KUALA LUMPUR — How does a Muslim village boy who faithfully attends Quran classes and goes home to the works of Lao Tzu and Confucius, grow up to view the world — and his country? The scope of Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s worldview is matched by the breadth of his political ambitions. Having risen from the ashes, the leader of Malaysia’s opposition is raring to prove his mettle at the upcoming elections.

Asia360 News editor-in-chief Goh Chien Yen caught up with Anwar Ibrahim in an exclusive interview at the Houses of Parliament, to discuss how exactly the firebrand politician plans to do that.

Asia360 News: There is a lot of talk about the general elections being round the corner. Some predict that they could be held as early as June this year. When do you think it will be?

Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim: I don’t know. I’m not particularly good at speculating. But the incessant attacks in the UMNO media on the opposition and their rosy coverage of [Malaysian Prime Minister] Najib’s movements, which you see virtually every day, is a sure sign of the imminent elections.

Q: Is the timing good for UMNO to call for an election soon?

AI: I don’t think the timing is actually good for UMNO. You see, they have downplayed UMNO as a party. They are projecting Najib, to show that he’s trying to do his level best. Relying solely on him, however, is to acknowledge the fact that there are strong sentiments against UMNO and the Barisan Nasional coalition. The other component parties that used to play a major role — MCA (Malaysian Chinese Association) and the MIC (Malaysian Indian Congress) particularly — are completely sidelined. I don’t believe they’re that confident.

Q: And the timing is good for the opposition, for Pakatan Rakyat? What’s your plan for the upcoming election in order to boost your chances of getting into the government?

AI: Well, we’re working very hard under the circumstances. We have at least been able to present ourselves as a formidable force, a team, and I think that has helped. Unlike Najib, they’re projecting him, but we always appear — the three party leaders [of the opposition coalition] — together. Then, there’s a clear common platform from Buku Jingga, the Orange Book, and on some issues we presented at the recent Pakatan Rakyat Convention. The good thing is that we’ve been working very hard on those issues. We presented the case not only as an alternative government, but with clear policies laid out.

Q: So what are some of these clear policies from an economic standpoint? The Malaysian economy seems to be doing quite well, registering about 5% growth for 2011 despite the global slowdown. What can you do differently or do better on the economic front?

AI: We are of course for market economics and market reforms, but to us, governance is central. Price hikes here are mainly due to monopoly. Rice and sugar are the monopoly of a few select companies controlled by family members of cronies. We believe that if things are done in a transparent manner and proper procurement policies, tender process, then we can minimally reduce some of these problems.

And this figure, the 5% growth, does not really resonate with the masses. Unlike our neighbouring countries, we’re a net exporter of petroleum; the revenue rests comfortably with this huge income resource.

I don’t think we have much of an issue with infrastructure, or economic growth. People tend to compare us with mostly developing economies. But I would always say that we should be compared with Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea, and not Myanmar and Bangladesh. But what is more important in terms of economic policies is that we have the capacity to move forward at a faster pace and to improve, radically shift and substantially improve the quality of education.

Q: So these are what you see as the immediate challenges if you were to get into power. What would your priorities be in your first 100 days in office?

AI: We need to make sure and be clear that it is not a race-based politics, number one. Number two, the issue of governance. If an observer looks at the growth figures, they know what is lost to corruption.

Q: If the opposition comes into power, Malaysia will be faced with an unprecedented situation of UMNO not being in government. How would others such as the judiciary, military and the monarchy react to this new political state of affairs?

AI: This issue is probably relevant much earlier. In 1969, it was a race question. The opposition was seen to be an attack on the Malays. It is not necessarily right; I’m talking about perceptions here. By 2008, we [the opposition] controlled five states — this is not a concern anymore. We are talking about an UMNO-dominated government versus the opposition, which is also Malay-led, so you can’t use this race card. Also now that we have been in government at the state level for some years, our interactions with the military, the police, has been deeper, and also with the sultans.

Q: So you think Malaysia is ready to move further away from race-based politics that have dominated the political scene for so long?

AI: If you look at the 2000 elections, it’s clearly a departure. It’s been quite clear since 2007. Some critics painted the picture that that if we do take over, it will be like a stooge to the Chinese. It has been used by Mahathir [the former prime minister] against me and it was used by Najib against me. He had publicly said that I will be a stooge of the Chinese, particularly the DAP (Democratic Action Party). My style has never been to be apologetic. Why can’t I be used by the Chinese and the Malays and the Indians, for the good of this country? Instead of just denying, “No, I will not.” Although this has been a major campaign in rural areas about the insecurity of the Malays, I think it’s over. People finally want to know about the future, their welfare. You go to the Penang Malays, it’s not whether a Chinese is chief minister, it is about their housing, about access to credit, which are their concerns. So we’ll have to address these issues.

Q: What are the challenges for Malaysia as it modernises while remaining faithful to its religious and cultural heritage? Do you see a balance that could be struck or will it always be a source of tension?

AI: We have been able to navigate this successfully, maintaining our posture as a tolerant, moderate, Muslim society. The so-called contentious religious issues were not raised by religious scholars but were purely a political ploy. After all, this race card, religion card are all inculcating a climate of fear. What they want to hear is what you have to offer in terms of concrete policies. If and when we do take over, then the constitutional guarantees and framework will be made on the issues of language and religion, which I think is clearly acceptable to Muslims and non-Muslims in this country. But, having said that, I wouldn’t want to discredit the fact that it would still continue. Look at the UMNO media; it’s a daily dosage of Christians versus Malays, so they may attempt to send this message through their incessant propaganda efforts to the rural heartlands.

