Kota Damansara

4 April 2010

Islam started off as movement to challenge feudalism of that time. Islam can be analysed in two aspects. One is the normative and the other the essential aspects. The essentials or ‘aqidah‘ are the basic beliefs for muslims ,where else the normative is man made and is called ‘syariah’. In the whole religion the essential aspects are very minimal, usually it is the ‘syariah’ aspects that play a major part.

Thus in poltical Islam, the syariah aspect is manipulated and even placed as a essential element that cannot be challenged.

Most prophets from the Abrahamic lineage, like Jesus, Mohammed s.a.w were individuals from the marginalized communities during their time. They rose speaking up for the oppressed and downtrodden .

Thus Mohammed s.a.w was a revolutionary and a radical whom challenged the feudal leaders of his time. But now the radical, revolutionary character of the prophet is rarely highlighted or sometimes even forgotten. Mohammed s.a.w spoke against the feudal Arab landlords whom held on the wealth and oppressed the poor peasants.

Thus the prophets as Mohammed s.a.w and Jesus showed us that radicalism and revolutionary struggle drives changes in society to a more fair and just system. But as in Islam, Christianity and other beliefs the radicalism is lost as the religion moves from the marginlaised status to the mainstream centre. Moving to the centre comes with compromises as the religion becomes institutionalized. Thus the first mosque were very simple and without any luxurious finishing. It was small, as it catered the local residents. But later as the religion becomes institutionalized, mosque are built as huge monuments and in great grandeur. Now the larger the mosque is perceived as the measure of Islam’s dominance in a particular nation. Now size matters !

If Islam’s early history is analysed from a class perspective, we can see that the Islamic community at that time were anti-hegemonic; but they are misinterpreted today for the benefit of our time’s religious leaders. For example, Prophet Muhammad and his followers destroyed statues. This is seen today as intolerance of the earliest leaders and followers of Islam, but in the context of that time, where the pagan community oppressed Islamic community were including slaves from Africa who converted to Islam, the action of destroying the extravagant statues of the hegemonic pagan leaders were the the Islamic community’s class retaliation against that.sed

If you look at religious organisations today, especially the Federal Government’s Dept. of Islamic Religious Affairs, feudal culture prevails .Leaders are almost worshipped. Photos of the Agung (the King - the constitutional Islamic leader of Malaysia) are put up on walls in government offices, and even in private space by the public.

Islam was politicized as early as when Arab travellers started exploring other parts of the world including North Africa and Asia. The religion was expanded as trade expanded and at the same time, the political powers of Arabic leaders increased.

In other religions, even when power is monopolised by elite leaders in churches, there always exist Christians who hold onto the the liberation aspects of Christianity and oppose the accumulation of capital wealth into the hands of a few individuals. But why is it that among Muslims, this sort of dissent is decreasing?

Religious leaders have always tried to use common concepts to increase political influence among different communities e.g. One God, similar prophets, etc.

Political gain has influenced different parts of culture e.g. the building of the Forbidden City in China to consolidate power into the hands of male leaders, and the building of grand mosques in Turkey by the last few leaders of the Ottoman Empire. Prophet Muhammad on the other hand used discourse and liberation struggles to reach out to communities; and died poor in the process - trading the last of his clothes to a Jew for a sack of food.

Muqqadimah was a book/idea (?) written by a philosopher and historian, Ibnu Khaldun about the humanistic aspects of religion, highlighting the roles of people as the agents of historical change. He wrote on the rise and falls of civilisation because of human behaviour. And his books were banned and he imprisoned by elites who opposed all views of religious leaders being flawed and hegemonic.

Intellectual knowledge around the world has always been clamped down if they did not benefit the rulers, to their own detriment. Chinese leaders imprisoned and executed Chinese scientists who were also radical writers at the same time, only to suffer from enemy invasion outpowering the Chinese noisy, bulky cannons with smaller but more effective artillery.

The political and religious authorities’ response to books and dissent today is never based on rationale but on emotion. They cannot understand how if Islam is infallible, they can be criticised – just like the Chinese kaisers who could not understand how they were defeated.

The discourse of legitimation was discourse by elite leaders who fell and had to face reality; in the process scrambling for a way to explain their own downfall. Out of this came out of the dialectic of Islam vs “the other” and the phobia towards science and technology

Jamaluddin Al Afghani was a Muslim explorers to Europe who observed that Muslim nations were trailing behind Western powers who were more advanced in science and technology.

