A Tribute to Kassim Ahmad
M. Bakri Musa

First posted on www.Malaysia-Today.net August 23, 2005

Reading Kassim Ahmad’s recent interview with Zainon Ahmad (the Sun Weekend Edition, August 19, 2005) excited and invigorated me. It brought back the joy and exhilaration I had on reading for the first time Kassim’s The Characterizations of Hang Tuah while in high school in the 1950s. He was in his twenties when he wrote it, but his brilliance and courage shone through clearly despite his youth.

In the recent interview, despite his age I am thrilled that Kassim still displays his characteristic intellectual sparks, vigor and agility.

Kassim’s novel interpretation of our literary classic, Hikayat HangTuah, forced me (and others) to look differently at our culture and world. I felt a sense of grand wonderment after reading his work, as if a thick veil had been lifted off me. Kassim whetted my youthful rebellious spirit. It fortified me to challenge the certitudes forced upon me by my culture. In the process, I saw the beauty and elegance of the world and of my culture. At the same time, I also became painfully aware of the ugliness of that world and my culture.

Today, decades later and presumably much wiser as well as more accepting, I am still filled with wonderment on reading Kassim’s interview, but for different reasons.

Here I am in the mecca of capitalism and fully embracing as well as benefiting from free enterprise, full of admiration and respect for this man who is an ardent and committed socialist.

I believe firmly that free enterprise is the best avenue for achieving individual and as well as society’s fulfillment, while Kassim is fully committed to the egalitarian ideals of socialism. Our utopia is the same: a just, caring and prosperous society where citizens are free to pursue their personal ideals and dreams.

While I am geographically separated from Kassim by the vast Pacific, and philosophically even further away from him, yet I feel intellectually close to him. I greatly appreciate his works and welcome his views and ideas. I admire the man for his courage, talent and commitment. I respect him even more for such qualities are rare, and even rarer is the combination.

In Malaysia today, specifically in Malay culture, we remain deeply divided over trivial differences. We do not hesitate labeling each other as traitors for inconsequential political differences. With impunity, we denigrate each other as infidels for simply daring to express minor differences in interpretation of our faith. Our leaders disparage our young as being ungrateful for boldly asking uncomfortable questions.

It is as if we expect Malays to be clones of one another. In our culture, we are told to loathe and ostracize the black sheep. In doing this we implicitly compare ourselves to a flock of sheep, mindlessly following the shepherd. Indeed leaders especially those with a dictatorial bent would like their followers to be like sheep.

It is well to remember that while a benevolent shepherd would lead his flock to greener pastures, a blind one could just as easily lead them off the cliff, and a deaf one to the wolf’s den.

I have been exchanging views and letters with Kassim Ahmad for quite some time. The medium of the Internet brings us closer together as if we were in nearby villages. If a core capitalist like me and a staunch socialist like Kassim can be respectful of each other’s views and be welcoming of each other’s contributions, I fail to see why our larger community remains unnecessarily divided into liberal and fundamentalist Muslims, UMNO and PAS politicians, or monarchist and republican Malays. It pains me immensely, and I am certain Kassim too, to see our people thus polarized. Our diversity is our strength, not our weakness. It is our prized asset, not a cursed liability. We are humans, not sheep; we should expect and indeed welcome differences in taste, views and choices.

In the classic epic, the two heroes Hang Tuah and Hang Jebat could not resolve their differences. Their conflict consumed their friendship, and ultimately their honor and lives. It also divided and destroyed their community. There is no reason why modern day Hang Tuahs and Hang Jebats have to follow suit and allow that to happen to themselves and their community. If we must battle it out, let it be in the battlefield of ideas, and only there.

Anak Yang Soleh (The Prodigal Son)

When growing up, my father used to tell stories of Anak Yang Soleh (The Prodigal Son), the individual who would do society good. His reasons for relating such stories were obvious, as expressions of paternal duty as well as hope.

As his world extended only to what had been taught to him by his forefathers, my father’s model of prodigal sons were all religious figures except for Zaaba, the legendary scholar; Hamka, the alim and philosopher; and Munshi Abdullah, the teacher and chronicler.

Zaaba had a special place in my father’s heart, as well as mine. He was from a village nearby, indeed he was a member of our suku (tribe), hence our prideful sense of reflected glory. I remember listening in rapt awe on Radio Malaya the public oration delivered on his being awarded a Doctorate of Letters from the University of Malaya in Singapore on his retirement. My father had indeed set a very high standard for me!

I came to know of Hamka and Munshi Abdullah through their writings. Living in an alien world away from my familiar culture, these three provide my anchoring stability that bonds me to my traditions and values.