Q: You’ve been scandalised, beaten, stripped of your title and thrown into jail. What keeps you going?

AI: I’m just plain crazy!

Q: Where do you draw your inspiration?

AI: I’m not crazy; I was just quoting Mandela. After I was released, he invited me, Azizan and the children to visit him. So we went to Johannesburg, because he wasn’t doing too well. He was very apologetic, he said, “Anwar, I’m sorry we’re not able to do much.” I said, “Look, you did your best.” He had immense influence and he was successful in even getting me out of the country for treatment in Johannesburg. He said: “People like us, people say we’re mad, we’re crazy.” Then I intercepted and said to him, “Mad, for sure we are not, but crazy, yes.” But I don’t know. I’m grateful for my parents, they were quite idealistic, my late mum and my father.

Others have asked me how I see Mahathir now, and I spent the first 20 minutes talking about the nice time I had with him. They said, “No, please be serious.” I said, “I am!” That’s a wonderful thing to have. Of course I get angry, I counter his arguments, rebut very strongly, in some ways despise his hypocrisy, the gross injustice, but I wouldn’t deny the positive contributions he made. But the destruction of the institutions of government, that’s unforgivable. Personally, I’m okay, I moved on, but the judiciary, media, the police force, parliament, were all relegated to becoming inconsequential.

Q: Speaking of your relationship with Mahathir, do you have any regrets in the sense that perhaps things could have been done differently? After all, you were the heir-apparent. You were the deputy prime minister, slated to become the next leader.

AI: Oh, I thought about that a lot. You have to remember, I was in prison, so what do you do? Meditate, read and think. And sing, I sing quite a bit too. You do, you reflect, but then it was mutual, he was kind to me and I was exceedingly kind and loyal to him. It was a very difficult period but I don’t think I had much option towards the end. In fact, I’ve always said to my more critical friends that I have absolved myself. After all, we were part of the government. Some of the decisions were bitter, but we needed to draw the line. Things like bailouts, things like the corruption reports against ministers, already on your table, and for you to say “not to do anything”… you have to bring it up! But people say you could have compromised, some friends did say that. But then you would have transgressed the boundary. If or when you do take over, how do you then rationalise with the public what you’ve done? If it’s done by the prime minister, well there’s not much I can do. But if it is condoned by you, you have a problem. So, do I regret it? No. Was it difficult? Yes. Do I think I had other options? No, except to resign early, to die a fighter.

Q: You’re also a man of ideas. It was about 17 years ago when you wrote the book “Asian Renaissance”. A lot has happened since. Asia is on the rise. Do you think what you described as renaissance is happening now? And where do you see Malaysia in this emerging Asia?

AI: That book became quite contentious because people close to Mahathir thought we were clearly parting ways. Secondly, the central idea of economics empowerment is critical, but not everything, that’s why I talked about renaissance, cultural empowerment, I talked about freedom, and justice. And I think there was a flaw in the thinking at that time of these economic gurus: prescriptions by the World Bank, the IMF about the East Asian economic miracle, and so forth. They didn’t talk about disparity, the marginalised, the poor, whether the judiciary is independent or not, or if the media’s free. To them ‘the miracle’ was in terms of a limited notion of economics and power. I hold very dearly the thesis I presented in that book. That’s why I used the term ‘renaissance’.

Q: Do you think this is happening now? There have been some changes. Indonesia has changed and is now a proud democracy. Malaysia has made progress too, slightly more liberal and democratic these days.

AI: I don’t think they’re that liberal — they are forced to be. Look at the parliament proceedings today — a mockery, a joke. But it’s a challenge. Once you are transformed into a relatively vibrant democracy, then you actually allow for space. And that latitude is essential for the mushrooming of ideas. That, to me, is very critical when you talk in terms of economics or cultural empowerment.

That is happening more successfully in Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand because they are more democratic. Although I wouldn’t want to deny the fact that Indonesia, too, is facing a major problem due to endemic corruption and marginalisation. If the issue of governance is not resolved, people have this suspicion, then whatever policies, however rational or good, will always be suspect. Is it to enrich your cronies or is it really something really essential to the masses? Trust is important.

Q: What would you consider your greatest political achievement to date?

AI: I’ve not achieved much. For now, I’m cementing the three parties together. Fortunately, the leaders of the three parties are like-minded and willing to collaborate for a common agenda. But there is still a long way to go. So we shall see. People say that success means you assume office. It’s not true. Success is when you’re able to deliver. It’s not when you attain the position. That’s I think the wisdom of having been there and being downtrodden. And I think that keeps your sanity and humility. I think that’s important. People think being prime minister is the end, but I don’t think so. I think you should be evaluated and judged. And when you’re able to honour your commitments after you assume office, and remain true to your ideas, that, to me, is a far greater challenge than articulating this ideal in the absence of authority or power. When you’re there, you deal with the realpolitik, with the power play, with the big forces, with the tycoons. If they give you a 10 million dollar ring, what do you do?

Q: There’s a strong moral conviction behind your political action. What keeps you true? What keeps you walking the straight and narrow and not, like you said, being wavered by the 10 million dollar ring or turning your eye away from what you think is not right?

