Let’s
Call a Spade a Spade
By Prof.
Mohd Nazari Ismail, University Malaya.
The
on-going political turmoil taking place in Egypt has elicited a variety of responses
from various quarters. Not surprisingly, Islamist groups such as PAS, ABIM and
IKRAM are very vocal in condemning the military coup that resulted in the fall
of President Morsi, the first democratically elected leader of the country
since the time of the Pharaohs.
However,
what is sad and disappointing is the muted response from many groups which
hitherto were vocal supporters of the democratic process. Such groups include
the US and European governments. But these also include pro-democracy groups in
Malaysia.
Why is
this the case? In a recent article by Nicholas Chan of the Penang Institute
which appeared in the Malaysian Insider[i], one of the reasons
expressed is the worry over the phenomenon of `Creeping Islamisation’.
Since Morsi is from the Muslim Brotherhood, the on-going turmoil is perceived
as a negative outcome of the Islamisation process in Egyptian society. As a
result, not only was the writer, who incidentally belongs to a pro-democracy
organization, unwilling to express any condemnation of the military coup which
toppled a democratically elected leader, he also expressed his worry over the
process of `Creeping Islamisation’ in Malaysia. Moreover, his perception is
that Islamisation is an undemocratic phenomenon. He wrote:
“ This
coercive branding of Islam arbitrarily set by a small group of “learned”
individuals, and then relentlessly propagated and imposed on the people, both
Muslims and non-Muslims alike.”
There are
two issues that need to be clarified here.
First, as
many honest and sincere analysts of Middle East politics have written, we have
to call a spade a spade with regard to what has happened in Egypt. The
fact is a military coup has taken place in Egypt. Basically what had
happened was that a bunch of non-elected people, under the guise of having the
support of `millions of Egyptians’ decided they don’t like the winner of the
previous election. They then worked in cahoots with another bunch of
non-elected people, that is the military, to topple the elected president of
Egypt.
Even
though they had agreed previously to an arrangement where the leader of the
country can only be decided by an election process which is supposed to be held
every few years, they reneged on their agreement. It is as simple as
that. The argument that `millions of people’ took to the streets to
express dislike for President Morsi is simply not an excuse to get rid of him for
the inescapable reason that there are millions other Egyptians who want him to
continue as President. The only way to decide whether the majority of Egyptians
prefer to have Morsi as their president is through the ballot box. Otherwise
there will be chaos.
The
dislike for chaos in our political and social system in Malaysia is the reason
we use the ballot box as the only way to choose our leaders. As in Egypt, There
are also millions of Malaysians who also do not want the country to be run by
BN leaders. In fact more than 50% of the voters in PRU13 said so. But they have
all also agreed that the first-past-the-post election process will decide who
the leader will be. So even though millions of Malaysians intensely do not want
BN leaders, they abide with the outcome of the first-past-the-post election
process which is that Dato'Seri Najib
and other BN politicians are mandated to lead the country for a maximum of five
more years regardless of how bad the social and economic conditions are going
to be. Moreover, they will never entertain for one second the idea of creating
chaos in the streets or of approaching the military to intervene to topple the
BN government.
In other
words, supporters of the democratic process in Malaysia have no choice but to
take a principled stand and condemn any military coup including the one that
has taken place in Egypt, and to ask for the democratically elected Morsi
to be reinstated as president of Egypt. Any ambiguous or equivocal stand towards
the matter is tantamount to either double standards or a hypocritical attitude
towards democracy.
Double
standards and hypocrisy can be expected from the US and European governments. That
is nothing new. They are supportive of democracy in other countries only if the
outcome is palatable to them. If the outcome of an election is Islamists
getting into power, then this is a bad thing for them as far as they are
concerned.
But we
certainly do not expect such attitude to also exist among people who claim
to be supporters of democracy in this country since they have been exposed
to Muslims and Islam for such a long time - unless they still do not really
understand what Islam stands for due to the bad attitude and practices of many
Muslims in this country, especially from among the nationalist Malays which may
not be reflective of what true Islam is all about.
The
second issue is regarding the nature of Islamic teachings – whether it is
in line with democracy or not. Many Malaysians, Muslim and non-Muslim
alike, fail to realise that Islam as a religion is in reality a very democratic
religion. For example, unlike Catholicism, there is no figure in Islam such as
a `Pope’ who, while elected by the cardinals, is not elected by the mass of
Catholics around the world. The leadership in Catholicism is a top down
arrangement and the masses have to accept what has been decided by the Church.
There is
no such arrangement in Islam. Islamic teachings are not decided by a
`Pope’ or a group of non-elected priests. In Islam, the teachings are decided
by the scholars (ulamaks) who have to justify what they say based on their
reference to the Quraan and Hadith (traditions of Prophet Muhammad, peace be
upon him). Some may ask, who decide who are the ulamaks? The answer is also
very simple - the Muslim massess around the world. One instance is the
issue of whether the word `Allah’ can be used by non-Muslims. or not. The real
teaching of Islam on that issue is not what some officials at JAKIM or JAIS say
about the matter but what the leadings scholars, such as Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi,
whose credentials have been accepted by the masses of Muslims, say about the
issue.
Of course
JAKIM or JAIS officers may still come to a decision contrary to the opinion of the
leading scholars. So how do we deal with this matter in this country? The
answer is simple: the democratic process. If we feel so strongly about
the issue of the usage of the word `Allah’, we have to make sure we promote politicians
who are willing to champion our cause and try to make them become the leaders
of this country through the election process. At the moment one of the main problems
lies with the fact that the issue is being ultimately decided by some
non-elected people. This has to change.
Now, what
if our elected politicians decided to fulfil their promises to us and enforce
the right of non-Muslims to use the word `Allah' but this is opposed by a
minority others who still insist that non-Muslims’ have no such right. The last
thing we want is for them to approach some generals and ask them to take over
the country through a military coup in order to enforce their views on others
who prefer to follow the opinions of scholars, such as `Sheikh Qaradawi, who
are accepted by the masses of Muslims around the world and who incidentally do
not object to the usage of the word `Allah' by non-Muslims. That is the reason
why any military coup anywhere in the world must be condemned. This is the only
way we can ensure it will never take place in this country.
In
conclusion, honest and sincere supporters of the democratic process should not
fear Islam or `Creeping Islamisation’. What they should be focused on is
to call for greater democracy in this country and elsewhere including in Egypt.
