The news that the Murshid'ul Am (spiritual leader) of the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS), Tuan Guru Nik Aziz Nik Mat, has been accused of blasphemy and called for questioning by the authorities has struck many of us by surprise.

Nik Aziz was accused of blasphemy for his statement where he is alleged to have claimed that God was a "gangster", made during a PAS rally some time ago. The statement was instead taken up by PAS' opponents who claimed that Nik Aziz had committed a crime against his faith and should be hauled up in court instead.

Needless to say, this is yet another one of those convoluted dramas in Malaysian politics. I cannot claim to be an expert in this particular issue for the simple reason that I have not heard or read the speech given by him in toto . Nor was I there when he made the alleged remark that has landed him in trouble. The same would be true for 99 percent of us: Most of us were not there when he said what he said and all that we have been told so far is mere hearsay. To indulge in malicious gossip and hate-mongering is to deliberately cause strife and discord in society. There is a word for this: fitnah (unsubstantiated allegations).

What is ironic, however, is that the man who is accused of blasphemy today happens to be the spiritual leader of a party that has itself used the discourse of takfir (to accuse other Muslims of being kafir , or non-believers, and munafikin , or hypocrites) and has led the way in numerous witch-hunts against independent academics and writers whom they have likewise wrongly accused. "The revolution has come full circle, and now, Saturn-like, devours its own children."

What is worrying about the present campaign to demonise and persecute Nik Aziz is the way that the religious laws of the land are being used to silence alternative voices and criminalise independent thought. (Not that PAS is innocent of this, as the party is equally inclined to criminalise the thoughts of others opposed to their ideas.)

Living as we do in a country already burdened with a host of repressive laws and regulations restricting our fundamental political freedoms, the use of such religious laws merely adds another layer of control to an already over-policed state. Despite the paternalistic rhetoric of care and concern (we are, as usual, being told that this is being done to 'protect' Islam and Muslims from dangerous ideas) the bottom line is that such selective persecution smacks of not-too-subtle politicking of the authoritarian variety.

There goes the middle ground

The ongoing drama between the Umno-led government and PAS which has been made all the worse thanks to the Islamisation race between the two has incurred an enormous cost to the political and personal liberties of Malaysians in general. As both sides try to out-Islamise each other, there can be only one final outcome: The use (and abuse) of Islam as a discourse of legitimation and delegitimation which ultimately politicises Islam and turns it into a discourse of state control and thought-policing.

By institutionalising and using the discourse of Islam in this way, both sides have also contributed to the narrowing of Muslim thought, the closure of the space of discursive exchange and the eradication of the plurality of voices that exist within the lived experience of normative Islam.

Islam and Islamic discourse has become the terrain for a battle for hegemony and dominance, where neither side is prepared to concede to the other. Both sides are even less inclined to admit other voices into the arena, rendering impossible any form of intervention that can possibly present itself as a viable alternative critique to the status quo .

It is therefore ironic that in this race to claim Islam for themselves, neither PAS nor Umno is willing to open the way for alternative ideas and schools of thought. Though both sides claim that theirs is an agenda to 'protect Islam' and to 'protect Muslims' from deviant ideas and heretical opinions, it should be clear to anyone by now that what is really going on is a battle for power and dominance fought out on the plane of discursivity.

What is more, both sides have shown that they are equally intolerant of other opinions and interpretations, and both sides have made clear their own agenda at dominating and closing off the discursive boundaries of Islamic discourse once and for all.

Under such circumstances, what hope is there for any alternative, independent reading and understanding of Islam in the country? Despite the fact that both Umno and PAS claim that they acknowledge and even encourage openness and freedom of thought, both sides have singularly failed in this respect.

The hounding of Nik Aziz by Umno and the hounding of independent academics and writers by PAS both now and in the past show that neither side are really able and willing to open up the middle ground, allowing for the emergence of that crucial third space that would free the discourse of political Islam from the binary opposition that has split the Muslim community (and Malaysian community by extension) for so long.

As for those non-Muslim citizens who might want to enter the fray to add their insights and opinions on the matter, the prospects are even less promising: The fact is that neither side would welcome the intervention of non-Muslims (still labouring under the pejorative label of kafir ) into the matter.

Hope for progressive Islam

For those of us who are thoroughly sick and tired of the antics and shenanigans of both Umno and PAS in this matter, the agenda should be clear. Though we may be like ants caught between a pair of warring elephants, we need to defend whatever space we have left. It is for this simple reason that any progressive Islamic agenda in Malaysia (and anywhere else in the world) must begin with the foundational premise that freedom of expression, thought and interpretation comes before all else.

