Pakatan's stance on Islamic issues 'not suicidal'
exclusive Pakatan Rakyat’s liberal stance on issues like use of ‘Allah’ by non-Muslims and the sentence of caning imposed on Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarnor has raised eyebrows in some circles.
Yet Pakatan decided to take political high ground by not pandering to the conservative streak that cuts through the Malay political mainstream. Some observers consider this policy to be suicidal.
exclusive Pakatan Rakyat’s liberal stance on issues like use of ‘Allah’ by non-Muslims and the sentence of caning imposed on Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarnor has raised eyebrows in some circles.
Yet Pakatan decided to take political high ground by not pandering to the conservative streak that cuts through the Malay political mainstream. Some observers consider this policy to be suicidal.
Its policy on the non-exclusive use of 'Allah' has today seen the departure of yet another PKR parliamentarian - Bagan Serai MP Mohsin Samsuri - from the party.
But the opposition coalition’s leader Anwar Ibrahim is adamant that Pakatan rejects exploiting racial and religious issues for political gains.
“When it comes to the issues of theology, (and) the issues of faith, it’s not a political decision. It is the correct decision,” he told Malaysiakini in an 80-minute interview last week.
Quoting Prophet Muhammad as well as, interestingly, sensational Indonesian dangdut entertainer Inul Daratista, he said it would be a graver sin to punish the poor and hapless and to cover up the crimes of the rich and famous.
His somewhat liberal position, Anwar contended, does not contradict his role as the man behind the process of Islamising the country while he was in government.
To him, Islamisation does not equate conservatism and is more a process of understanding the precepts of Islam such as truth, justice, good governance and accountability.
Anwar bemoaned the right-wing elements in the ruling Barisan Nasional who have tried to sow hatred among the various ethnic and religious groups in Malaysia through the controlled media, such as Utusan Malaysia.
He especially finds it despicable that the recent attacks on suraus and mosques were allegedly committed by Muslims themselves.
“How do you defend the desecration of any place of worship, which is clearly against Islam even in wartime let alone in times of peace? You are doing something that transgresses the Syariah… this is a major crime.
“They are, of course, working for some people. (Lembah Pantai MP and his daughter) Nurul Izzah went to a mosque in her constituency and an imam said, “No, Muslims shouldn’t do these things.” Izzah was stunned. The imam, without any investigation, came to the conclusion that the Muslims had done it.”
So how does he relay this pan-Malaysian message to the average Malay voter, whose understanding of Islam may not match that of Pakatan?
According to Anwar, he will have to resort to the old-school way - by going to the ground to explain that he is not a “traitor” to his race and religion in his bid to forge a new Malaysian agenda.
Excerpts follow from this segment of a four-part interview. The content has been edited for language and brevity.
Malaysiakini: Isn’t it suicidal for Pakatan to take a more inclusive stance on issues such as the use of the word ‘Allah’ by non-Muslims?
Anwar Ibrahim: No, when it comes to the issues of theology (and) the issues of faith, it’s not a political decision. It is the correct decision.
I have referred to all known international Muslim scholars and without exception they gave me this ruling (that ‘Allah’ can be used by non-Muslims).
Yes, the first few weeks were difficult for (Pakatan). But now, even Utusan Malaysia doesn’t talk about it, they are silent, which means they have lost the cause.
I was in Doha and again the issue was raised with (highly-regarded Muslim scholar) (Yusuf) Al-Qaradawi. He came up with this brilliant reply. (There is) no need to use these difficult arguments, just ask them, ‘Who is your prophet? Muhammad. What is the name of his father? Abdullah.’ (‘Abdullah’ means ‘servant of Allah’) The name Abdullah was in use 40 years before Islam. So the Prophet’s father was a ‘servant of Allah’. So who are you to restrict the right of others?
It’s a brilliant exposition, which means we have to explain. Did we, therefore, suffer slightly? Yes, because (our opponents) have taken advantage of this.
Now, about the issue of caning (of Kartika). I said it in Parliament, “I don’t drink… but it’s sheer hypocrisy to cane. However you rationalise it; soft caning, loud caning, tough caning, (it still the caning) of a young girl who has shown a lot of remorse. (At the same time) you cover up other crimes, not only the lavish parties with liquor bottles (all over the place), but massive corruption. 
