Accepting cultural diversity part of Islamic civilisation

Chandra Muzaffar, New Straits Times, Kuala Lumpur

Like many other Islamic parties with a similar mindset, Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS) has a tendency to insist upon religious purism. Its Nov. 12 document may not reveal this tendency but it is important to remember that shortly after it assumed power in Kelantan in 1990, the PAS Government banned certain traditional performing arts such as the wayang kulit (shadow play) on the grounds that it contained unIslamic elements.

While it is true that aspects of Hindu mythology are woven into the wayang kulit, the Kelantanese saw it essentially as an art form which contributed to their rich cultural heritage. They could distinguish it from their faith and its related practices. In that sense they were no different from millions of pious Indonesian Muslims who are very much aware of their Hindu- Buddhist past.

Incidentally, the State Government is now attempting to bring back the wayang kulit -- partly because of popular sentiment -- though in a drastically modified form. Religious purism of this sort, needless to say, goes against the grain of Islam.

For most of Muslim history, cultural and even non-Muslim religious practices which do not impinge upon the quintessence of faith have been tolerated as part of the community's tradition. The acceptance of cultural and religious diversity is in fact one of the hallmarks of Islamic civilisation.

This is why the destruction of the Buddhist shrines in Bamiyan, Afghanistan, by the bigoted Taliban regime in early 2001 was roundly condemned by most Muslim Governments and Islamic movements.

The official PAS leadership however did not take a stand against the Taliban's wanton act -- though in all fairness to PAS it must be mentioned that Kelantan is home to one of the largest Buddhist pagodas in Southeast Asia and in both Kelantan and Terengganu, there is an appreciable degree of accommodation of religious and cultural diversity.

The five "isms" which constitute PAS' ideology -- legalism, authoritarianism, exclusivism, patriarchism and purism - establish beyond a shadow of doubt that its Islamic state project is inimical to the larger interests of the Malaysian nation.

If anything, there are certain attitudes towards Islam within the Muslim populace in Malaysia as a whole which would make it even more problematic to set up such a state. The majority of Muslims here, and perhaps elsewhere, are more attached to the forms and symbols of the religion rather than its substance and its essence.

The hudud issue illustrates this point. The forms of punishment for hudud crimes -- only some of which are prescribed in the Quran -- are given much more importance than the crimes themselves. It is the crimes -- murder or theft or adultery -- which are related to the basic moral structure of the Quran. They reflect the religion's fundamental notion of right and wrong.

From an Islamic standpoint, this notion of right and wrong does not change. It is perennial. Instead of emphasising this, the advocates of hudud are more concerned about how the thief is punished. It is a clear case of form taking precedence over substance.

And, yet, in Islam it is substance that matters -- though form is acknowledged. This is the Quranic message. Surah Al Baqarah verse 177 for instance tells us that righteousness is not turning our faces towards East or West but believing in God, helping the needy, freeing the slaves, being steadfast in prayer, being firm and patient and so on.

This is reinforced by Surah Al Maun which again links faith and prayer with good deeds such as the feeding of the indigent. The entire mission of Prophet Muhammad was also focused upon endowing faith with substance. Unless we understand this, any attempt to establish a state in the name of Islam is doomed to fail.

There is another, perhaps even greater danger facing Muslims today. Muslims are generally not inclined to reflect, to think about Islam. The hudud and Islamic state issues have helped to bring this malaise to the fore.

Hudud advocates in particular and Muslims in general have seldom reflected on this question: Were hudud modes of punishment central to the success of Islamic civilisation? Or, to put it differently, were the stupendous achievements of Islamic civilisation in science, medicine and the humanities due to the imposition of hudud laws? If Muslims lag behind today, is it because they do not adhere to hudud? Shouldn't we also examine critically the track record of states that claim to be Islamic?

Can states that are supposedly based upon the Quran and Sunnah show that they have done better than others in reducing poverty, curbing corruption and enhancing public accountability? Are syariah-oriented states the best examples we have of societies where justice flourishes and dignity triumphs? Shouldn't PAS members and supporters demand a comprehensive analysis and evaluation of the performance of so-called Islamic states before endorsing their leadership's Islamic state venture?

Indeed, it is not an Islamic state ala PAS or anyone else that we need at this juncture. It is thinking and reflection on Islam and society that this hour in history demands. Only then will we connect with the substance of our faith.

The writer is a political scientist whose writes several books, including Rights, Religion and Reform and Muslims, Dialogue, Terror.