Umnos response to Anwar's hunger strike is dangerous as it raises a number of concerns. Politicians should refrain from using religion as an offensive weapon on their opponents, because the collateral damage and long-term consequences could be very serious.

Can hunger strike be considered haram? I am not an expert in Islamic law, but I welcome any correction from the readers for the purpose of mutual education.

From what I have gathered, Muslim scholars have classified human actions according to the teachings in the Quran into five levels of normativity: haram, makruh, mubah, mandub, and wajib.

If a conduct is haram, it is evil and immoral and thus strictly prohibited, eg. adultery. If a conduct is wajib, every Muslim is obligated to perform it, eg. prayer. Conducts which are makruh are considered as morally undesirable, but it is not prohibited by Islam, therefore no punishment is visited upon a Muslim if he performs it. On the other hand, a mandub conduct is highly encouraged, though not religiously obligatory.

All other conducts are considered as mubah (morally neutral) because the Islamic scriptures do not explicitly encourage or discourage them. Apart from reading the texts, scholars can also classify actions into one of the five levels after a serious religious inquiry, the so-called ijtihad process.

Normally, conducts are classified as haram only if there is clear support in the scriptures for the prohibition. A conduct can still be haram even without textual support, but only if the conclusion has been arrived at after serious religious inquiry. To call an act haram is a very serious matter, because the Muslim who performs a haram act could be punished, or even called a kafir (infidel).

Is hunger strike haram? It is almost like asking is watching TV haram  there is no clear Quranic verse which denounces nor endorses it. Therefore, an Islamic scholar would have to interpret the texts to derive an answer. There are conflicting answers to that question, as shown by the different answers given by the different parties interviewed in the news report.

In Islamic law, from what I gathered, when there is no consensus on this matter, the believers are allowed to follow any of the interpretations given by the various qualified scholars whom he respects. Therefore, Anwar has not violated the religious law, despite the haram interpretation given by Umno, because in the eyes of God, he has not sinned by following a different interpretation. Besides, Umno itself agrees that there are many different interpretations of Islam.

Yet the explanation of haram given by Umno Youth's 'official clergy' is rather weak, based on the news report. The fact that the scriptures do not explicitly say that an act is allowed does not mean that it is haram. It might not be wajib (obligatory to perform), yet it might still be highly desirable or morally neutral, under the circumstances.

Even if hunger strike falls under the category of makruh (highly discouraged), it is still not haram, not prohibited by the religion and definitely not a sin. For Umno to call it haram is utterly manipulative and deceptive, which only serves to confuse the less-informed believers to Umno's advantage  purely for political reasons.

However, the point of this writing is not to debate religious teachings, but to show how religion has begun to be politicised, and the dangers posed by the politicisation of religion.

  1. Religious doctrines have become an offensive weapon of Umno for attacking political opponents. This seems to be part of a significant change in the political behaviours of Umno, which has tended to be more secular and nationalistic, and has until now seldom deployed Islamic religious doctrines (rather than Islam as a religion in general) in this specific fashion.

    Is this a sign that Umno has become very desperate, and therefore succumbed to the pressure of the conservative and ultra-religious Islamists (those trained in/by the Middle-Eastern establishments) and felt obliged to engage them in religious terms? There seems to be a confusion how to respond the issue of religion within Umno vis-a-vis PAS. In any case, such a change would shift the Malay political discourse into religious terms, yet Umno does not seem to be well-equipped to fight on this battlefield.

    It seems to me that it is a grave strategic error for Umno to be seduced by PAS into religious debates, because frankly, Umno politicians are too far behind in their religious knowledge to take on the PAS ulama. As a strategic matter, Umno should acknowledge that there are many different legitimate interpretations of Islamic teachings, and stick to what it does best (which happened to be PAS' weaknesses): Malay Malaysians' economic and cultural modernisation, independent of (but not anti-) religion. I do not believe that Umno could beat PAS in the religious tournament.

  2. The Umno youth statement denouncing Anwar's hunger strike as a violation of Islamic teaching came out on the same day when Umno vice-president Muhammad Muhammad Taib criticised PAS for using religion to confuse Malay Muslims and wasting their time in useless religious discourse and kafir-mengkafir.

