Stirring in the tea cup

The little furore that brewed in Harakah over an article entitled PAS and the 2004 elections: Time for a serious rethinking written by Farish A Noor highlights an interesting point about the fabric of public political discourse in the fledgling Malaysian alternative media.

In that article, Farish affirmed the important contributions made by the Ulama in the historical development of Islam as a universal religion. He traced the evolution of PAS through the decades, and the history behind the emergence of the party as an Ulama- led political movement under the leadership of Yusof Rawa following the disastrous years under Asri Muda.

On his usual clinical style, Farish illustrated how, from the early 1980s onwards, Ustaz Yusof Rawa reinvented PAS from the image of a rural party with little popular support to a mass based Islamic movement, especially in forging the Ulama Intellectual Alliance which was to widen the public appeal of the party beyond measure.

In methodical and analytical tone, this sometimes controversial academic reveals how the present Ulama in PAS is but the descendent of a long historical tradition of religious custodians given the task of interpreting and safeguarding the true teachings of Sunni Islam.

Plunging headlong where angels fear to tread, the writer surgically excavated the world historical conditions which moulded the Ulama class into a conservative and exclusive political force, especially since the beginning of the 'clash of civilisations' when Islam encountered Western imperialism in the 17th century.

The rise of the Ulama class within PAS at the expense of the new younger intellectuals is the reason why PAS in recent years has become doctrinaire, parochial, and ossified in the face of rapid changes brought about by globalisation. That has led partly to the setback suffered by PAS in the 2004 general election.

In conclusion, Farish called for a paradigmatic shift in PAS rethinking, in a process of self-renewal by allowing the intellectual class within the party to gain more prominence in future. Bluntly, he suggested that the Ulamas give way to the young and progressive.

I have pored over his article and have given a synopsis here as best as I can, because I think this is the most valuable sort of contribution an engaged academic can give towards the opening up of alternative political discourse.

To understand political Islam a la PAS in relation to Umno in Malaysia, we - Muslims and non-Muslims alike - need to understand the long and convoluted historical backdrop of Islam.

Perhaps the postmodernism has arrived, even before we have fully integrated the process of modernisation.

In his book The Cultural Logic of late Capitalism, Federic Jameson begins in the preface with the following observation, "It is safest to grasp the post-modern as an attempt to think the present historically in an age that has forgotten how to think historically in the first place."

But history is not a unitary tale to be found in any book. In fact, according to Michele Foucoult, written history is often the process by which truth is manufactured and produced. What you need to do, is to excavate and do a genealogical study of history, in order to unearth forgotten memories, to see how so-called truth has come to become truth through the operation of power.

A word of clarification is in order. I quote the postmodernist writers above, not because they lend authority to my view. Neither is there any suggestion that writers have all the answers, as Harun Din said of Farish, in his dismissive comments in the Harakah.

The ideas contained in postmodernism are varied, full of ironies and seeming self-contradictions. The term certainly defies definition, and this is true to the spirit of the postmodern age in the West at least.

We read thoughtful writers from East and West, from the past to the present - including Farish - not to look for absolute answers to the problems and mysteries of life. Such alleged absolute answers can only be found in the revealed eternal truths contained in the holy books of the great religions of the world.

In this mundane temporal world, we live in confusion and wonder. So we welcome thoughtful writers in search of lucidity and clarity, even if truly good writers always raise more questions than give answers, and may confuse us further.

But this is a gain, not a loss. Good writers open up windows in our mind, so that we can see other possibilities. We become circumspective, and begin to free ourselves from the false authority of orthodoxy; we can thus be stimulated to embark on a search of our own, on our way to spiritual, emotional and intellectual growth.

For instance, in Farish's article, he has traced the development of the prominence of the Ulama within the large canvas of Islamic history. This development is the contingent happening shaped by historical forces at work, and so it is not cast in the heavens as a necessary Truth. It is a truth with a small "t"!

