Islam and the Politics of Free Speech Is civil society caught again in the middle of this game of one-upmanship?
by Maznah Mohamad
But on a slightly positive side the notion of human rights and civil liberties is being stridently espoused, and this time even by unlikely parties, such as our not-so-free press and government politicians. As usual political dynamics are at play here, involving the PAS-UMNO contestation.
But the issue also demonstrates how the human rights language has become a two-edged sword where both sides of the disputation can make claims to its usefulness in support of each one’s cause. Is civil society caught again in the middle of this game of one-upmanship or is it making gains in its aspiration for democracy and human rights?
Insulting Islam? Islam is out-of-bounds?
There are two quite separate subjects that have formed the basis of the PUM’s attention. The first involves a group of writers on Islam who have been accused by the PUM of insulting the sanctity of the religion. Second, the PUM has also brought the Bar Council into the controversy by asserting that the Council has no right to interfere in the affairs of the Islamic religion.
In the PUM statement, endorsed by seven other Islamic organisations, it was alleged that the concerned parties had all disparaged Islam as well as questioned the integrity of the Ulama (Muslim scholars). We have to question whether such an allegation is accurate.
A police report was lodged against one writer and there was also an appeal to the Conference of Rulers to deal with the writings of the individuals as an offence punishable by imprisonment or fine. This was followed by an exchange of press statements between the PUM and the President of the Bar Council.
The PUM mustered two reasons to justify its stance. First, divergent views on Islam that run against the conventional grain are to be seen as a criminal act. Second, it is pronounced that Islamic affairs are an internal matter and outside the purview of presumably secular institutions such as the Bar Council.
This is the heart of the matter — are the two points used by the PUM against its perceived detractors justified? The question of who shall determine what is or what is not demeaning to Islam is in actual fact irrelevant – but only, and only if, there hadn’t already been state laws created to selectively punish all those whose thinking deviate from the norms of the powerful.
The existence of the Sedition Act and the Printing Presses and Publications Act is a stark reminder that free speech has never been a given right here. Under Syariah enactment, any act, construed to bring “disrepute” to Islam is legally punishable. Added to this is the series of successful civil defamation suits by powerful business interests against journalists whose only folly was foolhardiness in going against those with the wherewithal.
The acceptance of the right to free expression must work both ways. Socially, we must come around to accepting the premise that anyone is entitled to an opinion (damaging as it may be) as to whether an article, a poem or a novel is insulting, disparaging or just plain horrible to a particular sensibility, be it of the literary, scholarly or religious variety.
On the other hand, those in positions of authority have proven themselves almost allergic to any criticism. And of course the easy way out of any criticism is for one to seek a most insidious but convenient device to shut out the critics. Legally, this spiral of recrimination and counter-recrimination has been reinforced by the availability of a battery of legislation to suppress discourse by the weak that is considered unsavoury to the interests of those with the power.
We have also been so used to being bombarded by arbitrary and sweeping arguments by authorities to push their point of view that the PUM’s admonishment of the Bar Council equally smacks of this syndrome.
Criminalisation and Non-interference
In the case of the PUM’s accusation against the writers, it has used the instrument of the law in the form of the Syariah Criminal Offence Enactment. And against the Bar Council and the Chairperson of its Human Rights Sub-Committee, Cecil Rajendra, it has invoked the argument that the Council has overstepped its jurisdiction by touching on Article 11 and the clause on freedom of religion.
There is an insinuation by the PUM that events which followed the Bar Council’s sponsorship of the Festival of Rights in December 2001 had involved the question of murtad (apostasy) in Islam. In the PUM’s press statement of 28 February 2002, it was asserted that, “Cecil telah mendakwa suatu pelanggaran telah berlaku terhadap semangat Artikel 11, Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan Deklarasi Hak Asasi Manusia jika orang Islam tidak dibenarkan Murtad” (“Cecil has alleged that there is a violation of the spirit of Article 11 of the Federal Constitution and the Declaration of Human Rights if Muslims are prevented from committing apostasy”).
However, this accusation had already been refuted in the 25 February statement of the Bar Council President. Despite this the PUM reiterated its stance that the Bar Council has no right to interfere in the affairs of Islam.
The question is, does the PUM recognize that the Bar Council is not solely a non-Muslim institution and that in fact it also represents the interests of Muslims in the legal profession? Secondly, as Article 11 and the Constitution seem to be the source of contention, should not this matter also be the concern of every Malaysian? At least from the statements and counter-statements issued by the PUM, we fail to see what aspects of the Syariah Law are being substantially touched upon in the debate. Hence from an analysis of their press statements, PUM’s accusation against the Bar Council for interfering in Islamic matters seems rather unfounded.