    It is certainly laughable that the pot is calling the kettle black, but more importantly, this self-contradiction, within Umno as a whole in the same day, just goes to show how stupid and poorly co-ordinated the Umno public relations machinery is. Mind you, these people are running our country.

  3. If Umno is able to gain political mileage by this religious accusation of Anwar, in future, Malay politicians would be tempted to use the religious principles (in addition to religion in general) as their weapon again. This is a highly dangerous game to play. It will only increase the emotions of the believers, and to make politics  not just religion  even more contentious.

    Is there a danger that sooner or later, when religious principles have become not 'effective' enough as political weapons, the politicians would resort to the use of 'martyrdom'? Take note that in the context of endorsing Anwar's hunger strike, PAS has also endorsed the Palestinian suicide bombers as using a legitimate tactic of resistance. Is Malaysia on its way to become the next Lebanon or Iran-Iraq?

    Responsible statespersons should obligate themselves to keep the potential for religious fanaticism out of politics, and prevent their followers from using it as a political weapon in such an irresponsible manner.

  4. Another danger of using religious principles as a political weapon is to increase the totalisation andmonopolisation of religious ideology and truth. Soon, everything would be couched in Islamic terms, making it impossible for less religiously educated citizens  Muslims or non-Muslims  to understand and participate. I do not want to be told one day that drinking coffee and smoking cigarettes are banned because the Prophet Muhammad SAW did not expressly say we could, in his teachings.

    Also, we would hear the government claiming to be the only true interpreter of what is Islamic and not Islamic, and outlawing any 'deviant' interpretations as infidelity and cults to be crushed and persecuted. The institutional monopolisation of truth, either by the state or ulama clergy, is precisely what is happening in many Arabian dictatorial regimes (including Iran and Saudi Arabia), as well as in totalitarian regimes of Mao Tze Dong's China, Stalin's Soviet Union and Hitler's Nazi Germany.

    True, there is a big difference between Malaysia and the Taliban, but as one malaysiakini letter writer has argued, Malaysia is on the brink of becoming an Animal Farm. Freedom can be chipped away one piece at a time; totalitarianism does not have to occur overnight. The key is to pay careful attention to the pattern of encroachment and to alert the public whenever things are moving in the wrong direction.

  5. One troubling aspect of the Umno interpretation is to invoke Hindusim, in the process of demonising Anwar. The permanent secretary for Religious Affairs of Umno Youth Shamsul Najmi Shamsuddin claimed that "hanya agama Hindu sahaja yang menggalakkan pengikutnya berlapar atas alasan tertentu mengikut amalan agama mereka." (Only in Hinduism are believers encouraged to practise hunger, given certain justifications.)

    To demonise your opponents by identifying them with 'others' is malicious to both your opponents and the bogeyman. This irresponsible tactic could result in collateral damage inflicted upon innocent bystanders  in this case, emphasising the differences of Hindus from Islamic teachings (according to the 'official interpretation), and creating in the Muslim mind the impression that Hindus are 'deviant' and their practices wrong. The problem is more than simply being insensitive to cultural differences.

We can also begin to imagine what the situation would be for non-Muslim minorities in a 'real' Islamic (or any other religious) state. The majority would be engaging in 'internal' religious debates, which is completely alien and incomprehensible to us, yet would have far reaching consequences for our livelihood (though perhaps not in the present case of hunger strike by a Muslim). We are excluded from participation by virtue of the 'lack of qualification', yet we have to accept being labelled as bogeyman and scapegoat, while suffering collateral damages.

Even more troubling is that, we are constantly confused by the utterly different views given by different people about important state ideology which is utterly alien to many rakyat (citizens). You have heard the analysis by Umno, PAS and Universiti Malaya Prof Datuk Dr Mahmood Zuhdi Abdul Majid; now you hear me. While my version could be completely disregarded due to lack of qualifications, whom among the other three versions are you going to believe? I would imagine that the situation is even more confusing for ordinary Muslims, who have no deep religious training (in a particular school) but still are obliged to take a position.

Using religion as a political weapon is a game which multi-cultural Malaysia  and Umno  cannot afford to play.