COMMENT | The failure and derailment of political Islam
COMMENT | The many experiments in establishing the “Islamic state” have not left us with much to be proud about. Whether it is the establishment of Pakistan as an “Islamic state” or the Islamic Revolution in Iran later on or Afghanistan under Taliban rule or Sudan under Omar Al Bashir, many of us will probably conclude that none of these countries is an example of where we want to raise our families.
In spite of the fact that these countries had attempted to implement the hudud in some form or another at various points in time, corruption remains rife and human rights abuse is rampant. All these countries, rank above 100 in Transparency International’s ranking of corruption. None of these countries made to the top 10 or top 50 countries for their respect for human rights. Even Muslim refugees fleeing war, persecution and hardship do not consider these countries as coveted destinations.
None of these countries scores high even on the Islamicity Index developed by Hossein Mohammadkhan and Hossein Askari. Instead, non-Muslim countries like those in Scandinavia and Ireland were in the top rankings on this index. What went wrong?
In Malaysia, the way political Islam is expressed bears some semblance to these other experiences. The dominant expression of political Islam in Malaysia is as a divisive force, ever willing to exploit fear and hatred to win support. Quite often we see proponents of political Islam using religion to create enmity, conflict and dislike of others. The crude rhetoric and siege mentality cultivated by proponents of political Islam are not too different from the rhetoric used by Donald Trump’s white supremacist supporters.
At one time, the proponents of political Islam in Malaysia were ...
COMMENT | The many experiments in establishing the “Islamic state” have not left us with much to be proud about. Whether it is the establishment of Pakistan as an “Islamic state” or the Islamic Revolution in Iran later on or Afghanistan under Taliban rule or Sudan under Omar Al Bashir, many of us will probably conclude that none of these countries is an example of where we want to raise our families.
In spite of the fact that these countries had attempted to implement the hudud in some form or another at various points in time, corruption remains rife and human rights abuse is rampant. All these countries, rank above 100 in Transparency International’s ranking of corruption. None of these countries made to the top 10 or top 50 countries for their respect for human rights. Even Muslim refugees fleeing war, persecution and hardship do not consider these countries as coveted destinations.
None of these countries scores high even on the Islamicity Index developed by Hossein Mohammadkhan and Hossein Askari. Instead, non-Muslim countries like those in Scandinavia and Ireland were in the top rankings on this index. What went wrong?
In Malaysia, the way political Islam is expressed bears some semblance to these other experiences. The dominant expression of political Islam in Malaysia is as a divisive force, ever willing to exploit fear and hatred to win support. Quite often we see proponents of political Islam using religion to create enmity, conflict and dislike of others. The crude rhetoric and siege mentality cultivated by proponents of political Islam are not too different from the rhetoric used by Donald Trump’s white supremacist supporters.
At one time, the proponents of political Islam in Malaysia were obsessed with Islamic law, specifically hudud. Unfortunately, their interest in Islamic law more was more about the punishment that should be used and is less about their commitment to justice. And once in power, their appetite for Islamic law quickly vanished.
A common thread in the “Islamic state” experiment in the countries mentioned earlier is the reliance of various forms of coercion used to impose “Islam”. The law and various instruments of the state are often used to imposed rules and restrictions. The behaviour of governments in these “Islamic states” often looks similar to a Stalinist regime. In most cases, the economy is poorly managed. The poor and marginalised remain neglected. More often than not, the smartest people in these countries migrate to other countries.
This begets the question why political Islam has gone so wrong. Many Muslims are rightly disappointed when the image that they see of political Islam is so different from the ideals of Islam as a mercy for mankind. Political Islam is often associated with narrow mindedness, intolerance and incompetence. How did political Islam ended up becoming what most of us detest and thus derail the cause of Islam? What lessons can we learn to ensure the future will not be determined by the current trajectory of political Islam?