Selective Defence and Prosecution
In the PUM-against-the-writers issue the mainstream press seems to have taken up a strong cudgel in the defence of free speech and open debate on Islam, quite unlike the pre-reformasi days. There is actually a process of selective defence and prosecution at work here.
This was not the first time that the PUM had tried to flex its authoritative muscles against those they consider Islamic recalcitrants. In this regard, the Prime Minister himself had been the favourite target of the PUM’s and other Islamic bodies’ wrath. The Pas Selangor website for example has a section dedicated to the collection of speeches, utterances and remarks made by the PM and several other cabinet ministers considered to have menghina (insulted) Islam. Understandably, the PM would not invoke the privilege of the universal right to free speech, if at all he would be moved to defend his statements.
In another case, the Persatuan Ulama of Kedah had been said to be responsible for influencing City Hall KL (DBKL) in the banning of the feminist play the Vagina Monologues. As asked by Malaysiakini columnist Salbiah Ahmad: how was it that there was no condemnation by the mainstream press against the ulama for being intolerant of artistic freedom that promotes women’s rights? Is it because women’s rights are considered less strategically important to defend against the onslaught of religious conservatism?
Appropriation
The frenzy and publicity given to the PUM-against-the-writers statement by newspapers such as Utusan Malaysia, NST and the Star somehow invited a swift and much-publicised reaction from civil society NGOs to condemn the PUM. This is not to say that their actions are not to be lauded but this nevertheless smacks of a certain selective bias in civil society’s unequivocal support for the defence of human rights.
NGOs such as Suaram and Aliran had of course consistently protested against the suppression of civil liberties as in the ISA detention of Shiah and Aurad Muhammadiyah followers (considered deviant by state Islamic authorities). They have done so because they have held on to the principle of freedom of belief and expression, even though the practices and beliefs of the Islamic individuals detained may even be inimical to liberal democracy.
Many other NGOs on the other hand had actually desisted from openly condemning the detentions of Islamists, even though a serious violation of civil and constitutional liberties is involved. As to be expected, the mainstream press would not exhibit the same level of condemnation when it is the human rights of government dissidents that are being flogged.
Unfortunately any view that can be appropriated to attack opposition Islam is enthusiastically taken up by the mainstream press. The PUM have repeatedly taken a stance that is unacceptable to the government, from its calls to boycott American goods in the wake of the Afghanistan military strike to the condemnation of the PM’s speech at the World Economic Forum in New York. Hence, the PUM had already been tarred with an opposition brush.
Liberal NGOs are inadvertently drawn into this agenda in the defence of the writers’ rights. The greater the condemnation against the PUM, the better received this would be, as it feeds into the agenda of countering the PUM’s credibility. The mainstream press’ support for the NGOs’ call for freedom of speech may have little to do with a commitment to open up the discourse on Islam, and for that matter all other public concerns, to a wide and democratic participation by all Malaysians.
It is little wonder that news of the NGO Press conference led by Hakam in support of the writers right was reported in the same breath and column in The Star as the announcement by the DPM about the formation of an alternative Council of Ulama. This Council of Ulama was a proposal coming out from UMNO itself. How then would the liberalisation of discourse within Islam be achieved by this new institution, if at all this is its main concern? Aren’t we seeing the same pattern of Islamic one-upmanship at work here, again?
Most Sensible Stance
The most sensible stance that should be taken in this heavily partisan climate of one-upmanship is for the writers themselves to respond to their critics. Farish Noor and Patricia Martinez have taken the right steps in this direction.
Farish Noor’s humble tone in his piece, “Words Taken Out of Context, Given New Meaning” would certainly go down well with present cultural sensitivities.
Martinez’s response was well argued although her reference to her “weepy-ness” took on a dramatic overtone when it was sensationally exploited by Utusan in its headline, “Patricia Menitis Air Mata Ekoran Memorandum PUM (Patricia Sheds Tears in Light of PUM Memorandum)”. This was in complete contrast to the almost confrontational headline, “PUM: Islam’s Vigilante for the Nation?” chosen by Malaysiakini. These writers have after all entered the risky arena of Islamic discourse armed with only their intellectual clout and should therefore be prepared to take on their critics with that same ammunition.