I don’t know if you know Inul (right). She is this gelek dancer in Indonesia. I read an interview she gave to (Indonesian magazine) Tempo. One or two Muslim scholars considered her dancing too voluptuous or obscene or whatever. She said, ‘There are many things you can choose to look at, so why look there?’ (Laughs) Why are you silent on massive corruption and abuse of power?' I am not quoting Inul (laughs) but she strikes a chord.
But I’m not giving an impression that I am soft on these things. I don’t drink. (Others) have every right to drink whatever they want to… but for the Home Minister (Hishamuddin Hussein) to announce this? I mean, come on, (does he) really believe that one should not drink, and that (he doesn’t) drink?
They say, 'Oh, Anwar is trying to appease the Christians’. No, I have been very consistent on this.
There was some controversy over a photo of Hishammuddin on the Internet. Are you implying that he is being hypocritical?
That is a personal thing, but the leadership as a whole… it is known. I was a cabinet minister, I attended many of these sessions, but they don’t (do it) in front of me. But they know when I leave at 10.30pm, it’s free for all and some I have seen (doing this) even in front of me.
So how do you impose caning for someone else when you know you too do these things, only worse?
“The worse thing for a Muslim,’ Muhammad said, “is when you impose penalty on the poor and the hapless, and you cover the crimes of the rich and the famous.”
I don’t think that is what Syariah is all about. I have a big problem here because many of my ustaz friends start questioning me on that. But I say, ‘You read the Hadith and tell me what you think the interpretation should be’.
I presume part of the problem is also convincing some of the PAS leaders. Have you made any inroads on this?
(PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang) came up with quite a strong statement relating to the issue. He said as a matter of principle, as a Muslim, he is not against the use of Syariah, but he is against the use of it now. I share his concern.
You were once linked to the Islamisation process of Malaysia, but you are now seen as more inclusive, and sometimes even criticised for being too liberal. Do you find this paradoxical?
I believe that Islamisation in general in the country, for the Muslims, is not something in juxtaposition with the spirit of the constitution.
The first thing I did when I was deputy minister was to print two pamphlets. The first was an article by Hossein Nasr of George Washington University talking about ethics and the values of honesty and integrity; that was distributed to all civil servants. This is what I mean by Islamisation.
The second one was by the second caliph Umar to the governor of Egypt, Malik al-Ashtar, talking about the elaborate form of rule of law, of justice, of protecting the poor and avoidance of an ostentatious way of living.
Why use that as part of Islamisation? Because it is also universal. It is easier and close to Muslim’s form of faith. Otherwise, you just say, ‘Muslims should adhere to Islamic practices’.
But how do you relate the Islamisation process with imposing a law to forbid people from using the word ‘Allah’? We had this inter-religious meeting with the Sikhs and they said, ‘Look, it is there in our text’. Therefore, this is not Islamisation.
Some people see Islamisation as a rise of conservatism, exemplified by the caning of people who choose to interpret their religion in a different way.
Yes, I know because the term has been abused in some form. But as practising Muslims, you believe in the process of Islamisation. You improve. It’s a reform process, your faith, your understanding, your knowledge, your character. So how do you say a practising Muslim doesn’t believe in Islamisation?
But Islamisation that intrudes into the affairs of other people, to compel others by using the law, that’s what’s causing the problem. It’s not (due to use of) the term.
But I do agree in light of past experience that when you use these terms it can easily be misinterpreted. The most blatantly corrupt Malays are defending the New Economic Policy. The richest are defending it. Is it for themselves or for the Malays?
Similarly for Islam, I’m sorry, I don’t want to sound condescending but the basic Islamic precepts are not something that (people) feel comfortable with here in Malaysia. Look at the discourse here in Kuala Lumpur and compared to Cairo and Jakarta, among intellectuals. Ours is extremely shallow.
You can justify your liberal view of Islam with as many Hadith as you want, but the average Muslim-Malaysian may still see you as a traitor to the religion because their understanding of Islam is different.
That’s why it’s a challenge. But interestingly, take the conservative, traditional Muslim scholar. Can you name one or two who support the Umno position? There aren’t many. Don’t underestimate this.
They may think they can manipulate the masses through Utusan, for example. But I say to them, ‘I want to agree with you but can you refer to some religious authority?’ Never mind the big names, the local names - Haji Salleh from Sik - you know, none of them share (Umno’s) view.
Even on the ‘Allah’ issue, the most they say is, ‘You are right but we are worried that the Christians may use this to…’ so I say, ‘Okay, point granted. I will convey this to the Christians’. And I did.
This is fair, but don’t deny them their right.