AI: I’m a man of faith; I’m a practicing Muslim. At the same time, I grew up well thanks to my parents. My mother is not English-educated but she’s an avid reader. She virtually read all novels in Malay or in Bahasa Indonesia in those days, the entire collection of Balai Pustaka books. And my dad, we always had these small compendiums of books, from Gandhi to Lao Tzu to Confucius, and it’s interesting. For a Muslim family in a village, with a small library at home, we have that. So you familiarise yourself. I go to Quran class, and following the Nabi (prophet), as an intellectual, you don’t view religion purely from a dogmatic sense but you engage.

Roger Garaudy was a great philosopher, who started off being a Christian in France, then later on became a Muslim. It’s very interesting what he said, unlike a new convert. He said, “I’m blessed, I grew up a Christian, and that’s where I learnt compassion and tolerance. Then I became a Communist, and I had strong empathy and love for the poor and downtrodden. Then I became a Muslim and then I became more universal.” So just because he is a Muslim, the past is no longer relevant? No, the past is what is him. Exactly what Amartya Sen had said. In his book “Identity and Violence”, he said, “I’m an Indian, I memorised Sanskrit at the age of nine and I think it was a great thing, I’m a Hindu and I think we have a great civilisation, but because I’m in India, I think that Muslim moguls have done wonderfully well. But later I became a professor in Cambridge, in Harvard. I think it’s a great institution and I love being here in America and despite the fact that I grew up in Santiniketan, I am a great admirer of Shakespeare. So who am I?” And that is beautiful. I use that a lot. And when you read it and understand it and you see these people talking about Malay supremacy, oh my god, they know nothing.

Many Sino-Singaporeans who try to criticize the Malaysian formula due to their ignorance of the reality of Malaysian politics of race duly claim superiority with the implementation of their so-called “meritocracy” system. It is also claimed that by the enforcement of the Malay special rights as provided for in Article 153 of the Malaysian Constitution, Malaysia is actually making an “apartheid”-like policy. Other than the fact that the ideologies and policies of both countries are radically different, the truth is that while the so-called implementation of the “apartheid” policies have brought about socio-economic balances and harmony in Malaysia, Singapore’s so-called “meritocracy” system has caused much misery to those other than the Sino-Singaporean majority and the formulation of many draconian policies that formed the basis of the currently Sino-dominated Singaporean government.

While the Chinese of Malaysia recognize the need to work together with the other communities in Malaysia and believe in the concept of ‘power-sharing’ with the Malay-majority, the Sino-Singaporeans only thrive on Chinese chauvinism, as reflected in the “meritocracy” policy. Until today, the Malay community of Singapore are the most backward socio-economically compared to the other races of Singapore, even though they are the indigenous people of this rich Island.

Much of the marginalisation of the Malay community and the failure of the meritocracy system to improve the Malay situation are clearly highlighted in The Singapore Dilemma (Oxford University Press, Kuala Lumpur), a book that has sparked off much controversy in Singapore. This book, written by Lily Zubaidah Rahim — a lecturer with the Department of Economic History, University of Sydney, Australia — continues to be extensively quoted as it contains the real facts and figures as to the effects of the meritocracy system of Singapore on the Malays of Singapore.Apart from discussing why the policy of “meritocracy” is not truly a fair and just system, she also argues on how the PAP government uses the cultural deficit thesis to justify the marginalisation of the Malays in Singapore.

Malay Singaporeans have not been totally silent over the discrimination they suffer at the hands of the Sino-dominated Singaporean government. A Singaporean Malay had complained in a Malaysian daily regarding his son’s failure to secure a place in the National University of Singapore (NUS). Even though his son achieved better results than the majority Chinese in his class, the Sino-Singaporeans lower than his son’s results were still admitted into the NUS. This is due to the quota system imposed by the University onto the Malays, which is only 15%, the Indians 9%, other races 4% and 65% for the Chinese Singaporeans, who make up the majority of the country.

This, and other limitations imposed by the Sino-Singaporean government, clearly reflects ‘the hidden hypocrisy’ of the system known as “meritocracy”. The policy is thus simply a cover-up to the reality of the Sino dominance, although the entry immigrants, in the socio-political sphere of Singapore. It is not impossible that Singapore could one day fall into racial strife, just as what had happened to Fiji, where the majority and economically-isolated indigenous natives revolted against the minority but powerful and economically-strong Indo-Fijian government.

No doubt that the “meritocracy” of Singapore should instead be termed as “hypocrisy” as its policies had only benefited the majority and powerful ethnic Sino-Singaporeans, more than the other ethnic races of Singapore who are left behind due to this unfortunate “advantage” given to the majority. Pushing Malaysia towards the Singapore-styled “meritocracy” policy would no doubt lead to the Malays of Malaysia being seriously marginalized as their counterparts in Singapore are currently experiencing. It is therefore totally rational to maintain the special rights as has been enshrined into the Constitution to maintain peace and stability in the country. And as a reader of Utusan Melayu commenting on the issue rightly asks:

“Are the Malays in the country still lulled in their dream world?”

Much has been said about Datuk Dr. Hasan Ali, the former Selangor state commissioner of the party and (previously) a state Exco in the Pakatan Rakyat state government, in the past few weeks. Some had claimed that the reason for the decision to sack him was because of outside pressure from PAS’ partners, DAP and PKR and that the PAS leadership had bowed down to others. Others have said that the reason Hasan Ali was sacked was because of his so-called “activism” against apostasy and the set-up of a counter-apostasy unit borne by the department under his portfolio (religious affairs) and therefore Hasan Ali’s sacking is a detriment to the cause of Islam itself. Even more ludicrous is the claim by Hasan Ali himself that he was sacked on the orders of Anwar Ibrahim!

