Be vigilant over ulama
Although PUM's president Al-Fadhil Ustaz Haji Abd Ghani Samsudin denied that "the ulama ( Muslim scholars) want to monopolise the religion and its interpretations", yet in the next breath he declared that "We will not allow people without proper knowledge on Islam to simply talk about Islam without first checking their facts with the ulama or books written by renowned Islamic scholars."
With respect, this declaration contradicts his earlier denial.
On Ghani's remarks that "from now on, PUM will monitor closely public speeches and statements, including those made by politicians on matters related to Islam" and that "if the speeches and statements are contrary to Islamic teachings, we will refer it to the appropriate authorities, including the religious departments and the Council of Rulers," - with all due respect, one has to first address the all-important question of credentials.
On what basis can PUM arrogate unto itself the right to be the guardian of Islam in this country and complain to the Council of Rulers about the interpretations thereof by writers like Farish Noor, Akbar Ali, Malik Ithias, Dr Patricia Martinez and Zainah Anwar?
Even opposition PAS leaders have not disparaged the writers' knowledge and interpretations of Islam. Over on the other side of the political divide, even Information Ministry parliamentary secretary, Zainuddin Mydin has acknowledged some of them as respected and knowledgeable writers.
It may be pertinent to ask what are the qualifications which constitutes one an Islamic scholar so as to make his pronouncements more authoritative than the interpretations of the earlier mentioned writers — does one have to be trained in some Middle Eastern tertiary or religious institutions and be familiar with Arabic verses?
To be more precise, in what way and by what qualifications is, for example PUM president Ghani Shamsudin, more qualified as an Islamic scholar than, say, Dr Farish Noor or Dr Patricia Martinez to give the former legitimacy to judge the opinions of the latter?
PUM's position is that: "We will not allow people without proper knowledge on Islam to simply talk about Islam without first checking their facts with the ulama or books written by renowned Islamic scholars." Farish's position is that: "Islam is a discourse, and all discourses are open, contested and plastic".
Therein lies the crux of the difference. It is an issue of how the soul of Islam is defined here. It is an issue of theocracy versus democracy, a closed society versus an open one.
It is also a contest between an emerging force versus the established order.
In wanting to close and consolidate their monopoly over the Islamic intellectual and discursive space when the top leaders of this country have made it clear that they favour ijitihad (independent reasoning), it is evident that some ulama are proceeding upon a religious platform to mobilise influence over the Muslim masses, put the government on the defensive, with perhaps the ultimate object of wresting political power by paving the way for PAS and using it as their proxy and vehicle of political influence.
This being the case, the political and business elites of this country and all Malaysians who cherish freedom of thought, economic progress and keeping up with the modern world should be vigilant.
They should not be indolent to the first stirring of this subterranean revolution that will eventually demolish all the progress the nation has achieved so far by the collective efforts of all communities and reduce us to the ranks of the less developed theocracies of the Middle East.
The moderate and the articulate of this country should speak up and not be cowered by the intimidation of those who use the name of Islam for their political agenda.