I am encouraged, optimistic (even). Probably we are not working hard enough, not going to the ground enough. We are involved in too many petty squabbles.
But what about (PAS deputy spiritual leader) Harun Din, a respected Muslim scholar in Pakatan, whose position remains different even after Hadi released his statement?
Yes, in this case, Harun Din (right) is an exception but still, he has exercised a lot of tolerance in the matter. His outlook is, ‘Okay, we can differ but don’t cast aspersions or condemn the rest’. There is that balance, unlike the Umno position. His concern is more historical and cultural, because he says, the issues of proselytisation in some of these countries is serious.
No one can deny the association between colonisation and the Christian mission, and missionary zeal in Indonesia. But that was in the past. You look at the figures now, and you look at the efforts put into getting these Muslim-Christian dialogues going.
But it looks like even the attacks on the suraus and mosques are done by certain people. Could this be an attempt to try to stir up problems in Malaysia?
That just reinforces our view that it is purely political. How do you defend the desecration of any place of worship, which is clearly against Islam even in wartime let alone in times of peace? You are doing something that transgresses the Syariah… it’s a major crime.
Secondly, it is perpetuated by the Malays, the Muslims. They are, of course, working for some people.
Nurul Izzah went to this a mosque in her constituency, and an imam said, ‘No, Muslims shouldn’t do these things’. Izzah was stunned.
The imam, without any investigations, came to the conclusion that the Muslims had done it. Then during the discussions, he said, the way (the wild boar heads) were wrapped, they wanted to make sure that they did not touch it. The Chinese wouldn’t be bothered if they accidentally touched it. People are smart.
According to (ousted Perak MB) Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin, Pakatan is facing issues over eroding Malay support. Does Pakatan have a plan to combat this? In the last election, you had 40 percent Malay support and overwhelming support from non-Malays.
Overall, 40 percent, because we look at Johor, Malacca and parts of Pahang, but other than Kelantan we have some very Malay-majority constituencies in Selangor, Perak, Penang and Kedah where we won recently with more than 60 percent of the Malay vote.
But yes, this is something we have discussed and the solution is for us to go down (to the ground). Even in my present Fitnah II (Sodomy II) case, the issue is affecting the Malay masses… so we go down.
The practising Muslims who have some understanding of Islam will back off. I have seen Umno leaders on the lower levels, meeting me, apologising and sending me text messages to say they have no part in this.
I think we still have to do more. The encouraging part is that (the Malay voters) still come, in big numbers, to see us. The problem is the media. Malaysiakini’s concentration is in urban and semi-urban (areas), so for the rural heartlands, we have to go down. We have been stepping up.
What about the erosion of support from Indian voters, judging from the recent polls?
We have suffered a temporary setback due to the huge split in the Indian community. I have expressed my view that you can’t fight Umno racism by using the same racist overtones or rhetoric because there will be backlash. But we can counter the Umno racist agenda by having multicultural policies.
We have to further engage the Indian leaders. But more critical is the split among the Indian leadership ranks.
It is shameful for a community to be marginalised, bullied and insulted in that manner (to have) so-called leaders sell their souls for some money. But I think we will be able to hold on to the majority of the Indians.
Najib is also making a big play for the Chinese voters.
I come from Penang and so I can claim to know the Chinese a bit more than most Malay leaders. I sense that the Chinese, firstly, have a better understanding of issues, because the media, although controlled, gives more latitude and space to alternative views.
There is (also) continuous abuse. The policies have been extreme, the most racist of Malays will say ‘Send them back (to their countries of origin)’ and call them the most derogatory of (names). These are not junior members but the most senior (Umno members). 
How do you deny the fact that you have Biro Tatanegara under Najib, and the Special Issues Department (Jasa) under (Information, Culture and Communications Minister) Rais Yatim, which still continue to (cite) the Chinese as villains?
I don’t believe the Chinese are fools. You mean to say that none of the Chinese leaders know what is being said in the courses? I’m sure they do. That’s my position, vis-à-vis the Chinese, but that doesn’t mean we can be complacent.
Anwar Ibrahim was interviewed by Aidila Razak, Jimadie Shah Othman, Yong Kai Ping and Steven Gan.
THE ANWAR INTERVIEW
Part 1: Anwar: No way are they sending me back to jail
Part 2: Who will succeed Anwar?
Part 3: Pakatan’s liberal stance on Islamic issues 'not suicidal' Part 4: What went wrong with Sept 16?
