus ikhlas, memohon ampun dan maaf kerana memang bukan tujuan saya untuk menyinggung perasaan mana-mana pihak.
Saya tidak sekali-kali ingin keadaan yang sebegini wujud, dan mereka yang telah membaca artikel-artikel yang telah saya tulis selama ini mesti sedar bahawa saya telah cuba memainkan peranan sebagai jambatan ( bridge-builder ) antara komuniti agama dan disiplin-disiplin akademik.
Saya telah menulis begitu banyak artikel tentang penderitaan dan kesengsaraan ummat Islam di merata tempat seperti Palestin, Bosnia, Chechnya, Kosovo, Kashmir, Mindanao, Patani dan tempat-tempat lain. Saya telah juga cuba memperbetulkan persepsi serong media Barat terhadap Islam dan dunia Islam, yang hanya dapat melihat Islam dari sudut perspektif yang negatif. Kritikan saya terhadap sifat prejudis anti-Islam di Barat telah disiarkan begitu banyak sekali di pelbagai majalah dan suratkhabar.
Jikalau mana-mana pihak atau pembaca tidak setuju dengan cara saya menulis atau apa-apa maklumat yang saya telah catatkan, mereka sepatutnya menghubungi saya dahulu, agar apa-apa kesilapan itu dapat diperbetulkan dengan segera. Sebagai seorang akademik dan penulis, saya memang rela dan sedia ditegur, kerana teguran begitu memang penting agar kita tidak menulis apa-apa yang salah, dan ia juga akan menolong kita dalam proses penerapan ilmu dan pengetahuan tentang Islam.
Pembinaan ilmu merupakan suatu proses yang berterusan, dan tidak ada mana-mana pihak yang dapat mengatakan bahawa mereka mempunyai semua ilmu yang dapat diketahui. Suasana sebegini, di mana dialog, tolong-menolong dan pendidikan dapat diadakan, akan dapat menolong kita memahami agama dan identiti kita sendiri, dan ia juga sebahagian dari adab resmi ilmuan Islam.
Sebaliknya kita dituduh 'menghina Islam'. Tuduhan itu begitu keras dan pedih sekali. Saya berasa begitu hampa dan sedih kerana usaha saya untuk membela nasib umat Islam dan mempromosikan suatu imej positif tentang Islam tidak diambil kira langsung. Dalam zaman ini, di mana umat Islam menghadapi begitu banyak tekanan dan kita hidup di bawah telunjuk musuh-musuh luar, saya kurang faham mengapa kita masih saling bermusuhan dan menuduh satu sama lain 'menghina Islam' begitu senang sekali?
Saya rasa bahawa umat Islam tidak boleh lari dari hakikat dunia zaman ini dan kita patut juga mengkaji keadaan semasa dengan kritikal. Kita mesti memperbaiki apa-apa kelemahan yang ada pada diri kita sendiri dan kita mestilah bekerjasama agar kita dapat bergabung tenaga untuk membina kembali semangat dan tenaga umat kita. Ini merupakan suatu cabaran yang hanya dapat ditangani jika kita dapat bekerjasama dan bergabung tenaga.
Dunia Islam zaman ini merupakan suatu entiti yang begitu besar, kompleks, dengan begitu banyak aliran ide. Tidak ada mana-mana pihak di kalangan umat Islam yang dapat menyatakan bahawa mereka sajalah yang mempunyai jawapan kepada semua masalah yang kita hadapi. Cabaran ini dapat ditangani hanya jika kita berkerjasama antara satu sama lain. Pada saat ini, apabila umat Islam begitu lemah dan daif dari segala aspek politik, ekonomi, ketenteraan kita mesti bersatu-padu untuk membina kekuatan sebagai suatu ummah.
Kita yang dididik melalui aliran disiplin-disiplin 'sekular' seperti sains politik, sains kemanusiaan, dan sebagainya juga mesti memainkan peranan dalam proses pembinaan ilmu dan ummah. Memang tidak dapat dinafikan bahawa kita semua insan biasa, mempunyai kelemahan dan kekurangan, yang merupakan sebahagian dari sifat tabii manusia. Tetapi apa yang lebih penting adalah sikap tolak-ansur dan kerjasama antara semua pihak.
Sebagai seorang akademik, penulis dan aktivis, saya akan cuba dengan sedaya upaya untuk mengorbankan masa dan tenaga saya untuk matlamat yang unggul ini. Jikalau saya tersilap di tengah perjalanan saya ini, saya berharap bahawa saya akan ditolong dan dibantu, dan tidak dikutuk atau dikeji oleh saudara-saudari seagama saya sendiri. Usaha saya selama ini adalah untuk ummah kita, dan bukan untuk saya sendiri.
DR FARISH A NOOR is a Malaysian political scientist and human rights activist. The Other Malaysia' tries to unearth aspects of Malaysia's history and culture that have been erased or relegated to the margins in order to remind us that there remains another Malaysia that is often forgotten.
