A Response To Dr Tom Michel

by Patricia Martinez
Malaysia

I am honoured to be here with this distinguished gathering of theologians from Asia. I thank the Christian Conference of Asia for this wonderful opportunity.

Tom spoke about the imperative in Asia today: an interreligious dialogue that arises from the needs and concerns of the poor and that is oriented towards human liberation. Tom reminded us that Islam and Christianity are not so different after all: both have resources as great world religions from which we can find commonalities rather than the differences that divide us.

In addition, Dr Wesley Ariarajah told us about the disjuncture, the gap, between the theology of the pulpit and the wonderful Asian theologies of pluralism, contextualism, inclusivism, inculturation and so on. I appreciate greatly that all three speakers thus far have pointed us to pragmatism, reminding us of the existential realities in which we do our theology. The focus on CONTEXT resonates with my own work, using my training in Islam and as an academic researcher to explore the society in which I live and work - Islam in Malaysia and also Indonesia. So I offer this morning, some perspectives that come out of my own reality about Islam. I realize that these perspectives may not be as relevant to the brothers and sisters from Pakistan, but perhaps in the discussion later they could tell me what resonates and what does not.

My first point is about the need for us as Christians in Asia to ENGAGE with Islam. By engagement I mean more than interreligious dialogue which is important and valuable in and of itself, but which has some limitations. In the interactions of dialogue, we are indeed reaching out to the Other, but I think many of us will recall the feeling sometimes that we are talking to the converted, that the people who interface with us are like-minded and open to the Other. Instead, by engagement what I am referring to is going beyond interreligious dialogue: to study, to know and to meet Muslims on their turf and territory, so to speak. To engage with Islam is to know what different Muslims in the community we live in think, speak, fear and aspire to.

The reason I exhort engagement beyond dialogue is that because if we do not, as in Malaysia, then we are contained and limited by the perceptions, interpretations and options defined for us about what Islam is and does; we also get shut out of shaping the impact that Islam will have on us because we will not engage with Muslims apart from the safe spaces of talking to each other within a set and comfortable agenda, often shaped by ourselves as Christians. Or else we talk about sacred texts and tradition in abstract terms, with little effect ultimately on the realities outside.

An example of what it means to engage with Islam: it is for us in Malaysia to be able to revise mainstream perceptions about our choices in an Islamic nation. These have been presented to us as the option between fundamentalist (I use that term with reservation), radical or political Islam and what seems to be a modern Muslim democratic state, the government that we have now.

And so in Malaysia, the choices before us seem to be the dichotomies of PAS or the Islamic opposition party which is deemed more conservative, versus UMNO, the party that forms the government. The configurations are Islamic state vs. Secular State or Islamic modernity vs. Islamic fundamentalism. I suggest that these are actually false binaries, posed as the only choices because the influence of other groups, other positions, developments, rejections and aspirations all seem to disappear: UMNO and PAS are the main protagonists, but they are not the only players shaping the evolution of Islam in Malaysia.

I would like to emphasize that in terms of Islamisation and Political Islam in Malaysia - who is doing what, claiming which premise, winning over which group, and why - are evolving on a daily basis. What is actually happening with Islam in Malaysia is intense and moving constantly - where it will all go, is in my opinion, wide open. But you wouldn't think so if you heard non-Muslims speaking about it. Everything is perceived in broad swathes of generalizations, fixed and frozen as if immutable - often with the worst of our biases and prejudices surfacing in the fear of the potential of a Muslim theocracy. But is that what is being offered to us?

In Malaysia, state governments that belong to the ruling coalition have enacted many measures which can be construed as fundamentalist or steps towards an Islamic state. These only add to the slew of laws that do not allow Christians to wish each other assalaamulaikkum or to use the word allah, kitab, injil and a host of other Arabic words that are now part of bahasa Malaysia - the language that all of us are educated in. Yet, Christian Arabs in the Middle East have used these words and continue to do so. Applications to build churches have been rejected and Christian schools have been virtually nationalized and their history and characteristics, gutted. Therefore the fear about the potential of an Islamic state that the Islamic opposition party is identified with has blinded us to what is actually being legislated by the modern, secular government.

