Islamic group slams religious authorities over proposed book ban

Summary

• The publisher of two books recommended by the National Council for Islamic Religious Affairs (MKI) to be banned says they do not touch on Islamic creed (aqidah).

• Islamic Renaissance Front accuses religious authorities of turning the books into an issue to suppress critical thought among Muslims.

• MKI recommends the Home Ministry ban 12 books, two of which are published by IRF.

The publisher of two books has slammed religious authorities over a proposed ban against two of its books, saying none of them touched on Islamic creed (aqidah).

Islamic Renaissance Front (IRF) founder Ahmad Farouk Musa said religious authorities in Malaysia have turned the issue of creed into a tool to suppress critical thought.

“It seems to us that this issue of creed - asha’irah and maturidiyah - has been weaponised by the religious authorities in this country to suppress any ideas that were deemed to be critical of the issues faced by Muslims with regard to the revision of history associated with the Muslim scholars of the previous generations and any issues related to critical thinking,” he said in a statement yesterday.

The Muzakarah Committee of the National Council for Islamic Religious Affairs (MKI) recommended that the Home Ministry ban 12 books.

Two of the books on the list are published by IRF, namely “Islam, Autoritarianisme dan Kemunduran Bangsa” by Ahmet T Kuru and “Golongan Muslim Pertama: Sejarah dan Memori” by Asma Afsaruddin.

‘Books could confuse Muslims’

In the recommendation for the ban, the committee’s chairperson Nooh Gadot said the 12 books could confuse Muslims as they contain teachings and ideologies that are contrary to the beliefs of Ahli Sunnah Wal Jamaah (AI-Asya’irah AI- Maturidiyyah) as well as syariah laws and morals.

Farouk (top picture) asked whether the MKI wishes to gag any arguments against the concept of an Islamic state.

“It seems that any idea that seeks Muslims to reassess their understanding and to implore critical thinking should be deemed as heresy and hence be banned. 

“This is what we can deduce from the action of MKI in this case,” he said.

The religious authorities should have countered arguments in the books with debate and not resorting to an outright ban, he added.

Farouk went on to say that book bans echo the imposition of Sunni Islam by caliphs who suppressed other schools of thought.

“The authoritarian version of Islam championed by the MKI must be resisted by every Muslim who believes in the freedom of conscience and freedom of expression.

“Otherwise, we risk being trapped in the same unholy alliance between clergy and state that once led to the intellectual decline of great Muslim civilisations,” he said.

Farouk’s rebuttal is reproduced in full below:

We refer to the statement issued by Majlis Kebangsaan Bagi Hal Ehwal Ugama Islam Malaysia (MKI) dated March 20, 2025. Two books published by the IRF, namely the Malay translation of Ahmet T Kuru’s book “Islam, Autoritarisnisme, dan Kemunduran Bangsa” and Asma Afsaruddin’s book “Golongan Muslim Pertama: Sejarah dan Memori”, were banned along with 10 other books.

The reason given was that the books contained teachings and understanding that were against the creed of ahlus sunnah wal jama’ah (al-Asha’irah and al-Maturidiyah), the syariah and Islamic ethics, which could confuse the Muslim society.

However, we would like to categorically deny such allegations since neither books touch on the issue of creed (aqidah). It seems to us that this issue of creed – Asha’irah and Maturidiyah – has been weaponised by the religious authorities in this country to suppress any ideas that were deemed to be critical of the issues faced by the Muslims with regard to the revision of history associated with the Muslim scholars of the previous generations and any issues related to critical thinking.

Anyone who has read the book by Asma Afsaruddin would realise that the book looks back into the past history of the Muslim umma and provides some contentious concepts of jihad and the Islamic state, which are perceived as a legacy of the Prophet. It basically regenerates understanding of Muslim history by comparing the tolerant polity of Prophet Muhammad as compared to the restrictive nature attached to what Islam is now.

The question is whether it is wrong to question the idea of an Islamic state as contended by MKI. Asma assesses both the Islamist and modernist views on this concept. While we are very much aware of the Islamist view in establishing an Islamic state, Asma argues otherwise that such an idea is ahistorical. None of the pre-modern sources refers to the Islamist terminology of ad-Dawla al-Islamiyya (the Islamic state) or al-Hukuma al-Islamiyya (the Islamic government).

The issue is whether MKI subscribes to the concept of an Islamic state and believes that any arguments against the idea should be silenced. It seems that any idea that seeks Muslims to reassess their understanding and to implore critical thinking should be deemed as heresy and hence be banned. This is what we can deduce from the action of MKI in this case.

Similarly in Ahmet T Kuru’s book, his main idea was to address the issue of the Muslim world’s backwardness. Kuru dwells on his idea of what actually caused the stagnation and underdevelopment of the Muslim world and comes to the conclusion that the state-clergy alliance is the most significant factor. It was the ulama that resisted the printing press which led to the delay in modernisation of the Muslim umma. Now that must have irked MKI just like it irked the Muslim conservatives before. But is that a justifiable reason to ban a book?

Of course, Kuru touched on one of the most revered theologians whose tariqat is always quoted in the same line as Asha’irah and Maturidiyah, namely al-Ghazali. Al-Ghazali and the government of the day were part of a powerful coalition of orthodox Sunni ulama and the military state. Al-Ghazali, in his opinion, not only contributed to this alliance but also received its support. Therefore, the main contribution of al-Ghazali to the ulama-state alliance was his theoretical role in the formation of Sunni orthodoxy.

Not only that, but Kuru also criticises al-Ghazali for his ideas on occasionalism. Al-Ghazali dictates that cotton will not burn when in contact with fire without the will of God. This idea is antithetical to science that relies on the concept of “cause and effect”. This idea would definitely hinder scientific development and progress, and it is conceivable that some academics believe that al-Ghazali had made a major contribution to the downward spiral of Muslim civilisations.

Of course, this kind of allegation must have infuriated MKI but they should have countered it with their arguments, not by banning the books. This idea of book banning is against any spirit of free speech and freedom of expression as embodied in the Federal Constitution of this country. The idea of book banning does not only reflect the anti-intellectualism of MKI, but it is also inherently unconstitutional.

What we are witnessing today echoes history. Just as medieval caliphs imposed Sunnisation on their subjects - suppressing groups like the rationalist Mu’tazila - we are seeing MKI engage in similar suppression. That was the reason why the IRF has voiced our strongest objection to the RUU Mufti 2024 since we have seen this coming.

The authoritarian version of Islam championed by the MKI must be resisted by every Muslim who believes in the freedom of conscience and freedom of expression. Otherwise, we risk being trapped in the same unholy alliance between clergy and state that once led to the intellectual decline of great Muslim civilisations.

Book ban proposal reinforces thesis of Kuru’s book, says publisher

Islamic bodies should live in 21st century, value diverse ideas - don

'Anti-intellectual': Author takes aim at Islamic council over proposed book ban

Police: Cops outside Gerakbudaya events just 'routine activity'

Home Ministry bans 3 books over public morality concerns