It truly befuddles me that despite the gains PAS has made in Election 2008, many still fail to understand the “PAS political culture” which is totally distinct from UMNO, the current ruling party at Federal level. Many of the folk who make such assumptions and claims are ignorant of the Islamic concept of working in a jamaah, which PAS believes in and fully espouses. Unlike the UMNO political culture, the Islamic movement as enshrined by PAS is not dependent on the “aura” of a single individual. Anyone and everyone are both indispensable and at the same time, also dispensable in for the cause of Islam via the party. PAS has seen leaders who were once influential come and go like the tide; and yet the party marches on. Difference of opinions are fine for as long as they do not contradict the overall political direction as decided by PAS’ central working committee.

Unfortunately this was what Dr. Hasan Ali failed to understand, that he is not ma’sum and that PAS is not him and he is not PAS. For several days up to the day the party’s CWC decided to sack him, Hasan Ali has done nothing but attack the party’s tahalluf siyasi in Pakatan Rakyat, while at the same time tooting his own horn of the “deeds” he has done for the cause of the party (despite the fact that he had never presented his pet project for review to the PAS leadership and kept the party in the dark). Worse still, he had done it by granting interviews to pro-UMNO newspapers which were more than happy to publish such sensational stories at the detriment of PAS’ image. Furthermore, he appeared on TV3 lambasting the Negara Berkebajikan concept and leaves little room in mind of the viewer that he believes PAS has “strayed” from its Islamic path. I personally watched this interview on air and could only shake my head in dismay at the attitude of Hasan Ali, who had clearly become a poison in the body of the jamaah. The more he made his views known in pro-UMNO media, the more he sounded like an UMNO man.

Therefore when it was announced by the party that Hasan Ali was now sacked, I heaved my breath in relief. It was probably the best thing for both Hasan Ali and PAS; the party has got rid of the poison to continue its relationship with Pakatan Rakyat, and Hasan Ali is now free to join UMNO with no strings attached. Hasan Ali was not sacked because of his strong aversion to apostasy; he was sacked because of his strong aversion to PAS!

Anyone who sees this Facebook profile would know that this is nothing more than a prank. Someone who is really serious in assassinating the Prime Minister would not have announced his or her intentions publicly, much less have a Facebook profile declaring such an aim in their status. However the Malaysian police, being the dumb-asses and utter morons that they already are, saw it fit to regard this prank as a “threat” and arrested this student over this particular remark.

Honestly, I think this is simply a case of the police being over-zealous on a non-issue. That being said, this does not mean I condone the student’s prank at all. However, the issue could be handled in a much “quieter” way (such as calling up the student for counselling or contacting his parents to advise them of the consequences of making such threats online) and certainly with much less publicity than it is due for the past few days or so. Was it really necessary to make such a huge brouhaha by arresting the poor guy, harassing him during interrogation and later stuffing him in the lock-up over a Facebook profile status?

The real crimes are happening on the streets, you stupid policemen. Why don’t you chase after the real criminals instead of wasting our public funds on an obvious student prank?

Malaysian opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has been cleared of sodomy charges, which he says were meant to kill off his political career. Will his coalition be able to mount its strongest political challenge in this year’s general elections?

Maszlee Malik and Musa Mohd Nordin

It is rather surprising that the Western media started to call Ennahda party in Tunisia as a ‘moderate Islamist party’. The same label has been used to describe the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, to differentiate them from the ‘radical’ Salafi parties. It was not the case a couple of years ago and unimaginable by many considering we are just ten years post-911; the tragic bombing of the WTC in New York. ‘Moderate’ Islamists appears to be a new jargon to describe the ‘not so bad’ Muslim guys who were previously designated with a plethora of Islamphobic labels by the same media which included among others ‘the radical Islamists’, ‘extremist banned group’, “radical Islamic fundamentalist”, “jihadist militants”, etc.

Finally, there is now hope that the many self proclaimed political Islam experts in the western media would awaken to the fact that the term ‘Islamist’ is not a monolithic one. It is most unfortunate that J.L. Esposito’s piece, ‘Islamic threat: Myth or Reality’ was never given much attention to many to better understand this phenomenon. Esposito’s thoughts might be seen as an outlier when contrasted against the tsunami of islamophobic writings published post-911. However, it is an excellent beginner’s book to better understand the wide parameters of the much varied global-Islamism phenomenon and trends.

In surah Al-Baqarah verse 143 Allah says “Thus have We made of you an ummah (nation) justly balanced, that you might be witnesses upon mankind…” Interestingly, this verse resides smack in the middle of the surah which contains 286 verses, further emphasizing the concept of the middle nation (ummatan wasata); justly balanced and embracing moderation in its clarion call for change and reformation. I am thus convinced that in the midst of the many loosely defined “Islamists” there exists the “moderate and justly balanced Islamist”. This immediately begs the question, “how does one define one?”

This calls to mind Karim Raslan’s foreword to Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad’s new book “Striving for Change”. After admitting his historical ‘stereotyping’ of all Islamists, it eventually dawned upon him that there are such persons or movements that can be described as moderate Islamists. I could not agree more with Karim Raslan and think that there are many who share similar analyses and sentiments. In this respect, I can vouch that friends and foes of Dr Dzulkefly better known as Dr Dzul, would unanimously echo that this Dr Dzul guy is truly a universal persona of a moderate Islamist.

