The 'leadership of the ulama' is an oft-repeated slogan in the current Islamic resurgence; and an Islamic state is supposed to be led by the ulama.

Even before the 'Islamic state' is defined, one has to be quite clear on who are the ulama. Otherwise the ideal of an Islamic state - a serious issue for a Muslim who believes Islam is incomplete without an Islamic state - would be viewed as vague, impractical and naive.

'Ulama' is the plural of 'alim' which literally means a scholar. But in the Islamic terminology an alim is more than a scholar: he is one possessed of ilm i.e., true knowledge of God, and he must be God-fearing.

If it simply means an Islamic scholar, many an orientalist would qualify to be called alims. This image of an alim leads a common man to associate the term with a religious functionary such as a person with a beard, turban and long robes.

A Muslim may respect him for his piety or his memorised litany of doa (supplications) and may look towards him to lead his rituals. Yet he would not want his political destiny entrusted to such a person or persons, for running a state needs a different type of knowledge and skill.

Conscious of this weakness amongst the clergy, Imam Khomeini, immediately after the Islamic revolution in Iran, left the running of the state to such technocrats as Bazargan and Bani Sadr and advised the clergy to keep away from politics. The experiment failed because the western educated elite of the Muslim world were corrupt to the core and possessed no ilm at all.

As a result the 'clergy' directly took control of the state and succeeded in showing the world that to run a modern state, one need not be in a suit and clean shaven. This was possible in Iran because there already were amongst its ranks a large number of alims, people endowed with knowledge of God and equipped in pursuing man's pragmatic ends.

Not every ustaz is an alim

In Malaysia, we have fallen into a trap of regarding every ustaz or maulana as an alim. Thus the common perception is that 'ulama' is the more glamorous name for the  clergy whose knowledge of the world is almost zero.

This is not to say there are no alims amongst the Malaysian Islamic clergy. There are, but they are so few as not to make any difference to the quality of our clergy as a whole.

An Islamic state would be a disaster if it is run by such people who are masquerading as ulama. It is difficult - almost impossible - to convince an ordinary man, Muslim or non-Muslim, that our clergy, as we know them now, could run a state, Islamic or otherwise. Added to this myth is one that the ulama as a class represent the Prophet and are, therefore, above criticism.

It is often argued that there is no priesthood in Islam. Yet by asserting that ulama as a class is above criticism, a priestly class not unlike the Brahmins of Hindus with divine rights is created in the minds of the ordinary man.

When an evil man, for example, insults the prophet by calling him a "tribal chief", he commits blasphemy. But if the same person criticises or even uses insulting language on an ulama, it should not be considered a crime similar to insulting the Prophet, peace be upon him. By lumping these together - insulting the Prophet and insulting the ulama - a notion is created that the ulama is above criticism and in an Islamic state, the tyranny of the ulama will replace the tyranny of the ignorant godless secularists.

Why do we say this? It has been reported in the press that a police report had been made about the arrogant "for insulting the Prophet and the ulama," thus elevating the ulama to the position of the prophet. This confusion is compounded when Arabic-educated Middle-East university graduates call themselves ulama. Their association is known as the Ulama Association of Malaysia.

Islamic decorum dictates that no one will claim himself an alim - it is an anathema to Islamic humility. Similarly we also have a Persatuan Cendekiawan Melayu for Malay graduates who claim to be "Malay intellectuals".

It is time the so-called Muslim 'intellectuals' and 'ulama' abstain themselves from such self-claim and leave it to the people to choose their own leaders from among themselves. Otherwise they invite ridicule from people the like former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad, DAP supremo Lim Kit Siang and so on.