Malaysia reaches a critical crossroad over state Islamisation

By admin-s Last updated Oct 30, 2014

The contest for the majority in Malaysia is fuelling the deployment of Qur’anic quotes for competing purposes.

Amrita Malhi, The Conversation

Fuelled by the rise of Islamic State (IS) in Iraq and Syria, debate about Islam and violence has flared again in Australia. In a predictable cycle of provocation and reaction, governments launch a wide-ranging security response while denying claims that Muslims are scapegoats. At the same time, they must reassure non-Muslims that the suburbs are safe.

The result is government statements that aim to placate everyone: Muslims are not targets and non-Muslims should stay calm because, as they argue, Islam is foremost a “religion of peace”.

Interpreting texts is problematic

In recent weeks, Australian Attorney-General George Brandis has uttered precisely these words. A battery of spokespeople for the Muslim community has chimed in. This is not rocket science: this gesture of reassurance is aimed at maintaining relationships, calming the angry and managing constituencies.

This context is important because the statement is disputed, such as last month in Quadrant in an article by Australian anthropologist Clive Kessler. Kessler has argued that the statement is an empty gesture. His article states that:

… bland and disingenuous assertions of Islam’s essentially peaceful character are inadequate.

Why? According to Kessler, it is because of Islam’s early history (“a story of political triumph and ascendancy”) and its founding texts (“the militant version is a reading or construction of direct intellectual lineage and identifiable descent within historical Islam”). Kessler is right that these texts contain some “authentic” justifications for violence: such quotes are available to anyone who seeks them.

For Kessler, however, this is not the end of the problem. Where Islam is not violent, it is still inherently political, he argues. Its politics, he elaborates, are “majoritarian”: where Islam offers “peace”, it is “peace on our terms”. In other words, Kessler writes:

… provided you utter your consent, there is a place for you in our scheme of things – and we will tell you what that place is.

Kessler’s argument begins with Australia, but as he goes on, it becomes apparent that Malaysia is on his mind. Kessler has long analysed Islam and politics there, beginning with fieldwork in the late 1960s. Recently, he reflected on a recent Malaysian federal court judgment and its alleged view that non-Muslims should acknowledge Muslim supremacy. Naturally, such a decision is enacted without violence, but for Kessler the point is that Muslim “peace” can be rigged.