His Islamic activism dates back to his student days in Birmingham, UK in the mid 70s. His excellence in academia landed him a doctorate in the medical sciences (toxicology) from Imperial College, London and he taught both medical sciences and Islamic civilization in USM. Very much a self taught economist he has proven his mettle by jointly spearheading the Pakatan shadow cabinet on financial matters besetting the nation. A prolific writer and an orator of substance he has all the makings of a credible and iconic politician to represent the professional group amongst Malaysian Islamists. His added and rare asset is his ability to master the Arabic language and his invaluable training in the skills and competence to understand, reflect and contextualize the meaning of the Quran and traditions of the Prophet, which makes him a new symbol of transfomative Muslim leadership in Malaysia. His brand of down to earth, facilitative, hands-on and savvy Islamic leadership is being increasingly accepted not only within the ranks of his party, his constituents in Kuala Selangor, his colleagues in Pakatan but also the lay public both Muslims and non-Muslim alike.

Having read his blog, analysed his writings in the various on-line news portals, watched his many interviews, listened to his public ceramahs (talks) ( ) and viewed his parliamentary sessions as a lawmaker, Dr Dzul in our opinion embodies a breakthrough, a new hope for the “izzah”, an honourable and noble positioning of Islam within the landscape of Malaysian politics unlike that adulterated and tarnished by the parochial and racist representation of Islam in the past 50 years post-Independence. As friends of Dr Dzul since prior to his political debut, we might be ruled to be jaundiced in our assessment of his performance but you are at liberty to seek the opinions of others on Dr Dzul, the “Islamic democrat”.

Furthermore, as a PAS central committee member and think tank maestro, it is kind of difficult to fathom that this same pious guy has his own musical choir consisting of his wife, children and in-laws which they have labelled ‘the Wayfarers’. They blasted a few “hot numbers” among others Il Divo’s “I believe in you” and an Arabic version of the original Leonard Cohen’s “Hallelujah” at the recent fund-raiser in Kelab Shah Alam on the 18th December 2011, attended by a micorsosm of the Malaysia populace.Dr Dzul’s willingness to engage and embrace others in crystallizing his vison and his commitments to “memberikan yang terbaik untuk agama, rakyat dan gegara” (nothing less than the best for his religion, people and nation) sets new and enviable benchmarks for the Muslim politican in multi-ethnic and multi-religious Malaysia.

If PAS is seriously hoping and planning on the long walk to Putrajaya as part of an engaging, and trusted partner in a PR led federal government, then they should be seriously considering cloning the Dr Dzul template in their rank and file and not fear losing one or more Hasans or Nashas. The Dr Dzul aura represents the contemporary best of PAS political culture in the PR band wagon for change towards a new and better Malaysia.

The war drums are beating again. Several purportedly “Islamic” NGOs have banded together and decided to do something about apostasy in the country. The organisers are holding a “Himpunan Sejuta Umat” (“Gathering of a Million Faithful”) or simply known as HIMPUN, at Stadium Shah Alam this weekend as a “show of strength” to openly oppose non-Muslim proselytisation towards the Muslim community and apostasy in general. The gathering will later produce a declaration calling for the enactment of a law to punish individuals guilty of proselytisation.

It is important that we explain why apostasy is such a huge concern among Muslims, not just in Malaysia but all over the Muslim world in general. Apostasy is defined as “the public abandoning of a religious faith for another ideology or religion”. The technical Arabic terms in Islam are Irtidad and Ridda, and an apostate is referred to as a murtadd (“one who turns back [on the religion]”).

As for the punishment of apostasy in Islam, the famous hadith recorded by Bukhari: “man baddala deenahu faqthuluhu” (“Whoever leaves his religion, kill him”) is so well-known that it requires no further apologetics for the statement. Suffice it to say that the shari’ah is very clear on the Islamic position regarding the murtadd and the hadith cited has been the legal basis of all four of the major Sunni madhaab which exists today. There is no compromise regarding this and even the claims of apostasy being a “human right” can be easily disproved when we look into the Western legal system and see that the punishment for treason is death, and that Islam equates apostasy with treason of the highest order.

Once the issue of apostasy in the Islamic legal system is understood, then one will realise that asking questions such as “do we really think the way to show our religion is great is by using law to force people to stay in our religion?” is silly and borders on the ridiculous for the believer. How can one be given the “choice” to leave Islam when the right was never theirs to make in the first place according to the shari’ah? And who gives the right to non-Muslims to interfere in what is clearly an Islamic affair and display their pompous arrogance and ignorance on the matter by being insensitive to this Islamic legality from the shari’ah? Such is the influence of Western materialism and decadence that it has, sadly, coerced people into believing that only “human rights” (or what is perceived to be as “human rights”) reign supreme, but they forgot about God’s Rights and their rights and obligations to the One Who Created All!

Some liberal Muslims will also claim that there is an “apparent contradiction” between Qur’an, 2:256 which mentioned “no compulsion in religion” and the shari’ah injunction against apostasy. The answer to this age-old polemic is that the contexts are totally different, and that it refers to people who are already not Muslims in the first place and not bound by the shari’ah injunction regarding apostates! Ibn Kathir explains this in his tafsir of the verse in question as follows:

Allah said, {There is no compulsion in religion}, meaning, “Do not force anyone to become Muslim, for Islam is plain and clear. and its proofs and evidence are plain and clear. Therefore, there is no need to force anyone to embrace Islam. Rather, whoever Allah directs to Islam, opens his heart for it and enlightens his mind, will embrace Islam with certainty. Whoever Allah blinds his heart and seals his hearing and sight, then he will not benefit from being forced to embrace Islam.