For those of us who count ourselves as 'progressive Muslims' (or 'progressive non-Muslims') the obstacles before us are considerable indeed. In Malaysia, as is the case with the rest of the Muslim world today, independent voices are caught between the demagogues in the mosques and demagogues in the corridors of power. Be they mullahs, generals-turned-presidents or presidents behaving like generals, the Muslim world is cursed with too many power-hungry leaders who cannot resist the temptation of turning to the discourse of religion when it suits their interests.

In Pakistan both Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and General Zia ul'Haq used Islam to justify policies that can only be described as fascistic in their values and practice. Likewise in post-revolutionary Iran we see how the discourse of Islam was transformed from a vehicle for social mobilisation to an ideology of control and policing.

In Sudan and Nigeria the universal message of Islam was compromised as it was turned into a political ideology catering to exclusive communitarian ends; while in Afghanistan Islam was sullied at the hands of the Taliban who used it as the basis of a politics of authenticity and nostalgia that took the country back to the middle-ages. Only in a handful of cases have we seen Islam being instrumentalised as a discourse of emancipation and social empowerment.

Notwithstanding the failures of political Islam thus far, we who call ourselves progressives still need to find the ways and means to harness the values and ideas of Islam as a means for social mobilisation and liberation.

By 'progressive' I certainly am not referring to the brand of genetically-modified, made-to-order Islam designed by Hollywood or the gnomes of Washington who would love to see an emasculated user-friendly form of Islam that can be domesticated to serve the needs of American/Western hegemony. Nor am I talking about a wishy-washy form of nominal Islam that is mere surface phenomenon.

The form of progressive Islam that we need to create at this stage is one which engages in the realities of the times we live in; is cognizant of the plurality and complexity of the global age; is sensitive to the deep cleavages of power, race, gender and class that continue to divide humanity, and one that is activist in its leanings and approach.

This is the sort of active, critical and engaging Islam that has been put forth by Islamist intellectuals like Rached Ghannoushi, Fathi Osman, Ebrahim Moosa, Abdullahi an-Naim, Amina Wadud, Nurcholish Madjid, Abdul Karim Soroosh, Fatima Mernisi, and others. It is an approach and understanding of Islam that is concerned with the broad questions of social justice, universal suffrage, gender equality, equal rights, human rights, democracy and pluralism. It is, in short, a form of Islam that is an once rooted in the universal principles and values of Islam itself while constantly engaging with the world we live in.

It is 'progressive' not because CNN or BBC (or RTM) says so, but because it is a form of 'Islam in motion' that is progressing towards the ultimate goal of universal justice, equality and freedom as embodied in the teachings of Islam itself. It is, in short, a 'progressive Islam' on Islam's own terms.

Getting into the Islamic debate

Have we come any closer to this progressive Islamic agenda here in Malaysia? Unless you have been in a coma for the past 20 years, the answer that comes to mind is a resounding 'No'.

But all hope is not lost. The strongest feature of Islam in my mind is that it remains fundamentally an equalitarian religion which resists any attempts to abuse or manipulate it. Though we now find ourselves confronted by a host of self-proclaimed 'defenders of the faith' who have taken it upon themselves to control and police the discourse of Islam (and Muslims), the fact remains that the equalitarian ethos of Islam itself prevents it from being quarantined within any hermeneutic borders.

The one good thing about the Islamisation race is that it has made Islam a living reality and presence for all of us. Though some of us may not be too comfortable with the thought of having (politicised) religion forced down our throats on a daily basis, at least this means that most of us have access to the discourse of Islam itself.

Even non-Muslims have begun to raise questions about the use of Islam for political ends in the country, which can't be a bad thing: After all, if Islam is to become the mainframe for political and social relations in the nation as a whole, it must be the right of all Malaysian citizens (Muslims and non-Muslims alike) to question what is being done to and with Islam in their name. Islam, as I've said a million times before, is simply too important to be left to Muslims alone.

Those of us who want to ensure that this country does not fall into the hands of religious demagogues and thought-police should therefore get off our respective posteriors and engage in this debate before it gets out of control.

Rather than allow PAS and Umno to dominate the debate and introduce more and more repressive laws to curtail our fundamental freedom of thought and speech, we should start exercising those rights instead. The first step would therefore be to stand up and be counted, and to call on both sides to stop using and abusing the laws they have made to limit our freedoms further.

It is for this reason that I am opposed to the current of growing political-religious authoritarianism in Malaysia today, which has claimed Nik Aziz as its latest victim. Living as we do at a time when fundamental liberties are being eroded the world over thanks to the so-called 'war against terror', we do not need another layer of oppressive laws to suffocate our minds even further.

I am not defending Nik Aziz's statements in toto (as I've said, I haven't read them), but I am defending his right to speak and think as a citizen of this country. The fundamental principles of freedom of speech, thought and interpretation which are at the core of any form of progressive Islamic agenda have to come before all else, whatever the cost.