Compulsion in Islam? Art Harun

OCT 28 With all due respect to Associate Professor Dr Ridhuan Tee Abdullah a well-known academic, ulamak and preacher in Malaysia I must admit being astounded by his remark at a forum entitled Hudud: Its dilemma and implementation organised by Malay-language daily Sinar Harian in Shah Alam on October 25. (His speech at the said forum can be viewed on YouTube.)

At around the 9th minute of the video, Ridhuan also strongly asserted that Islamic law has to be implemented by force and there is no other way to educate the non-Muslims on Islamic laws than by force. Ridhuan added that the most opportune time for us to do so was after the May 13, 1969 incident and lamented the fact that we had let that opportunity go.

During the speech, Ridhuan lamented the fact that non-Muslims, especially the Chinese, have a negative view of an Islamic state and hudud generally. Speaking from experience, as a Chinese, Ridhuan insisted that he knows the Chineses attitude towards Islam and that that attitude has not changed.

Firstly, I must confess that I am more than a little bit perplexed by Ridhuans attempt to connect the racial riot of May 13, 1969 with the idea of an Islamic state and the implementation of hudud or Islamic laws in Malaysia.

The riots of May 13, 1969, as far as I know, had nothing to do with the desire by any particular section of our society, including the Muslims/Malays, for an Islamic state or for the implementation of Islamic laws in Malaysia.

If the mainstream version of the riots were to be believed, the riots were caused by the economic imbalances between the Malays and the non-Malays, giving rise to a deep and seething anger between the two sections of the society culminating in racial hatred. This was sparked by the unprecedented victory of the DAP in the general election immediately preceding the riots and the subsequent victory march by the DAP. The whole si! tuation was worsened by the election campaigns which were full of racial rhetoric and overtone and the killing of some Chinese suspected to be communists.

Never have I read about the riots being anything about Islam, Islamic state or the implementation of Islamic laws. Even the non-mainstream version of the riots has omitted mentioning anything about those issues being the possible cause of the riots.

As neither Islam, Islamic state nor Islamic laws was part of the catalyst or cause of the riots, how could Ridhuan surmise that the most opportune of time to implement Islamic laws in Malaysia was after the riot? There is an obvious lack of cause, causation and result here. I mean, Ridhuan may very well say that August 31, 1957 would be the most opportune time for all of us to choose an Islamic state as the governing model of our nation. I would certainly understand that remark because that was the starting point of Persekutuan Tanah Melayu as an independent state. But to relate the choice of an Islamic state as a model after the riots of May 13, 1969 is as perplexing as any suggestion that the most opportune time to implement Islamic laws in Malaysia would be just after the Bersih rally, for example.

Regardless of the lack of any tangible connection between the May 13 riots and the issue of an Islamic state, Ridhuan had, by his remark, obviously or even perhaps, inadvertently exposed the notion, which could be popular among the neo-right winged-nationalist in contemporary Malaysia, that the May 13 riots were won by the Malays or Muslims.

Premised on this notion of a victory being achieved by the Malays/Muslims during the May 13 riots, Ridhuan quite obviously thought that the Malays/Muslims, as the victors, could have imposed an Islamic state model on Malaysia or implement hudud/Islamic laws as the laws of Malaysia after the said victory. Conversely, the non-Muslims, particularly the Chinese, as the vanquished, would not have been able to resist such a forceful imposition of Islam on them ! at that point of time.

That, to my mind, would have been the natural conclusion of Ridhuans remark.

With all due respect to Ridhuans scholarly position, I view that with sadness.

The May 13 riots had no victors. Malaysia as a nation, society and people were all losers on that fateful day and from that dark blot on our history. May 13, 1969 was an absolute failure for all of us as a people. It was a day when we left our power to reason and rationalise and let our primordial kinship and tribalistic emotions take over. It was a day when we discarded civility and civilisation and opted for barbarism.

Victory in the May 13 riots and its aftermath, in my opinion, could only be measured by our collective ability and willingness, as a people and a nation, to learn the lessons brought about by the riots and to take measures to address the causes which sparked the riots. Anything else is a failure.

The notion that the Malays/Muslims could have done anything, including imposing an Islamic state model in its aftermath, is a perversion and represents an almost nihilistic view of the riots, their causes and consequences. It is yet another unwelcome addition to the plethora of abuses to which the Malay psyche has been subjected all this while. As a Malay Muslim, I find it absolutely objectionable.

Ridhuans lamentation that the Chinese, particularly, have a negative view of Islam and that their negative attitude towards Islam has not changed while at the same time asserting that hudud or Islamic laws must be implemented by force are, with respect, the peak of irony.