Thus it is plain for all to see that Qur’an, 2:256 has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of apostasy, and this is simply an attempt by those who try to dilute Islam by ignoring other statements of the Qur’an which clearly does not allow for apostasy at all.

Now that the Islamic position regarding apostasy has been made clear, let me say what I think about the proposed “Himpunan Sejuta Umat” this weekend against proselytisation and apostasy. While on principle I do support the purpose and aim of this community movement to issue an open statement calling for the legal enforcement of barring proselytisation, I do believe that this gathering is moving in the wrong direction and that it will do little to impact the situation on the ground, if this is the only thing that they will proclaim during the gathering. While the Federal Constitution of Malaysia’s Article 11(4) is very clear on the issue of proselytisation among Muslims and states: “State law and in respect of the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur and Labuan, federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam”, there has been literally no enforcement at all in this regard. Of all the religions in Malaysia, none has been more active in proselytisation as those of the Christian faith. I am personally and painfully aware of Christian missionary activities and their proselytisation material are freely available and distributed with impunity. A planned “Christian convention centre” to be build at Bukit Jalil is yet another glaring display of how daring those of other faiths are in their zealousness to propagate the worship of a half-naked, Roman criminal who was left crucified on a cross.

Yet, nothing concrete has been done by the authorities concerned to put a stop to such activities. The threat to Islam in Malaysia are not from the Christians alone. As of late, the rise of a certain brand of “militant atheism” is rearing its ugly head in Malaysia and it has influenced a lot of people to apostatise from Islam. It is a worrying trend, particularly since militant atheism also advocates a certain type of proselytisation where its “adherents” (if that is an apt description of these disbelievers) actively promote their own ideology while at the same time insult and debase Islam in the most heinous of descriptions.

Perhaps the solution to this dilemma of proselytisation towards Muslims and apostasy in Malaysia is not just to make gatherings and declarations which are not heeded to by the authorities and the government of the day, but a total revamp from ground up regarding religious education and total empowerment of the law and religious officials. What I propose is that a separate subject (or at least, a component of Islamic Studies) be taught in schools for Muslim students called “Comparative Religion Studies”. A syllabus can be drawn up where Muslim students are exposed to the various religions in Malaysia, study specific chapters of each religion’s holy scriptures and the Islamic view regarding each religion’s doctrines and Weltanschaaung. This, I feel, will equip the student with the proper tools to counter the arguments made from the adherents of other religions who try to proselytise their religion to Muslims.

Apart from this, a more solid legislation regarding apostasy and a uniform, legal enforcement of Article 11(4) to be shouldered by not only the understaffed religious authorities in the various states, but also the relevant government apparatus such as the police and civil authorities involving the auxillary police and RELA. This is something which unfortunately I do not foresee happening at the moment, unless and until a new government with PAS as a major component of the coalition takes over Putrajaya.

Apostasy in Malaysia has been a long-drawn battle between the Muslims and the disbelievers. I hope that HIMPUN would at the very least get the ball rolling towards the final objective of banning all forms of proselytisation towards Muslims and arrest the alarming rise of apostasy cases in the country, despite my skepticism that it will meet its intended objectives.

Perhaps it was by the stroke of fate that I became a father two weeks earlier than expected. My son, Mu’awiyah Rayyan Nieshaem, was born on the 12th of October 2011 at around 5.45pm and from that point of time onward, I shoulder the additional responsibility of the care and well-being of my offspring, which includes education. As I hold my sleeping son in my hands hours after the delivery, I ponder upon aspects of my struggle thus far and how I can ensure a Better Malaysia for my newborn son.

As it stands currently, Malaysia is at a critical turning point. Decades of political domination by one-party rule (although it claim to have a semblance of “democracy”, no matter how handicapped that may be) has stagnated the country from a social, economical and educational aspect to such a degree that countries in the region are going far ahead of us. Indonesia, for example, have seen much growth and advancement in their lifestyle since the Reformasi movement ended the Suharto era in 1998. Freedom that had never been tasted before in Indonesia have helped propelled the country to further heights, although with that unbridled freedom comes the price of irresponsibility among Indonesians, chief among them is the antagonistic attitude which Indonesians have lately directed against Malaysians, allegedly for “stealing” their cultural heritage. I will discuss that problem at another time for I believe that deserves a treatment of its own.

Nonetheless, the March 2008 elections have certainly changed the mentality of Malaysians. Already people are starting to see that it is possible to initiate change, when the desire for reform and for a Better Malaysia goes beyond the selfish needs of the individual. Recently my father had the opportunity to meet an old friend, who was once an elected State Representative (ADUN) for UMNO/Barisan Nasional and a former Exco member of the Johore state government. When probed about what he thought about UMNO, whether the party had a chance to regain its lost seats in the coming 13th General Elections, I was told that my father’s friends simply replied that he did not know, and that it is hard to predict that will happen in the present climate. This is certainly a far cry from the past attitudes of previous BN candidates, who had in the past assumed that once you are standing as a candidate for Barisan Nasional, an electoral victory is assured and you will win your seat.