My next point is about the discrepancies between perception and reality over an Islamic state. The assumption in Malaysia is that because of greater evidence of Muslim identity and support for the opposition Islamic party that most of these Muslims want to live in an Islamic state. Yes, Muslims in Malaysia have a strong Islamic identity. This is the result of the Islamic resurgence all over the world including in Malaysia when it began in the 1970s. So there is a desire to display Muslim identity, but it does not necessarily translate into wanting to live in an Islamic state. Many Muslims do not really know what constitutes an Islamic state. There is a silent but significant segment of Muslims who do not want to live in an Islamic state but who cannot speak up: the public discourse is so polemical that they are labelled munafiq (hypocrite) or murtadd (apostate) for being critical of aspects of Islam.

However, in the way that voice and space is appropriated for political legitimacy in Malaysia by both political parties that champion Islam; these more nuanced positions do not configure public discourse. The results of a survey conducted by a website called speakerscorner.com were indicative of the extent to which both Muslim political parties do not necessarily reflect what are the burning issues for the majority of Malay Muslims. In answer to the question posed on the website in June 2001, "apakah isu semasa yang sedang hangat di Malaysia?" (what are the current issues that are hot in Malaysia?), a good chunk, 43% responded that it was about the Internal Security Act, (ISA, a draconian law that allows for detention without trial) and political detainees, although the survey was conducted almost six weeks after the detentions when other issues such as the Islamic state had erupted.

This is a significant example of how Malay Muslim perceptions and positions have changed, and changed in ways that enable those of us who live with them as minorities. The 43% Muslims who prioritized human rights and fundamental freedoms should be understood in the context of how the discourse of fiqh (Muslim jurisprudence) is more about obligations, and less about rights. The concern about the ISA and political detentions is about rights, the universalist liberal discourse about fundamental freedoms and I think that this is a significant factor in a more nuanced understanding of the disjuncture between the growing Islamization of Malaysia by those with the power to ensure it, and the Islamization envisioned by the rakyat (people). And in this instance, the desire of the Muslims for more freedom and fundamental human rights are no different from the rest of us in Malaysia.

Besides, in a fidelity to a concept of an Islamic state, there are significant concessions to non-Muslims from the more conservative political party! Let me explain: All those who have authority over Islam in Malaysia use a text of the Shafi'I jurist Abu l-Hasan al-Mawardi (d.974 of the hijra or 1058 C.E.). The text is the Al-ahkam al-Sultaniyya, written at a time of political crisis in Islam to buttress the Abbasid caliphate which was facing challenges to its authority by competing caliphates of the Fatimids and Ummayads. In Al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyya Al Mawardi discusses the various functions, rights and duties of the caliph, including the rights and obligations to non-Muslims in an Islamic state. Under these rights and obligations there are two conditions: what is requisite or mustahaqqa and what is recommended or mustahabba. Among the recommended items only, is that Christians should be discouraged from allowing their chanting and bell ringing to reach Muslim ears. However, this was the reason invoked by the Selangor state government to force the Catholic Church to discontinue building a church in Shah Alam. On the other hand, because it is mandatory or mustahabba that non-Muslims be allowed to worship their own religion, the so-called fundamentalist Muslim opposition party which controls two state governments has alienated state land for non-Muslims to build their places of worship. In Terengganu, the Chief Minister within 3 months of assuming office convened a meeting with non-Muslims and overturned a government policy of 40 years, whereby Christians had not been allowed to build a church and Chinese had not been allowed to rear pigs. It is perhaps significant that in their fidelity to the concept of an Islamic state, it is the party that represents political Islam in Malaysia that has given non-Muslims more rights in fundamental issues, even as it has taken away others such as drinking alcohol in public and closing down unisex hair salons.

My next point: In Malaysia, Islam and Malay ethnic identity are synonymous: In part this is because Malay ethnicity has been conflated with Muslim identity by article 153 of the Constitution which defines Malay as someone who habitually speaks the Malay language, practices Malay custom and is a Muslim. And in part, this perception of Islam and Malay ethnicity as synonymous with each other is also because Islam has been racialized for political expedience.

However, I'd like to give you some examples that make it clear that it is Islam that militates against ethnocentrism: So while Islam is used as a marker of racial identity and policies which privilege the race which is Muslim, it is Islam which provides fair-minded Muslims with the resources to speak out against racism.