My personal query is this: why is it so ideologically necessary for PAS to promote the supreme position of the clerics in political Islam? It must be one most contentious political proposal that does not sit well with many Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Farish's analysis has allowed me to see that in fact there is not such an ideological necessity. Once that conceptual necessity is removed, the way is open for his proposal to allow and promote young intellectuals within PAS, who - in his view - may be more sensitive to the changes in the socio-political eco-system of the modern globalising world.

It is not a view without merit. I know many of my friends would consider such a view as a viable alternative for PAS in the aftermath of the 2004 general election, at least as a strategic re-inventing of PAS to play an epoch-making role in the future of Malaysian history. I suspect James Wong Wing Onn is one of them. It could also be a view welcome by many informed Malay/Muslims.

But I know next to nothing about Islam. Farish could also be wrong about the Ulamas. After all, he is human like the rest of us, and to err is human.

If he is indeed wrong in points of fact or logic, then it is up to the Ulamas and their supporters to argue their case, to say why the Ulama class should indeed dominate political Islam, as in Iran. They can certainly cite historical or scriptural evidence in support of their argument.

Others may then join in the discussion, and we may have the beginning of a meaningful collective dialogue that is so rare in Malaysia, one that would benefit the entire nation because it would lead to a deeper wider understanding of this important political issue.

But alas, this did not happen.

According to malaysiakini columnist Fathi Aris Omar, in his latest article entitled Ulama bukan tongkat Musa, the President of the Malaysian Ulama Association (Persatuan Ulama Malaysia or PUM) has this to say in response to Farish's criticism:

"I am annoyed because most of his writings that I follow obtain references from the works of Western Orientalist groups." This was reported by Harakah (1 15 May) under the heading "Farish Noor's wicked prejudices against Ulama".

The insinuation is clear. Farish is portrayed as being influenced by Western Orientalists, and may be an Orientalist himself in fact. Furthermore, he is prejudiced against Ulama, and therefore his views are worthless.

The statement is wrong in matter of fact in the first place. Those of us who read Farish A Noor often, and who happen to know what Orientalism is, will know that Farish A Noor is the very anti-thesis of the Orientalists in question.

Secondly, the comment is unfair, because it does not engage Farish on argument in matters of factual accuracy, or in the logic of deduction. Instead, this gentleman with a distinguished and authoritative title resorted to personal attack, name calling, labelling, imputing improper motive etc.

Personal attacks, name-calling, labelling, pigeon-holing and labelling are not argument. They are tricks of rhetoric. Politicians' utterances may be full of these tricks, but they are not valid arguments. They are what logicians will call Informal Fallacy of Reasoning. They are mere mud-slinging.

Furthermore, given the context of the sensitive situation in Malaysia, the name calling has another unfair effect: that of frightening critics of the Ulama, without having to justify why the Ulama cannot be criticised. This sort of sophistry has the unhealthy impact of creating an aura of fear that will silence critics and frighten dissidents into submission. It will close up meaningful communication.

People who disagree with Farish have every right to offer a reasonable argument. To resort to personal attack bordering on character assassination is to run counter to the unwritten rules of civilised behaviour, and manifests everything that is wrong with a third World mentality.

My point here is not whether Farish Noor is right or wrong. I am concerned with searching for a set of rules of engagement in public discourse, so that meaningful dialogic exchange can replace ugly monologic assertion of will to brute blind power.

In short, I am wondering about how meaningful inter-faith and intra-faith conversation can take place.

I am exploring the possibilities and the conditions of a vibrant civil society in Malaysia, so that we can begin our journey towards a First World mentality, bearing in mind that even in the so-called First World, the tension between Power and Truth is still very much unresolved.

The strong reaction to Farish Noor's article in Harakah is probably a storm in a tea cup. It should blow over soon. Nevertheless, stirring the tea cup may yield some insight into the internal tensions and contradictions in PAS.

Again, I ask for forgiveness and kindly corrections in any mistake I may have made. However, personal attacks will not be entertained.