What I am saying here is that the momentum that started in March 2008 should not end here. The push for a change of government in Putrajaya, which will only happen with the ouster of Barisan Nasional and the ushering of Pakatan Rakyat, must continue and it can only begin with oneself. So as I look upon the face of my son, I realise that my hope for a Better Malaysia must not just be based on simply awaiting for change to come along by itself, but I must also work towards it and participate directly in the political process. Not for just the sake of my political beliefs and the ideology which I have struggled for so long, but for the Better Malaysia that I wish to entrust upon my son, so that he will inherit the fruits of this struggle from his father. Towards that end, all I can say is that may God help us through the times for a Better Malaysia.

I have always shown a keen interest in Malaysian politics ever since I was ten. As far as I am concerned, someone who is not interested in or has apathy towards the Malaysian political situation is simply being unpatriotic to the highest degree, which is unthinkable to me. Patriotism towards the country, however, is not to be confused with asabiyyah, or tribal inclinations which the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and Islam has abolished. Neither is blind patriotism allowed to gain precedence over the principles of the deen, as this would invariably lead to fundamentalist secularism, something which we have already seen rearing its ugly head in France and Singapore during the uproar on the hijab and its ban in public schools.

It is perhaps this blind “patriotism” which had led my dear father to ask me the question when I will eventually join UMNO ad nauseam. My father is apolitical, this much I can vouch for. He has many times expressed the need for a strong Opposition. Yet I cannot help but notice the bias that is apparent within him. He quietly believes that a person who enters the foray of politics should simply join the ruling Barisan Nasional to succeed in life. Being born in the post-Merdeka period when UMNO was the name of the game, perhaps it is no wonder as to why he adopted this view. Seriously, however, this has come across my mind for years before the 1998 sacking of then-Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. So I joined the Reformasi movement. I deluded myself into thinking, “Oh, I’ll rejoin UMNO once Dr. M leaves the party”. Or so I thought.

Goodbye UMNO

Now looking back fondly upon those years, I realized that I cannot help but renegade on my personal vow to return to UMNO. The party has denigrated so badly in the Mahathir era during the last decade that it is no longer fighting what it claims to fight for. How could I ever thought of returning to a party which promotes a separation of religion and state and calls it “Islam”, or as Pak Lah would put it, “Islam Hadhari”? That UMNO is simply making use of Islam to entice gullible Muslims is obvious when you can see the emphasis the party puts on fard kifayah (collective duty) instead of maintaining a balance between fard ayn (necessary duty) and fard kifayah as it should be.

For a party which claims to fight for Islam to the extent of belittling another party which does, even in spite of the fact that the deen was never part of its raison d’etre, I wonder how it could miscalculated so much when it comes to a discussion about fard ayn and fard kifayah. This was discussed by Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas who says in his book (“Islam and Secularism”, ABIM: 1978) that the current rulers of the Muslim world over-stressed the goal towards fard kifayah and ignored fard ayn completely in their administration. Maybe a de-emphasis on fard kifayah over fard ayn would actually instill some sanity in a party whose leadership is corrupted with money-politics, but I am not holding my breath for it to happen.

Incidentally, Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas is perhaps the only internationally-renown Islamic scholar in contemporary times who is a local boy. Yet this same person is not given credit where it is due. Compare the times you hear his name mentioned to the regular TV appearances which his brother, Professor Syed Hussein al-Attas, enjoys and you will immediately see what I mean. All this was because Syed Naquib al-Attas was critical of the previous Prime Minister’s policies.

But I am digressing. In any case, I no longer feel that I should seek my political destiny in UMNO, no matter how “established” it is and no matter how “Islamic” it purports itself to be. What more so with unruly characters such as Zaid Ibrahim and Zainuddin Maidin (ZAM), one cannot help but ipso facto be repulsed by the sight of such fools entering UMNO (for precisely the same reason my dad is asking me to join it) in droves, ending up with destroying the nation we all love. Perhaps it is precisely because of my patriotism and new-found religious love for my country that I have chosen the Opposition, and not UMNO, as my political wasilah. This decision, I hope my dad would respect.

The reality of reality shows

As a young man, I am not impervious to entertainment. I enjoy watching television, I enjoy good films, but the current excessive slew of entertainment-based reality TV shows flooding the local channels provokes concern in those who are aware of the sad state of affairs in this country. Programmes such as Akademi Fantasia, Malaysian Idol or Audition present scantily clad young men and women who dream of becoming stars and their talents (or sometimes, even the lack of it) are broadcasted nationwide. Individuals such as Jaclyn Victor and Mawi who are born out of such hedonistic programmes are given widespread publicity and the masses are whipped into a fawning frenzy over such individuals. People who are supposed to represent the future of our country are being fed with mindless entertainment! In contrast to this, you can find recent reports of murders, rape and snatch thieves in the mainstream media. How all these could be validly reflected in Pak Lah’s “Islam Hadhari” is mind-boggling, to say the least.

For the matter of record, the writer is not against entertainment per se. It is not wrong or forbidden in Islam to have entertainment within reason and Islam, being the pragmatic religion it is, allows for entertainment, which comes with the times. There is currently an ongoing debate (khilaaf) among the scholars as to whether music is permissible or otherwise, with the majority of the scholars going for the former. This is certainly an unavoidable reality; music is part of our lifestyle and no civilized human being can live without the world of music which appeals to his better fitrah (nature) of being a human. Rejecting music in our lives is as good as rejecting food and sleep in our lives.