It is an irony because one of the main reasons why the non-Muslims throughout the world have such a dim view of Islam is answered by Ridhuan himself in his statement that Islamic laws should be implemented by force, regardless of any partys objection to it.

To many, the attitude of some of our ulamaks and mullahs are reflective of Islams supposed intolerance of others, most particularly other faiths and not to mention ! cultures , breed and creed.

If Ridhuan would stop and think at the repercussion of his assertion as such, he would realise that by making that assertion, he has managed to isolate millions of non-Muslims from the beauty of Islam, a faith that was premised on absolute respect for each other. Ridhuan would do well to realise that the Kharijite-ist approach towards maintaining Islam as the one and only faith does not bode well with Islams core teaching of mutual existence, respect and co-operation.

If we were to force the implementation of Islamic laws in Malaysia, by extension, why dont we, as Muslims, force everyone to convert to Islam then, if I may ask? The answer is provided by God Himself, when in the Quran He says:

Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth has been made clear from error. Whoever rejects false worship and believes in God has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that never breaks. And God hears and knows all things. (Quran 2:256)

Then He says again:

If it had been your Lords will, all of the people on Earth would have believed. Would you then compel the people so to have them believe? (Quran 10:99)

Ridhuan insisted that as a Chinese coming from a family who are staunch non-believers of Islam, he knew how the Chinese feel about Islam. His disdain for the parties whom he always describes as ultra-kiasu is well known. Ridhuan may have his own deeply personal reason for that. It is not for me, or for anybody else, to judge him for that. But surely Ridhuan should not let his disdain prevent him from being just. The Quran says:

O you who believe! Be upright for Allah, bearers of witness with justice, and let not hatred of a people incite you not to act equitably; act equitably, that is nearer to piety, and be careful of (your duty to) Allah; surely Allah is Aware of what you do. (Quran 5:8)

Muslims and non-Muslims must be made to know and realise that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was sent as a mercy for all the wo! rld (Qur an 21:107). He was not sent to force or compel anybody towards Islam or Allah. God says:

Nothing is (incumbent) on the Messenger but to deliver (the message), and Allah knows what you do openly and what you hide. (Quran 5:99)

So if they dispute with you, say I have submitted my whole self to God, and so have those who follow me. And say to the People of the Scripture and to the unlearned: Do you also submit yourselves? If they do, then they are on right guidance. But if they turn away, your duty is only to convey the Message. And in Gods sight are all of His servants. (Quran 3:20)

Why then do we want to force Islam on anybody? Isnt that un-Islamic?

The Quran repeatedly tells Muslims not to interfere with the affairs of non-Muslims. It also implored us to always be fair and just to them. Even when we argue with them, we are supposed to be civil and maintain good manners.

So if they come to you, (O Muhammad), judge between them or turn away from them. And if you turn away from them never will they harm you at all. And if you judge, judge between them with justice. Indeed, God loves those who act justly. (Quran 5:42)

Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and have disputations with them in the best manner; surely your Lord best knows those who go astray from His path, and He knows best those who follow the right way. (Quran 16:125)

Throughout Islamic expansionism, non-Muslims, particularly the Christians and Jews, have always been treated with respect. No effort was made to force them to follow the Islamic way of life. It is exactly this tolerant approach which had driven even Western historian to conclude without bias:

The tolerance of Muhammad towards the Jews and Christians was truly grand; the founders of other religions that appeared before him, Judaism and Christianity in particular, did not prescribe such goodwill. His caliphs followed the same policy, and his tolerance has been acknowled! ged by s ceptics and believers alike when they study the history of the Arabs in depth. ( LeBon, Gustav, Arab Civilization, p. 128)

The Muslims alone were able to integrate their zeal for their own religion with tolerance for followers of other religions. Even when they bore swords into battle for freedom for their religion to spread, they left those who did not desire it free to adhere to their own religious teachings. (Robertson, as Quoted in Aayed, Saleh Hussain, Huquq Ghayr al-Muslimeen fi Bilad il-Islam, p. 26).

Yet, every day we hear of mullahs wanting to impose this and that, not only on fellow Muslims, but also non-Muslims. In Malaysia, in newspapers and on the Internet, non-Muslims read all sorts of accusations being made against them on a daily basis by none other than people of high authority. In articles written on blogs and comments made on such articles, curses are thrown at non-Muslims, names are called and various threats are made against them, needlessly.

Civility and, dare I say, the way of Islam have been thrown out of the window by Muslims themselves.

Is it then any wonder why non-Muslims all over the world nowadays view Islam with negativity as well as prejudice? art-harun.blogspot.com

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication, and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.