Claudia Theophilus and malaysiakini are to be congratulated for publishing the series of five articles on Islam, and perhaps more importantly for having successfully organised the debate between the four eminent individuals from whom the articles' contents were based. It is well within everyone's memory to recollect that such debates and discourse have been said to be the preserve only of the ulama.

The rationale has always been that the subject matter is so intricate, so fine, so pure, that only these ulamas can have any meaningful comprehension of what Islam really is all about. Ordinary mortals like you and me are deemed to be completely clueless about this subject matter. Worse still for non-Muslim commentators and publishers, they are not even Muslims. This frankness and openness, this willingness to re-examine long held God-sent preconceptions therefore carry many exciting possibilities for the future.

I have one observation to make and contribute to this exciting debate and discourse. It is that the governing philosophies of Islam are akin to tribal laws while that of its anti-thesis the modern philosophies of modern democracies are akin to civil laws. It is important to realise and recognise these two different platforms or premises being at the background.

When seen in this way, the debate therefore is more about the implementation of syariah law and its degree of acceptance or rejection in the context of a modern secular civic society. It is also the question of how strongly syariah law wishes to impose its presence, influence and authority in the secular democracy. In the Malaysian context it is a question of how strongly the Ketuanan Melayu (Malay hegemony) government and leadership wish to implement Islamic law into the country.

'An eye for an eye'

Allow me to explain what is tribal law and how does it become similar with Islamic law or the syariah.

In a tribal society like those of the Arabic tribes of Islamic history, all members of the tribe follow and conform to the leadership and command of the tribal chief or emir. The emir's role is to protect the interest, stability and security of the tribe, against other tribes, and against marauders and brigands. The emir must be decisive and strong for the survival of the tribe. Any sign of weakness on his part will spell doom to him and his entire tribe.

An essential feature of tribalism is that a member gives his total loyalty and commitment to the welfare of the tribe. In return, the tribe accepts him into its ranks, thus providing him with the group's social cohesion, security and safety. It is one for all and all for one under the tutelage of the emir. In this kind of social framework, the sense of the individual does not count; indeed it does not exist. In its place there is group orientation, group mentality and group solidarity.
This group identity is so strong that when one member of a tribe is killed by a member of another tribe, the emir has to be strong and decisive; he must seek immediate recourse. He has to launch an expedition to extract blood revenge. He has to go to the murderer's tribe and kill any person from this tribe but not necessarily the original perpetrator. Tribal law says 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth'; it doesn't matter whose eye and whose tooth got extracted, so long as the job gets done. The 'maruah' or good name, high esteem, and prestige of the tribe have to be preserved at all costs and at all times.

Because of the need for the emir to be strong, his words and counsel are taken as law. When he says to turn right the members turn right, no question asked, when he asks them to turn left, the members turn left, no questions asked. All rules and regulations governing the tribe emanate from one central authority. Any dissenter may be slapped with some form of punishment like ostracism or banishment. In a harsh, unforgiving and difficult world, there is no alternative from swift and strong tribal laws.

In the event the tribe is governed by the emir autocratically, while the laws he passed are rigid, inflexible and usually unchanged.

This tribal philosophy is very apparent in Islam. Let's just look at the principles and elements of faith, belief, rules, regulations and procedures of this religion as an illustration. Islam was founded within the environment of many hostile ideologies. So the leader had to pronounce laws and edicts to strengthen the faith of its adherents.

All of these laws and edicts are issued (i) by a central command (i.e. God Almighty) and disseminated by Prophet Mohammad; that (ii) the need for adherents to follow these commands with no questions asked, (iii) the threat of punishment of going to Hell if adherents refused to obey their dictates.

These laws are indeed rigid, inflexible and unchanged. To illustrate, it is claimed by many adherents that the laws of the syariah have been formulated since the time of Adam, and has remained virtually unchanged ever since till to-date. It will continue in its present form until the Final Day.

Different situation

In a civil society the situation is entirely different. An individual does not live within a tribal framework. He does not live under the ambit of one for all and all for one, and not even under the tutelage of a prime minister. He lives on his own individuality and under the rules of civil law. To illustrate, when a member of his village gets killed, the police and other law implementers would catch the actual perpetrator. The murderer's tribal (or racial) identity is totally irrelevant here.

This is not to say that an individual living in a civil society does not have any form of law to govern his everyday life. No society can live without any laws at all; it would be anarchy and suicidal. It is that these civil laws are created not by a central authority (like God) but by a body representing the collective interest of the individual. I am talking about a House of Parliament or its equivalent where laws are formulated and legislated.

As this House represents the individual interest, the laws are in the final analysis conceived and formulated by the individual himself. In the event the laws emanate from the individual himself. This is indeed the essence of democracy, the government of the people by the people and for the people.