Having said this, however, it is clear that pointless or excessive entertainment, which distracts or inhibits one from pursuing his duties as a Muslim is universally condemned. Such condemnation is not totally unfounded. Excessive entertainment in a society has seen the downfall of several civilizations in history. The pagan Arabs of Makkah were known for their lewdness and their engagement into excessive entertainment. So were the Babylonians, Greeks and Romans. All these civilizations mentioned have met their doom. Even the Ottoman Caliphate saw its downfall due to the distraction of the Caliphs in its later days because of the providence of excessive entertainment in dancing, singing and concubinage.

Going back to the earlier points that has been raised, we are left with one fact: Pak Lah has promised the rakyat an “Islam Hadhari”, an Islam which he says pushes for “modernised Islam” to counteract Pas’ DNI (Dokumen Negara Islam). It was this promise, coupled together with his vow to take a tough stance on corruption in the administration as well as a very cooperative Election Commission, which has brought about his victory. However, what has Pak Lah’s “Islam Hadhari” brought since the last general election in March 2004? Has the rakyat seen any significant change in Pak Lah’s administration?

The writer, for one, does not. Cosmetic sacking of small-time ministers or officials for corruption does not really count for much. Apparently Pak Lah is trying to distract the people from seeing the bigger picture. Will his late grandfather approve of such decadence? Pak Lah should ask himself that question. Then again, perhaps this is in accordance with Barisan Nasional’s self-interest to see the whole society drown in the rush to SMS their votes and forget all about their basic rights as citizens of this country.

Until this current sad state of affairs change, we will have to raise the level of awareness in the rakyat and call for measures to restrict the current slew of entertainment reality-TV shows. Once is okay, twice is tolerable, but more than two is a bit too much!

This article was published in Rentakini (now defunct) in May 2006.

If the principles of jus soli were strictly enforced in the country, I wouldn’t even be registered as a citizen of Malaysia. Thirty-one years ago, my father was working for a multinational corporation based in the Sillicon Valley and he brought his young bride along. I suppose I was conceived during this time. I was born in San Jose, California in the United States.

I even have a US birth certificate and a US passport (expired in 1988) to boot. The US recognises dual citizenship so I have no doubt that I am already recognised as a citizen of the US. But because my parents had the foresight to register me at the US Embassy in Washington, DC using Borang W, I became a Malaysian citizen at birth. My father could have made the decision to stay. But he didn’t. He came home to Malaysia with his family in tow.

I grew up in a middle-class family and was for most of my life based in Penang, having been enrolled into a private school (Sekolah Sri Inai). The majority of students were non-Muslim Chinese, I was only one of the very few Muslim students around in the whole school.

Regardless, I had a lot of inter-racial contact and I count a lot of non-Muslims and Muslims alike as among my closest friends during this time period. Back when we were children, the issue of race and religion did not count for much, not even during the 1990s.

However, my father decided to enrol me into a government school, where the racial balance was rather skewed and I saw some form of racism first-hand. There was even discrimination against me, even though I am constitutionally-defined as a Malay (although today, I do not see myself as such). Moving on to secondary school, I began to make more friends as I grew accustomed to the culture surrounding me and my family.

I was overwhelmingly pro-Umno throughout my earlier student years and saw everything through their lenses. Then 1998 came, when Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim was unjustly sacked and publicly humiliated, under dubious circumstances.

This incident forced me to start seeing things through a wider lens. I learned over the years of the pervasive corruption within Umno, the excesses of their leaders and their unjust treatment of Malaysians — and even the Malays, those whom they claim to be protecting.

I started to read up and learn about Islam, eventually embracing my religious roots and realised that the only way to achieve universal peace is through the justice of political Islam.

Fast forward to today, the political climate is far different from what it was during the 1990s. Barisan Nasional/Umno is now widely seen as corrupt and unjust, manipulating race issues for their political gain.

The wealth of their leaders is unaccounted for, their continuous disregard for the livelihoods of the rakyat even more evident in the past decade. The economy is being managed badly and social problems such as baby dumping, promiscuous sex among teenagers and crime are on the rise and unlikely to be reduced significantly for as long as the current government remains in power.

With all these known excesses and problems in Malaysia, why am I still here? Why have I remained in Malaysia? I could have just as easily moved to the United States , where I would be welcomed as a citizen and, unlike others who choose to leave, have the right to vote and participate in the political process.

I remained in Malaysia because I believe that to achieve change, the only way to do it is with political change and that must begin with oneself. I translated this into action when I registered as a life member of the Islamic Party of Malaysia (PAS) in 2007.

This belief would not have changed, even if the political tsunami of 2008 did not happen and the tripartite opposition did not make significant gains. Whining and groaning and voting with your feet will not bring about change, it will only bring further apathy to those who stayed behind. The lack of patriotism from those who discarded their vote should not be a reason for anyone to leave the country and never come back.

On a personal note, I am doing reasonably well with my own SEO/Internet business and consistently obtaining clients from the US and the UK/Europe. Although there may be a higher income if I were to leave the country and start living elsewhere, the cost of living in other countries is relatively higher than what it currently is in Malaysia.

Also, I believe that my wife would be able to wear the hijab freely in public, and I will be free to practise Islam openly, without anyone on the street harassing us or calling us “terrorists.” Despite what one may be led to believe, xenophobia and religious bias is not absent in the US, the UK, Europe or anywhere else.

Malaysia is my home, and for better or for worse I will never trade it for another country.

This article was published in The Malaysian Insider, May 2011.