But even as they tried to catch up, superstition always dominated the technological development. Leaders would debate on whether the Quran should be imported, handwritten or printed with the latest technology - the last of which was much faster but would have them stamping blocks onto pieces of paper “insulting the Quran” in the process.

Meanwhile, other civilisations advanced. In Japan, the samurai age eventually ended with the development and use of guns and other modern weapons instead of swords.

The conduct of the Dutch East India Company was, to quote themselves, a business venture. How did Southeast Asian nations respond to the growth of this capitalist, colonial and secular power? “Islam vs The Other”.

Munshi Abdullah, considered the father of the Malay language in this country. The Malay language was transformed to reflect growing views with regards to religion.
For example, the words Dewa Raja long ago meant regional king, but is seldom used today. The power structure under the colonial government consisted of the Dutch companies above the governments, but with help of locals in between who were recruited to assist in their bureaucracy and administration.

The writings of Munshi Abdullah were only as critical as far as the British authorities (his employers) would allow him.

The nation state that existed in Malaya after colonisation was not the nation state of pre-colonial times but from that structure, with influences from the British.

In Malacca, when ships docked at the beach, Munshi Abdullah observed that the Indian sailors working with the British were willing to die not for a Maharaja, but for the British authorities who brought them from India, because of contract. Contract was a new power factor in Asia - encouraging people to work wt the British and getting money and power at the same time.

Political movements in Southeast Asia and in India and Pakistan were all encouraged by economic factors. Sarekat Islam was a movement and economy co-op created to get back more of the economic power from the Dutch colonialists in Indonesia. Their main objective was economic independence. There were several offshoots including Muhamadiyah, Nahdatul Ulama, Masjumi which played anti-colonialists and anti-imperialist roles. Sarekat Islam also had branches in Terengganu and Johor in Malaysia.

Sarekat Islam was a left-wing movement calling for the nationalisation of resources and the control of wealth by the people. Hizbul Muslimin was founded in 1948, with links to Sarekat Islam and its offshoots, because Hizbul Muslimin covered the entire Southeast Asia region and had the same objectives.

It was for this reason that most countries in this region had the same flag at that time - white, red - colors of liberation.

Harvey Benda - wrote a book The Crescent and the Rising Sun, about how the Islamic groups worked with the nationalist groups to oppose Dutch rule in Indonesia. Similarly, Hizbul Muslimin, mostly dominant in Malaysia - had many PAS supporters who were sympathetic to the progressive Indonesian movements.

Back then, the enemies of Islam were considered the occupiers of Vietnam and Palestine - US and European elements. But today, Nasser and Sukarno, who were nationalists and leftists back then, are now considered the enemies.

The liberation ideas back then were very popular, and PAS was even called the green-red party, unlike today where leftism is a fringe movement within Islamic groups.

The Cold War, 1945-89, was exploited by conservative nationalist elements in Southeast Asia. It allowed the ring-wing elements of the nationalist elements to gain influence e.g. Ferdinand Marcos, colonels in Thailand and Suharto. This caused the breakup of the tripartite relations between nationialists, Islamists and the leftists. This tripartite, kept together mainly by Sukarno, broke apart in 1965. The Islamists allied with the nationalists to clamp down on the leftists e.g. genocide in East Timor where hundreds and thousands of leftists were massacred by the Indonesian military. The entire hierarchy of the Communist Party of Indonesia in Bali were killed.s

In Malaysia under the Emergency Ordinance, even PAS had to make the decision of supporting the leftist movements or the Malay-nationalist movements. Between 1970-82, PAS was more anti-communist than UMNO, a big contrast from its early anti-imperialist days.

Jemaah Islamiyah (religious conservative) members climbed their way up in Islamic groups like PAS and got rid of leftist elements including unionists, intellectuals and grassroot organisers.

In 1979, when Afghanistan was invaded by the Soviet Union, the Mujahideen came to exist and were regarded as heroes against imperialist powers, even in Western media like the film Rambo. A new thing for Islamist groups to support a movement that was backed by the US.

Hezbollah and Hamas then came about to oppose imperialist powers as well as Islamic groups allied with the US. Hezbollah was also allied with the IRA in their anti-imperialist struggle against the British.

From the Mujahideen, the Taliban came about, which used the capital from the US to fund their movement. In 1996, a Financial Times editorial called the victory of Talibans victory (in taking control) in Afghanistan “a great day in the oil and gas industry”.

This whole relationship shows that not all Islamic groups are the same. Hezbollah itself is very different from Hamas in terms of ideology, beliefs and focus. And while some Islamic groups have an Islamist image, they are actually pro-imperialist e.g. the Saudis. The Saudis use this for economic gain and trade with the US while maintaining influence among Islamic nations.

