Who and what is and is not Islam?
Art Harun
“But for the grace of Allah upon thee (Muhammad), and His mercy, a party of them had resolved to mislead thee, but they will mislead only themselves and they will hurt thee not at all. Allah revealeth unto thee the Scripture and wisdom, and teacheth thee that which thou knewest not. The grace of Allah toward thee hath been infinite.
There is no good in much of their secret conferences save (in) him who enjoineth almsgiving and kindness and peace-making among the people. Whoso doeth that, seeking the good pleasure of Allah, We shall bestow on him a vast reward.” (An-Nisa, verse 113 and 114 – translation by Pickthal)
The controversy caused by Ustaz Zamihan Mat Zain, a senior officer of JAKIM last week over the visit to Malaysia by Sheikh Dr Abdul Rahman Ibn Abdul Aziz As-Sudais, the Grand Imam of Masjidil Haram, brings to the fore the propensity of some Muslim ulamaks to label their Muslim brothers and sisters as un-Islamic, deviants and even non-Muslims or apostates.
Such self-righteous and purely holier-than-thou acts are almost a daily act in the Muslim world in general. Malaysia, as is obvious, is not an exception.
According to a Malaysian Insider report last week, Ustaz Zamihan branded the visiting Grand Imam a “Wahabi”. He added further that the Wahabi’s methodology is often repugnant to and inconsistent with the administration of Islam in Malaysia.
This is not the first time Ustaz Zamihan had caused a storm over the Wahabi issue. Ustaz Zamihan’s antagonistic stance against Dr Mohd Asri, the former Mufti of Perlis, whom he accuses as a follower and practitioner of the Wahabi school is well known. He even accuses the Perlis former Menteri Besar, Tan Sri Shahidan Kassim and Ustaz Abdul Hadi Awang as being “connected” to Wahabism in a police report which he lodged last year.
The controversy prompted JAKIM to issue a statement denying that the visiting Grand Imam was attempting to spread Wahabism here through his visit.
With all due respect, JAKIM misses the point.
The point is not whether so and so is a Wahabi or trying to spread Wahabism in Malaysia. The real point is whether it is right for a Muslim to judge another fellow Muslim in respect of his faith; his belief, his way of practising his faith and generally his “Islam-ness.”
If the Grand Imam of Masjidil Haram could be judged and insinuated as a person whose Islam-ness is not acceptable, how about people like me and millions others in Malaysia?
It is a fact that in Malaysia we have daily doses of ulamaks going on a religious rampage. This is not correct. That is not Islamic. This person is a lesser Muslim. That person is not a Muslim. This group is kosher. That group is deviant.
The question is, wouldn’t God be the best creature to judge His followers’ faith to Him rather than mere mortals?
Despite the Federal Constitution expressly, by Article 11, granting the right to every person – as opposed to only citizens of Malaysia – to “profess and practise his religion”, our Islamic authority, namely JAKIM, issuing a fatwa on 5th May 1996 that “Malaysia must only follow the teachings of Islam based on the doctrine of the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah on creed, religious laws and ethics.” It also decided (for all Muslims in Malaysia) that “all Muslims in this country are bound to Islamic Laws and Religious Laws based on the teachings of the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah only.”
In so far as the Shiite school is concerned, apparently there was a decision by the the Fatwa Committee Muzakarah (Conference) held on 24th-25th September 1984 [Paper No. 2/8/84, Article 4.2. (2) that only the Zaidiyyah and Jaafariyyah Shi’ite sects are accepted to be practiced in Malaysia.
However, on 5th May 1996, at the 40th Special Muzakarah (Conference) of the Fatwa Committee of the National Council for Islamic Religious Affairs Malaysia, the 1984 decision was overturned. The full 1996 ruling can be viewed here.
That brings us a wholly ridiculous situation. Does that mean that between 25th September 1984 to 5th May 1996, Shi’ism was legal in Malaysia? Does that also mean that the 1984 Muzakarah was wrong in its pronouncement? If the 1984 Muzakarah was wrong in 1984, what guarantee is there that the 1996 Muzakarah was right?
Recently we had another utterly incomprehensible situation. Some of you might have read that on Ashura day last year, namely on 16th December 2010, some 200 Malaysians were detained for practising “Shi’ism”. This brought international concerns that Malaysia is practising some kind of religious apartheid.
However that did not end there. Not long after that, there was a clarification. When it was pointed out that Iranians who visited and in fact are staying in Malaysia are all practising Shi’ism, our authority quickly issued an exemption. Apparently it is alright for them (the Iranians) to do so in Malaysia. This of course is totally inconsistent with the fact that Malaysians are prohibited from doing so.
So, arising from that, we have two type of Islam in Malaysia, in so far as Shi’sm is concerned. We have an “international Islam” where foreigners can practise Shi’ism in Malaysia. Then we have a “localised” and probably even “parochial Islam” where Shi’ism is not allowed. Shi’ism also appeared to be okay from 1984 but deemed not okay from 1996.