Again like the illustration of murder, if the individual feels this is a major crime, he institutes and legislate a law that identifies and categorises murder as a major crime. If he feels that a murderer is to be punished by death, then legislates via parliament that a person found guilty of murder is to be put to death. If he feels that death is too harsh a penalty, he might legislate a law to abolish it and institute a replacement like life imprisonment without parole.

This type of civil law is not determined by any central authority but representing the views and feelings of the majority of the people, and duly legislated in a law making institution. It is furthermore not rigid for it can change with time as and when public views change. It is not out of context for me to state here that the modern human civilisation has come this far in its intellectual, scientific and technological developments principally because of the flexibility of its laws.

With the brief explanation sorted out, I come back to the debate. My perception on the deliberations of the four personalities is that these may be divided into two, the Syariah compliant 'pro-Islam' faction (for brevity I'd refer to them as 'Islamists') and the civil law compliant pro-human rationality humanist faction.

Tribal mentality

The first thing I noticed has been that the Islamists demonstrate a trend reflecting their inherent tribal mentality, under the ambit of 'its Islam first and last'. But there is a lack of cohesion among them. They tend to contradict each other. I take random samples of the deliberations to illustrate this and my other observations.

The pro-Islam or Islamist faction would defend issues under discussion by resorting to the rigid, uncompromising and doctrinaire tribal law undertones. Take the statement made by Abdul Aziz Bari: "Murtad is an offence in Islam and apostates must face the music. Muslims have a duty to protect Islam's image, not abandon it as and when they like." There is no common agreement to this dictate.

Secondly the views of the Islamists have been presented tentatively. They seem to be unsure of themselves and thus harbouring doubt about their own stands. They tend to deflect issues or shroud them with other issues for reasons best known to them.

In this case Zaid Kamaruddin, one of the debaters, initially stated that basically there should not be any coercion in religion. Already this contention contradicts Abdul Aziz's contention I mentioned above. But he later claimed that this is a highly charged emotional issue, and in any case Hindus and Christian are also facing this problem. He is not addressing the fact, but adds a value judgment ('a highly charged emotional issue') instead and throwing in this similar problem faced by the Hindus and Christians (which to me is of no relevance to the issue at hand).

Mazeni Alwi sees the issue of apostasy from the historical context. The Malays have been followers of Islam during the colonial times and that there must be continuity. He is an obvious supporter of the tribal law mentality. To jettison them "just like that is not wise," he says. He continued by saying perhaps in 20 or 50 years' time the Malays might be able to discuss this thorny issue with penchant and clarity. He did not quite indicate where he stands: If the Malays are projected to be able to address this issue two decades into the future, does this mean Mazeni personally thinks today there is some merit in apostasy?

Thirdly the Islamists go for preconceptions more than for the issues at hand. Take the case of the Article 11 coalition efforts to champion the right of worship for all Malaysians including for the Malays to apostate.

In this case the leaders and organisers were labelled by Abdul Aziz as 'non-practising Muslims and they are representing deviants'. In other words go for the messenger, not for the message.

The humanists come strongly here with Haris Mohamed Ibrahim being the forceful spokesman for this faction. He is concerted in his presentation. "The greater majority of people here will be guided by good sense" he enthused. On the question of Islam as a state institution, he was adamant: "I find it absolutely objectionable if anyone suggests that Islam is a state institution. I don't care where we are, Islam does not belong to any state institution, to any government, to any man." He is a proponent of "returning to Muslims their right to and to answer to Allah and not to bureaucracy."

All said and done, are the Malays happy with the status quo with the government spending many hundreds of millions to prop the 'state-funded' (Abdul Aziz) religion? The surprising answer is that "Technically speaking, the Muslims are losing out a lot" (Zaid). In other words the Malays are not happy.

I am very much in favour of this debate and would suggest to its participants and organisers to ensure that this may be the first of many more in future. Principally they serve to demystify Islam. They debunk the taboo attached to it. They prise open the doors to Ijtihad or intellectual discourses on Islamic jurisprudence closed since around the 11th century, one thousand long years ago. It's about time too.

Personally I learned a lot from these deliberations. My awareness of the subject matter becomes keener. I know now for instance that there is a game of deceit and delusion being played by the Ketuanan Melayu (Malay hegemony) on the issue of the country becoming an Islamic state.

"There is nothing to worry about. Just look at Bangsar and anywhere in Kuala Lumpur. You don't see really Islam creeping into these places, do you?" asked Mazeni virtually apologetically.

For this Haris revealed: "If you go to the Attorney-General's website, one of their stated objectives is to undertake a complete review of all laws to ensure Syariah compliancy."

I can't wait for the next round of debate.

AB SULAIMAN is an observer of human traits and foibles, especially within the context of religion and culture. As a liberal, he marvels at the way orthodoxy fights to maintain its credibility in a devilishly fast-changing world. In his free time, he loves to read, travel and play golf (although his game could be better).