To answer the above questions, it important to go back into history to scrutinise an event that provides us with a clear benchmark of how Muslims and Islamic movements should conduct themselves. Specifically, we need to draw lessons from the migration of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) from Mekah to Madinah and his acceptance by people of Madinah as their leader. This was then followed by the promulgation of the Madinah constitution.
It should be noted that when the Prophet migrated from Mekah to Madinah he was not strong militarily. In fact, he and his followers were so weak that when he had to face the idolators from Mekah during the Battle of Badr, he had to rent weapons from the Jews in Madinah to equip his soldiers. As such, he was not in the position to impose himself as the leader of Madinah. Why then did they accept him as their leader? After all, he was an immigrant (what some of us in Malaysia would call pendatang) in Madinah.
In addition, the Muslims did not have wealth or possessions with them. They were poor and were not in the position to buy over support from the inhabitants of Madinah. Thus, there was no economic benefit to the people of Madinah to entice them to support the Prophet and his companions who arrived from Madinah.
The people of Madinah had a long history of conflict. The two major tribes there, the Aws and Khazraj, fought many wars against each other. The Prophet could have sided with one of these tribes and defeated the other and attain complete domination of Madinah. He could have used his Arab ancestry to appeal to the Arab clans in Madinah to move against the Jews living there. He could have used a divide-and-rule tactic and then expelled the Jews, Christians and polytheist out of Madinah. But he did not.
A typical politician would probably use some or all of the above tactics above to take over Madinah. But the Prophet did not go down this route. He did not leverage on fear, enmity and conflict to consolidate his support. What did he do then that enabled him to win over the support of the inhabitants of Madinah?
There are two basic appeals that the Prophet had. One was, of course, his prophethood. The other was that he became the mediator between the Aws and Khazraj. He brought peace and brought together these two tribes. In other words, a key value the Prophet brought to Madinah was his role as a unifier. By the time he formed the Madinah constitutions, he had brought the Jewish tribes there together under a covenant that treated them as equals.
He declared “kana ummatan wahidah” or “we are one nation”. He respected their right to practice their religion and even assured that they have complete authority to decide on the matters related to their religion.
Instead of using coercive authority, the Prophet relied on diplomacy and persuasion to construct the political structure of Madinah. Even though there were already Quranic commandments on the wearing of the hijab for Muslim women and on the consumption of halal meat, we do not see the Prophet and his companions becoming obsessed with checking how women then dressed and coercing them to comply.
Neither were they scrutinising every single dish and utensils used to determined their halal status. This is in spite of the fact that there were still many non-Muslims in Madinah and some of his companions lived with parents who were not Muslims.
If we are to examine the message of the Quran, a consistent theme even from before the migration to Madinah was about the Oneness of God and justice. There is only one verse related to how a woman should dress in the Quran. There are seven verses in the Quran on the consumption of halal food. On the other hand, the word justice appears at least 24 times in the Quran. Respect for human rights was a very fundamental concern during the time of the Prophet and the caliphs after him.
What we see in political Islam in Malaysia is the direct opposite of what the Prophet did. Instead of bringing people together and unifying them, political Islam has become a divisive factor. Whereas the Prophet sought to create harmony, political Islam here is force instigating enmity. The narrative of political Islam here has fused with the ethnocentric agenda of race-based politics.
The Prophet behaved more like a statesman whereas the proponents of political Islam here behave more like crass politicians. The Prophet was a skilful and persuasive unifier whereas the proponents of political Islam have a penchant for using coercive-divisive tactics.
The challenge now is for Muslims in Malaysia to rethink and reassess their experience as well as the experience from other Muslim countries. Muslims have to be prepared to challenge the prevailing understanding of political Islam which has failed Islam and humanity. Muslims have to question the coercive-divisive mental model that seems to drive political Islam here. If Muslims are silent on this, they are complicit in this failure and for the derailment of Islam.
ROZHAN OTHMAN is a former professor of management.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.
Are you sure you want to delete this comment?
This action cannot be undone.