Debunking the Dialectic of Raja Petra Kamarudin

By admin-s Last updated Mar 14, 2015

Has he for the greater part of his life to-date lived the vision of the conservative faction in PAS that he seems to defend so passionately? Does he currently live that vision in Manchester? Or is he just trying to be too clever by half? Is he the authority on how the Qu’ran should be interpreted?

Harold Kong

I refer to Raja Petra Kamarudin’s (“RPK”) recent blog article titled “Response from Koon Yew Yin” which carried a rejoinder from Koon to RPK’s earlier blog article “Reject the Qur’an, says Koon Yew Yin”. See http://www.malaysia-today.net/. This exchange between RPK and Koon can be traced back to the op-ed piece by Koon, “PAS moderates: break away now, not later” in the Malay Mail Online of 7 March 2015.

It is RPK’s right to suggest that paying heed to Koon Yew Yin’s suggestion would amount to the abandonment or abrogation of the Qur’an in favour of other systems and values. However, Koon did not suggest that and has written back to rebut that possible inference. Perhaps, RPK is suggesting that fidelity to the words of the Qu’ran and worldly success are mutually exclusive. My Muslim friends would disagree with that.

Anybody who has read Koon Yew Yin’s op-ed would note that he made no mention of the Qu’ran. In suggesting to the members of PAS that they should follow those of their leaders who would be more likely to lead the ummah to modernity, he was merely wishing that Muslims too would find peace and prosperity.

Therefore, RPK’s rhetorical question to Koon Yew Yin, “So why are you trying to teach Muslims how the Qur’an should be interpreted?” is surprising. It is sly, provocative and divisive. Is RPK trying to make himself more relevant to the situation in Malaysia than he ought to be whilst he is ensconced in a far-off land?

We all can respect the Muslim belief that God is the source of law in the Qu’ranic tradition. The question is how Muslims (and even non-Muslims) should read and interpret “this book fully detailed”, ie the Qu’ran. Who should have the right to interpret?

Non-Muslims do not presume to teach Muslims how the Qur’an should be interpreted. It is up to their Muslim friends to find the interpretation of the Qur’an that would lead the ummah to peace and prosperity, an outcome that depends much on broad Muslim capacity for rationality, empiricism and the ability to forge friendships with others.

Consider this argument from RPK: “I suggest non-Muslims should stop trying to tell Muslims how to practice Islam. Let the Muslims sort this matter out amongst themselves. After all, Muslims do not tell Christians, Hindus and Buddhists what they should and should not believe and practice. So why are you trying to teach Muslims how the Qur’an should be interpreted?”

His argument is disingenuous. Nobody is telling Muslims how to practice Islam in so far as it is about divinity. But in so far as religion is also politics, all stakeholders in this country have the right to have a say. If Islam is practised such that it is largely about divinity and little about politics, we would not have the myriad problems that we have today, both amongst Muslims and between Muslims and non-Muslims. But Islam is practised in large measure in this country as politics.

Thus, the State has told Christians that they cannot use the word “Allah” and its officials do try to impose their sartorial standards on non-Muslims. From ministers to minor functionaries, there has been an endless stream of diatribes that seek to inconvenience and intimidate one and all. They are inane and in aggregate, they amount to nothing more than petty but nonetheless hegemonic posturing. They serve to contradict RPK’s assertion that Muslims do not tell Christians, Hindus and Buddhists what they should and should not believe and practice. The fact is some Muslims do. They seek to change our society from a secular democracy with Islam as the official religion to an Islamic state, whether feudal or theocratic. Thankfully, not all Muslims agree with them. But too many others stay silent even though they do not want an Islamic state. Only the G25 and several other individuals come readily to mind when we think of those Muslims who stand up to stem the tide of ethno-religious hegemony.

Truth be told, many of us have in recent years become a bit tired of RPK’s posturing. For example: “To advise Muslims to ignore this decree from God is akin to you trying to tell Christians that Jesus is not the Son of God whereas some Christians believe he is. Jesus being the Son of God is Christian doctrine as much as God is the source of laws the Islamic doctrine.” RPK, please spare us the effort of drawing too long a bow too often. Koon Yew Yin said nothing about ignoring the decree of the Muslim God. Neither did he say anything about Christian doctrine.

To cap what he must think to be his duty in the defence of the realm, RPK issued a challenge to the Muslims: “I challenge any Muslim to declare that he or she does not believe that the Sharia is compulsory upon Muslims and that Hudud is not part of the Sharia. Any Muslim who dares do that would be kufur and that would mean he or she is a kafir or infidel.”

There is no necessity for RPK to challenge his fellow Muslims as if he is more righteous than them. There is also no necessity for us to debate RPK on the centrality of Sharia in the life of a Muslim. What RPK needs to do is to tell us all, both Muslims and non-Muslims, how that centrality should be operationalised in
(i) a multiethnic country
(ii) in the 21st century
(iii) at a time when Muslims in this country need to build capacity to sustain socio-economic progress
(iv) in the context of globalisation.

There can be no democracy if there is no scope for open discussion of political and policy choices. There would be no such discussion if religion is used to shut it down. In Malaysia, Islam is the official religion of the country. Its use and abuse by politicians and political bloggers like RPK deserves our keen observation and our unflinching commentary. Otherwise, politics will become dictatorial, whether within the Muslim community and/or amongst Malaysians – an outcome that RPK seems keen to inflict on us.

Lastly, RPK’s attempt to threaten us with: “You are straying into very dangerous ground in dabbling with doctrine that is dear to the hearts of Muslims.” should be viewed as the dramatic flourish of someone who obviously has a very high opinion of his own relevance to the politics of this country. Whether Koon Yew Yin has erred in advising PAS members is a matter that the latter can well decide for themselves.

Although non-Muslims do not seek to interfere, they can’t help but be tuned in to the contending views amongst Muslims on whether and how human agency might be relevant and important in interpreting the Qu’ran. Non-Muslims can and do decide for themselves which view is more likely to be meaningful to them and to reach out to and engage those Muslims whose views would result in more inclusive politics. This is the right of each non-Muslim. Each Muslim also has the right to reach out in similar fashion to contending groups of non-Muslims. Whether we are Muslims or non-Muslims, we all have a right to freedom of expression and freedom of association under the secular Constitution of this country.

In saying that there are broadly speaking two groups in PAS and he prefers one to the other and is prepared to say so and explain why, Koon Yew Yin is merely exercising that right. RPK seems to have a problem with that. He should not.

Muslims and non-Muslims should engage each other to better understand the choices before them. They will find that those choices that will more likely to lead to genuine and sustainable Muslim success in the duniawi are the same choices that would result in more inclusive politics and vice versa. Such choices will not lead Muslims away from the commandments of Allah swt. Neither would they lead non-Muslims away from their respective religions and beliefs. They would lead Muslims and non-Muslims to become more Malaysian and more successful together.