Let me give you some examples:

In December 2000, a Malay woman wrote in a popular on-line newspaper "As a Muslim, I'm for Siuqiu." (Siuqui is the name of a Chinese NGO which created uproar by asking that policies of racial discrimination be reviewed.) The woman wrote why she supports Siuqiu although she is a Malay. It is because she is a Muslim, "true Islam rejects racism and nationalism, whether it is Chinese racism or Malay nationalism… the universal affirmative action that helps poor of all races will benefit Malays/Muslims if they are really poor while not rejecting others."

In March 2001, this year, in another letter to Malaysiakini, 19 year old Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad wrote, "While I realize the majority of the Malays are still concerned with special rights and various other bumiputera issues, our mentality has progressed significantly since the last 15 years or so." He continues, "If the real aim of the NEP was to overcome the significant economic gap between Malaysians, why should it be drawn along racial lines? Shouldn't we concern ourselves with bridging the gap between the rich Malays, Chinese and Indians and their poor Malaysian counterparts regardless of their race?" Nik Nazmi concludes his long letter by telling us that it is Islam that shapes his views, "Islam advocates a system in which the disadvantaged sections of society will be given preference to enshrine equal opportunity and participation, but never based on ethnicity…"

In a heated exchange this February on an electronic discussion list between Aizuddin Danian and another Malay who wrote in very strident terms about how Malays were the original people and entitled to special rights, Aizuddin began with "I must say that if this is the sort of thinking that is going through my fellow Malay and presumably Muslim brother, then I am ashamed to be called a Malay and a Muslim." He continues later in his message, "we keep on saying that this is our country, this is our land, and we have rights to it all - what does it mean if anything at all? There is no such thing as land inherently belonging to anybody except God. It just so happens we got here first."

The disjuncture between public rhetoric by those in power, and electronic conversations between Malaysians across race and religion needs to be recognized as an important new phase in the evolution of identity and ethnic relations and Islam in Malaysia. Yet, it is largely ignored perhaps because it does not suit political expedience and the dictates to those who construct public discourse. These more inclusive Muslim positions are largely ignored also because many of us non-Muslims are stuck in our bigotry, fearful and ignorant, righteous in our victimization.

Don't get me wrong: I am not advocating for an Islamic state - non-Muslims in Al-Mawardi's text are also dhimmi or second class citizens. Neither do I find all the policies of the Islamic opposition political party unproblematic. Quite the contrary, what I am trying to show by sharing my research is that there are other positions and perspectives beyond that of political parties that are egalitarian and just to us non-Muslims precisely because they are premised on Islam. But in staying within our fears, our ignorance, perhaps the righteousness of our victim hood, we non-Muslim Malaysians are losing out on the possibilities of negotiating with and even helping to shape Islam which is the most definitive force, beyond even that of race, in our nation today.

For my last point, I would like to share with you a hopeful project that fulfils what Fr. Felix Wilfred asked us: that alongside with a theology of religions, we also resource pedagogies of encounter.

There is a brave new project in Indonesia that attempts to overcome the cleavages of ethnicity and religion for a whole new generation of its people. It is based on the concept of dialogue, but the Indonesian stakeholders in this project have taken it way beyond the confines of dialogue and are working out how to teach children not to negate or reject what is different or not normative.

The Indonesian government, with support from UNICEF, has embarked on the Whole Child Education Project, the first of its kind in the world. In this project, primary school children will be taught with pedagogies that train them to appreciate even what is different or the wrong answer, as useful and important in understanding a concept, or a problem. A generation of Indonesians with such a world view, we hope, will not just find difference unproblematic, they will embrace it because difference is part of their cognitive process. A generation of Indonesians with such a world view, we hope, will have no problems with someone who is of another religion or race or color or gender. It is an overwhelming challenge: in July we trained the first batch of 50 teachers who will go out and train others. There are 2.4 million primary school teachers in this nation of over 200 million people, and so the task has just begun. But I have enormous hopes for this project, because just as with all our cultures and histories as Asians, deep within the Indonesian psyche is the embrace of difference.

The national emblem and motto of Indonesia is Bhinneka Tunggal Ika or unity in diversity. In old formal javanese, bhinna ika means that is different, and tunggal ika means that is one. So bhinneka tunggal ika means that which is different is also that which is one. The motto was first used in the 14th century by the writer Mpu Tantular, who reflected on overcoming the differences between Hinduism and Buddhism in Javanese society. Likewise, if we Asians search within our traditions, our roots, and our history, we will find the resources to relate to with each other; and if we search in our hearts we will find the courage to envision life together by engaging with the other.