Progressive Islamic elements in Indonesia were killed, so surviving ones went into academia. The intellectual culture in Indonesia is rich largely thanks to this and is why there is a lot of intellectual freedom in Indonesia.

When I lecture in Indonesia for example, you get conservative Muslims and leftists in the same room debating, without chairs flying around. Islamic intellectuals and lecturers in Indonesia are not antagonistic towards Western philosophical thought e.g. you can freely discuss existentialism if you want.

The question is who are our potential allies? Who are the progressive elements and voices of the marginalised among Islamic groups? There are many Islamic NGOs in Malaysia but not all of them are progressive. Who are our strategic allies? Which groups or leaders focus more on the essential aspects of Islam, rather than normative?

Q&A

What influence did Hezbollah have in Southeast Asia?
Islamic groups in Southeast Asia, especially Indonesia, were sponsored by both nationalist and conservative Islamic groups in Arab countries including Hezbollah. These groups were also used to crack down on leftist elements in Southeast Asia.

But modern Islamic groups in Indonesia are involved in democratic movements e.g. protests in Indonesia by Islamic groups are not to call for Sharia law, but for more economic welfare, etc.

There’s healthy intellectual debate in Indonesia - what are the factors that existed in Indonesia but absent in Malaysia that resulted in this?

How did PAS view the Afghan War, and what role did the Taliban influence play in the conservative transformation of PAS?

US forces fighting against Taliban who crack down on leftists in Afghanistan - what should be our stand?

2001-2006 in Indonesia, books that were written about war at that time were not about Al-Qaeda or terrorism but about the military industrial complex.

Terrorist groups are not isolated from each other - cannot be denied that some of these movements are funded by Western powers for economic and political objectives.

Younger members are recruited to serve these means through propaganda promising divine rewards.

These groups were funded by the US also out of fear of a global left-wing Islamic movement - better to have a conservative Islamic movement making war and creating reasons for war than a strong global anti-capitalist movement that could be made up of almost a billion people.

We have to analyse who funds the weapons? Who provides contracts to Arab governments? What roles do arms manufacturers and the oil industry play?

Leaders do not know how to deal with religion and instead maintain control by laws e.g. sharia law - laws that restrict freedom; all in response to the growing influence of conservative Islamic groups.

Islamisation of Malaysia - 1980-95 - started through the need to get funding from Arab countries.

Malaysian politics is headed towards a direction - attack/response to Islamisation, rather than studying the factors behind this. So either conservative Islam or right-wing liberal politics.

Is Mecca more right-wing than religious?

Visiting Mecca used to be a status symbol. Mecca serves as the source of control of normative aspects of Islam. Governments like Malaysia have to maintain relationships with the Meccan state or Saudi government because of immigration issues.

How did non-marginalised Islamic states take control while influencing marginalised communities?

In Iran for example, the Ayatollah emphasised that the revolutionary period was important to change the political structure of Iran. In Iran, there were 200 leftist groups, but only 6 conservative Islamic groups, but those 6 used religious influence. The mistake of those revolutionary leftist groups were to only publicly question those Islamist groups only after the revolution.

JI influence today?

Influence from Islamic groups come from feudal/fictional influence. Mythos - people look up to religious leaders - legends to followers, although they’re real and vulnerable people e.g. Abu Bakar.

Have to analyse the network of these groups to see their real influence - many branches e.g. intel, military, funding, networking, propaganda, etc.

There are also no JI groups that use the name “JI”.

PAS from its early days had contact with different groups within the JI network in Indonesia, but also the leftist elements in Indonesia - the latter of which decreased with the rise of conservative leaders in PAS. The conservative elements in PAS maintained this by increasing international contact with other conservative groups in Pakistan, India and other parts of the world.

For PAS to change it has to start with changing its rhetorics - to being more accomodative of other religions. I once saw a PAS banner in KL saying “Talibans are our friends”.

Is PAS really a national party or is it exclusive to the views of a few leaders. What is at the heart of PAS? We have to look at this, not just the rhetorics. The internal politics and rhetorics of PAS are different.

Non-Muslims play less involvement in governance. Affected by outside factors?

References

www.gerakbudaya.com - you can buy Farish Noor’s books here. also from Amazon.
- What Your Teacher Didn’t Teach You
- The Other Malaysia

Gurkhas - Indians who sacrificed themselves for the British. Also Punjabis.

www.parti-sosialis.org