NOV 9 – I am responding to an article by Wong Chun Wai in The Sunday Star, Nov 8 on page F 25, under his column, “On The Beat”.
This is not the first time I have read Wong’s writing. Other articles he wrote carry the sense of “responsible journalism” as he is very straightforward in his articulation of the social-economic and political happenings in this country. He does write a lot about accountability and transparency and is a critic of racial politics.
Although I do not share all his thoughts, I was taught by my religious upbringing, i.e. Islam, to respect other people’s opinions and listen although they may be contrary to your understanding. This is called in the discipline of Islamic knowledge as “I’lmu al ikhtilaf”, the science of conflict in thoughts.
Long before democracy was introduced as a political system in the West, the Islamic Civilisation has taught the world the necessities to have different ideas and thought and so knowledge bloomed and thoughts flourished. Although some are influenced by earlier Greek thinking and philosophies, there was no stop to the growth of knowledge.
That was why Islam was accepted, beside the strength of its faith that attracts the oppressed under racial and ethnic annihilation of the ruling elites. I do not need to elucidate further as the testimony of history has spoken. I wish Wong and others can accept the Islamic contribution to the civilised world today as the lists are too long to fit in this small piece of writing.
A Chinese friend (not a Muslim) alerted me yesterday to Wong’s article and urged me to read it. This morning, I had the chance to do so and feel it is my responsibility to correct some misunderstanding of his thinking on Islam.
I would not indulge in defending my party – PAS – but I’m more interested to rebut Wong’s narrow interpretation of Islam and his misrepresentation of incidents and happenings that have a direct implication of labelling Islam as backward and irrelevant to the modern world.
He kicked off with Khalid Samad’s “shocking revelation” on the oath issue, but Wong did not deliberate further and was content with comments from the Perak Mufti and the Malaysian Muslim Lawyer Association.
At the end of the bit on the oath issue he concluded with something like “Politics and Religion cannot mix”. I cannot understand why his kick off ended with no conclusion of the problem but came out with a very fundamental misrepresentation of Islam, based on the notion of “Secular Worldview”.
As long as the line of thinking behind Wong’s interpretation of Islam is based on the cut-and-paste thought of “Western Secular Philosophies” which stemmed from the Enlightenment Era, I find it difficult to convince otherwise because Islamic worldly need was not built on the antithesis of faith and the world but Islam maintained the synthesis of the two.
The Enlightenment Era developed against the backdrop of anti-religion feelings which, through the eyes of the thinking elite, was the reason for backwardness. So, they built their writings and thoughts on the axis of doing away with faith or religion in relation to worldly needs and concluded that faith should be limited into a private corner of one’s life and let the rational mind run the worldly need.
I’m not surprised if this is Wong’s premise of thought and I would presume he would have a lot of fatal mistakes in his effort to understand my party’s thought about politics!
I was also surprised to read his description of PAS leaders “… who, with their flowing robes and turbans, cut deals for power and position just like any other politician ….”
I do not know what his intention was, whether he was trying to highlight the flowing robes and turbans, or PAS’s strategy to come into power? If he was highlighting robes and turbans, he was definitely trying to signal something else because there is nothing strange about a political party making deals in accession to power.
Is it wrong for PAS, as a registered and legal political party that believes in democracy as a mean to come into power, to make deals and offer people its political manifesto?
Unless Wong’s objective is to push “religion and politics cannot mix” as his prime thought, I can’t understand why other parties can make deals in the quest for power and PAS cannot, because PAS maintains that Islam is a synthesis of Politics and Religion!
Note the word “synthesis”, there is a whole lot of explanation there if Wong would spare some time in the library and read more on the notion of the synthesis Islam offered as a way of life to fulfill one’s needs of the world and the hereafter.
Wong’s allegation on PAS’s commitment to Democracy and the Federal Constitution is outdated and purposely creates confusion among the readers, especially the non-Malays, and intentionally gives a negative impression that PAS is outside the framework of the constitution and called for something alien to fellow Malaysians. And, what’s this about Saudi Arabian style? (I thought it was Taliban style!)
Wake up, Wong! You have a lot of catching up to do on the beat! And are you telling readers that Malaysians, among them Chinese and Indians (not all are Muslims), who voted for PAS are voting for a formation of Saudi style and chipping away secular aspects of the Constitution?
For the record, they voted PAS because of its moral standing and clear view to bring Malaysians together to fight corruption, and because they loath the BN’s way of doing things.
They did not vote PAS because PAS is forming a Saudi-style government and chipping away secular aspects of the Constitution! Praise be to God that, because PAS is an Islamic Party, the moral ground we enjoy is shared by the Malaysians today (I mean all Malaysians, not just Malays and Muslims).
Finally the notion of a Liberal society that Wong was espousing is another issue. What is defined as “Liberal”? Is it a concept where religion has no political and societal role? Or is it a concept where Parallelism is the basis of toleration? Where does Liberalism stem from?
Can our society today be formed in a cut-and-paste style from the western perspective? Don’t we have our own way of blending what kind of society we want? What about the backdrop of our Constitution that stipulates Islam as the Federal religion? What about Raja-raja Melayu as the symbol of Islam and its’ authority? What about the rights of other voters who wants Islam to be integral part of the multiracial society, how do you address these questions?
I would believe Wong’s articulative nature will not deprive him of the right to also address any one of these questions before he can come to a conclusion that “the liberal lifestyle enjoyed by all Malaysians is at stake if progressive and liberal forces continue to lose their battle”.
The only thing I agree with in his writing was the last sentence when he mentioned “but those who use God’s names should beware that they too can suffer a similar fate because they are mere mortals like everyone else”.
How correct your sentence was at the end but, sorry, I cannot concur with your kick-off and your substance of the article.
If I can ask you, “What do we wish for?” Ask me, I wish my article can be published in The Star to tell Malaysians that democracy is alive in The Star!
Show/Hide comments
Show/Hide comment form
