Three recent items in the news had left me agape.

The first case happened a few weeks back when Gan Eng Gor died. One of his sons apparently converted to Islam and the son then claimed that Gan the father had also converted to this religion before his death. The rest of the family however were totally ignorant of Gan’s conversion. He was in any case in severe ill health before his death; in other words, in a state of desperation, and arguably incapable for deep and rational evaluation on such serious matters like changing one’s religion.

In this circumstance he might have converted when the idea was mooted to him. Like the proverbial drowning man, it is perfectly understandable that he’d grab at any straw in the hope of staying alive.

The matter was drawn to the attention of the Islamic religion authorities who claim they have the final say in matters such as this. They deemed that Gan had indeed converted, and therefore must exercise their scared duty and responsibility to salvage Gan’s soul from the evils of his heathen past. The present power structure gives the ulama this ‘right’, so without much ado, this august body took Gan’s body away from his bereaved Buddhist family for a ‘proper’ Muslim burial.

The second case came from the National Fatwa Council, the institution that makes religious edicts and rulings. It has issued the religious decree that the beauty treatment 'botox' as 'haram' (spiritually forbidden). Botox is the temporary treatment of frown lines - wrinkles - between the brows, and is fairly popular among women all over the world.

No concrete reasons were offered apart from the reported rather loose and judgmental expression that it ‘does more harm than good’ to a person’s well being.

The judgmental

Obviously the background and circumstances leading to the ban on botox treatment and to the body-snatching are miles apart. But they do have one thing in common. They both come under the attention and scrutiny, and thus the values and judgment – the mindset - of the ulama, the Malay-Muslim religion authorities.

The ulama are a priestly class of people who declared themselves as the viceregents of God on earth, and by extension, the protectors of the teachings, messages, prestige and sanctity of Islam. They are known for addressing and delving into such cases literally, subjectively, opportunistically, judgmentally and theologically. That is to say, their views are right each time and every time; other views are wrong each time and every time.

'Botox does more harm than good! So, it is wrong! So, ban it! Gan has converted! Protect his conversion! Now that he is dead, bury him as a Muslim! And not by his relatives, but by we Muslims! We must protect Islam from the enemies of Islam! There can be no other alternatives to this! It’s our duty to do all these, in the name of religion!"

Thus the confrontational haram declaration on botox, and thus too Gan’s Islamic burial.

Spirit of Islam

islam islamic state In their opportunistic overzealousness the ulama forget that Islam is a religion of peace and compassion, of purity of heart and mind, of justice, mercy and forgiveness, of love, empathy and respect for other fellowmen. It is also a religion of sharing and caring, of tolerance and understanding, of not doing anything to others what you do not want others do to you. I am a Muslim today principally because of these very same values and virtues.

The ulama themselves would persistently and consistently remind just about everyone through just about every communication and dissemination medium, like the very frequent and regular religion classes, radio shows, television programmes, newspapers and magazines, and through the perennial Friday prayer sermons about these very same Islamic principles and virtues.

But oddly enough, when the ulama themselves are in the situation of practising what they preach, they shy away from showing compassion, tolerance, understanding and love and respect for other fellowmen. Instead they do only the opposite. They display only intolerance, arrogance, and opportunism. Indeed, in the country’s experience, the ulama 's track records have more frequently and consistently shown rigidity and inflexibility rather than pragmatism of thought, intolerance rather than understanding.

It looks like they have a lot of Islam but not enough religion in their mindset. They display a lot of inconsistency, confusion and hypocrisy in the reality of practising whatever they preach.

What can be so theologically wrong with the propping of human vanity the botox way when it has been done by the human civilisation all the time albeit in different forms? For example, plastic and cosmetic surgery has been around for quite a while now, should they not be theologically banned too? As it is, the ulama seem petty and lack direction when taking this case.

As for Gan, what can be so final about the conversion of a gravely ill man lying on his death bed and without the knowledge of virtually all of his family members, save for one son? I am pretty certain in the last few months’ before his death, Gan’s mind must be focussed only on one word, and it is ‘survival’, not ‘salvation’. Forget about compassion and understanding on the part of the ulama for his relatives, the principles and words so desperately needed in this case.