Nik Aziz also made a sensible statement when he demurred that it was all right to criticize the Ulama so long as no insults were traded. It is unnecessary and even juvenile to belittle the credentials of the ulama as was done by an Utusan Malaysia columnist. For example he had set about to compare government ulama with PASones in a totally ad hominem way:
The PUM’s memorandum was in actual fact more significant because it made a reference to the Bar Council’s role in the debate over Article 11 of the Constitution. The PUM’s concern was on the issue of apostasy. To be balanced about this, Article 11 must be seen as a two-edged sword.
The PUM may be right to assume that Article 11 guarantees them freedom to practise religion as Muslims find appropriate, even to the extent of allowing for punishment for apostasy. There is actually nothing in the Constitution which allows for the freedom of compulsion from religion. It is only in Article 12 (4) that the constitution ambivalently alludes to some freedom of religion after the age of 18. Article 12 (4) states that “the religion of a person under the age of eighteen years shall be decided by his parent or guardian”. Thus this can be interpreted to mean that an individual is free from parental constraints on religious matters beyond the age of 18.
The PUM was upset over the joint NGO statement led by HAKAM against its memorandum because it felt that it was being unfairly accused of denying human rights when as far as the ulama were concerned, they too were fighting for human rights, i.e., the right to a religious practice.
What we must understand in this situation is that it will ultimately rest upon the group members themselves to decide if a group of self-proclaimed authorities ultimately have the sole monopoly over the definition of what that communitarian identity entails. While very few Muslims would want to go so far as to be broken free from their faith, most Muslims are open to the idea that discourse (but not Qur’anic revelation) within Islam can be subjected to rational consideration. A religious faith should be inherently good for all members of the ummah; however, an outlet should still be humanly provided for those who find the constraints of the group too unbearable to live with.
All human rights must be recognized, especially the positive freedom to a religious belief and practice. Equally, all non-assenting rights in the form of freedom from compulsion must also be protected. The essence of the human rights revolution is the affirmation that we are all equal solely on the basis of our humanity. If human beings are still being discriminated on the basis of their gender, race, class or religion in this day and age, then we have made very little progress, indeed.
Prejudice and Laws against Free Inquiry
In the midst of this contentious debate over human rights, it is only timely that we call again for the dismantling of all laws, policies and attitudes that continually seek legal and draconian redress against views unfriendly to powerful interests.
Similarly, authoritarian state agendas should not tout the banner of “moderate” Islam in their justification for shutting down other voices in Islam, on both ends of the spectrum. This is the preferred parlance now, popularised and frequently used by the Singapore press to promote its version of correct Islam, dubbed the “moderate Islam”. But what is this creature?
The epithet “moderate” is hardly ever attached to other faiths (moderate Buddhism? moderate Christianity?) — obviously alluding to the fact that it is only in Islam that there is this uncomfortable, even dangerously wide, spectrum of political deviancy. Is the assumption then that a purer Islam is more extreme, less moderate, and therefore highly threatening to national interests? From a Muslim’s point of view it would surely be an insult to be told that the purer the tenets of the religion, the less suitable it is for contemporary civilization.
Diverse, Polychromatic and Spectral Islam
Unfortunately, this notion of a diverse Islam opens the way for its exploitation by all kinds of claimants to authority. Most of the so-called moderate (read modern and secular) Islamic regimes in existence today (witness Syria, Libya, Iraq, Egypt) are also the most politically repressive and militaristic. Are we inching our way into their league? On the contrary, the most “fundamentalist” Islamic country in the world (Iran) is proving itself quite open to democratic change. Yet, the Islamic country heavily favoured by Washington (Saudi Arabia) practises the same kinds of Islamic laws once imposed by the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Fortunately, the most acceptable normative standard today - much to the chagrin of a militarising America, an Islamic theocracy or authoritarian Asian states - is still the pursuance by the masses of democracy and an attempt to reconcile the whole gamut of what is considered human rights today.
To pay lip service to the above norms or to allow these norms to be appropriated in the service of realist political gains is what we in civil society would like to avoid getting ourselves trapped into.
Now tell us what you think. E-mail us.
|
|||||||||||||||
The controversy over the Persatuan Ulama Malaysia’s (PUM) statement against several writers on the subject of Islam and the Bar Council is an important issue to dissect. On the negative side it has brought much distress upon the writers and hopelessness to all those who seek the right of free speech to participate in public discourse affecting society’s well being.
As far as the PUM was concerned, Article 11 guarantees freedom of religion, meaning to be free to practice the religion as they deem fit and that religion is to be a communitarian rather than an individual right. The liberal’s interpretation of Article 11 would be the freedom to be free from any religion if that individual chooses so. These differences of interpretation remain unaddressed by both sides.