Intolerance

The ulama show intolerance and unilateralism, are dictatorial, and even totalitarian, in their thinking and behavioural patterns. They claim to have a finality of judgment to truth in that they are always right while all others - without exception - are always wrong and this in a nut shell being the essence of the Malay mind set. In any event, I see the ulama 's inflexible understanding and application of religion - when compared with the more flexible and pragmatic values and principles of Islam that I know - as a huge delusion and a contradiction an a massive wholesale scale.

I have articulated this case in my previous article Windows to the Malay mind , on the Malay mindset. In it, I have identified the banning of the word ‘Allah’ from being used by non-Muslims, and apostasy for Malays to elect to be out of Islam, the religion of their birth, as windows for looking into what appears as the closed and ethnocentric and archaic Malay mindset. They are the symptoms of the closed Malay mind. In many ways, this article is a continuation of this contention. Here, I identify both botox and this current body- snatching case as two more of such windows. It gives me the opportunity to re-iterate and extend my contention that the windows show glimpses of the inflexible, non-conceptual and non-intellectual Malay mind.

I can quote some other similar symptoms in recent memory: the banning of books; censoring of films; forbidding Malays from renouncing Islam; converting non-Muslims to Islam before they can marry a Muslim and then preventing them from converting out should they wish to later; punishing people for showing affection in public; arresting Muslims for recreation and merrymaking in places where liquor is sold; arresting Muslim workers in these places and Jawi scripts for road names as is provocatively happening in Taman Seputeh, Kuala Lumpur. All these form part and parcel of the intolerant and totalitarian Malay-Muslim mindset.

I see these cases also as part of the generic highhandedness of the Ketuanan Melayu leadership in its efforts to Malay-ise and Islamise this multi-racial and secular country. It goes under the banner of Untuk agama, bangsa dan negara (for religion, race and nation), a leadership and governing philosophy for framing public policies and programmes for national development and progress.

Failed state

Inherent in this philosophy is a racist agenda; it tampers with the social, economic, intellectual and political forces and adds more complexities to the already complex Malaysian polity. In fact this agenda has hindered the development of the economic potential of the country.

It is increasingly evident in reality that the ulama's philosophy has proven inept, emotive, divisive, racist, and plainly mischievous and archaic. The paths of Malay-isation and Islamisation are leading the country to mediocrity.

Doubters to that last statement can just see the number and frequency of commentators from the public saying that the country is sliding to a failed state status, featured as it is by the higher levels of civil and criminal crimes committed by the Malays, fractiousness among the population, a rising general crime rate especially on the abduction leading to sexual molestation and killing of minors. They quote further the tarnished judiciary, the disappearance of the rule of law in favour of the rule for private interests, the rampant corruption at the highest levels involving obscene astronomical amounts; the reluctance on the part of the leaders to cleanse the judiciary and reinstate the rule of law; the restlessness and despondence of a society under state oppression.

They talk of high migration levels thus depleting the country of skilled manpower and the lowering of educational and professional standards. I can put in other elements like the lowering of direct foreign investments and of lower domestic investment in the first place.

Each of these indices is to be lamented for it indicates a lowering of the quality of life of us Malaysians. As it is, they come together in a gruesome package which goes to prove fairly conclusively that the country is experiencing a free fall towards a failed state status.

The ulama's are not alone in leading the country to ruins. The fact of the matter is that they do so in a team as one segment of the collective Malay mindset. This label comprises, in addition to the ulama , the political, executive and judicial incumbents such as those in the civil service and the magistrates and judges of the judiciary. Like the ulama , as individuals they are Malay and Muslim, and being so are the adherents of the Untuk agama bangsa dan negara philosophy. They are the implementers of the Malay agenda based on this philosophy. Together and working in concert, they hold the country to ransom.

Part Two

AB SULAIMAN is an observer of human traits and foibles, especially within the context of religion and culture. As a liberal, he marvels at the way orthodoxy fights to maintain its credibility in a devilishly fast-changing world. In his free time, he loves to read, travel and play golf (although his game could be better).