In my view, Kassim Ahmad is one anak yang soleh. It pains me greatly that our society has chosen to ignore this man. Kassim however would prefer this state of affair. The last time the authorities paid heed to Kassim, he ended up in jail under the Internal Security Act! When members of the Islamic establishment read or claimed to have read Kassim’s works, they labeled him anti-hadith.

In time, those establishment ulama will disappear with their pension, but Kassim and his ideas will endure. Thanks to insight of Kassim, our grandchildren and their grandchildren will still be debating Hang Tuah and Hang Jebat, and learning useful lessons from the discourse.

I am always amused when readers compliment me for my “courage” in expressing my views so freely. I live in a society that prizes individual freedom; besides, I am beyond the reach of the ISA. In truth, it is individuals like Kassim Ahmad who are truly courageous. They have felt the wrath of the authorities and yet continue to speak out against injustices and tyranny.

Kassim Ahmad rejoined UMNO in 1986. He remains a severe and persistent critic of the Malaysian brand of “politics as usual,” in particular political shenanigans and blatant corruptions. Nonetheless, he can be generous in his praises. In this interview as well in his earlier essays, he spoke warmly and favorably of Tun Mahathir. This led many to the mistaken belief that the man had “gone soft” or worse, became an apologist for the status quo.

This latest interview should disabuse those who misjudge the core character of this great man.

[For those interested, Kassim’s website is: www.kassimahmad.blogspot.com]

Nurture Our Hang Jebat -Readers’ Responses

Dear Dr. Bakri Musa, Assalamu alaikum
It is a pity that most thinking Malaysian Muslims who write, reside abroad! I enjoy reading your essays. I see that you are using the Internet to spread your word.
When I read your Hang Jebat piece, it looked like a necrology and I became anxious lest Pak Kassim had passed away. Only when I read the last paragraph, in which you state that Kassim is still writing, was I relieved! It took some time for me to gather enough courage to phone him. I would rather visit him in Penang, but I am unable to leave Klang Valley for the time being. Over the phone, his daughter Soraya assured me that he is still kicking, although not quite in shape.
You do not give your year of birth, but I gather that you may be a product of the Co-prosperity Sphere and the Second World War and that you eventually chose to settle down in the Love/Hate country of USA.
It was only in 1994 that I came in contact with Pak Kassim. That was when he founded the Jemaah al-Quran Malaysia, which the authorities denied registration as a society. That was also the year when Othman Ali published his Bacaan (Readings), which the Muslim Mafia succeeded in banning. Some years later, Pak Kassim managed to register his Forum Iqra’ as a company. I like Pak Kassim very much, because he talks clearly and articulates well, contrary to most other Malays. His logic is something like this: A stone cannot fly; Granny cannot fly; ergo Granny is a stone!
His main point is for Muslims to go back to the Quran or Balik ke pangkal jalan (Return to the sourcce). I have always opposed to the latter. How can you go back to a place where you have never been? To the former I say, fine, but in practice, it means that you go back to some interpretations that may not be correct. I ended up provoking him: There is no need to go back instead we should go ahead towards Allah! That by definition is not scientific, as science is based on the non-existence of God.
Nonetheless, we got on very well. It is a pity that we both are close to leave this world for the hereafter.
Let us hope that Pak Kassim will continue to write.
Wassalam,
Noh
———
Dear Bakri:
Are those who are already successful sincere enough to mentor, nurture and empower the emerging talent? We need an institution for the gifted, talented and exceptional students, a braintrust comprising of experts, researchers, scientists, engineers and surgeons (?) from all over the world. They need not necessarily have to relocate to Malaysia. Those who want to live in sunny California may continue to do so, but they can still serve Malaysia. We must create our own high quality diaspora that can propel and sustain us.
Warm regards,
Rizal Ishak
———

Dr. Bakri Musa,

Your article must have stirred the hornet’s nest! Bees and wasps are likely to be buzzing and stinging those who support one or the other. Your reasoning means that those who idolize Hang Tuah may have to reverse gear and turn to Hang Jebat as the real hero.
Those who curry favor to the powers-that-be and those who wield power will win goodies in the short-term, while those who dare raise their voices in the name of justice and fairplay may be consigned to the dungeons. History shows that truth will always prevail in the end. It requires sustained power to endure the jeers and boos of the present generation of sycophants, just as the gladiators who were thrown to the lions had to fend for themselves, while the kings, queens and nobles of yore treated the spectacle as sports for their entertainment. Samson had to suffer humiliations after being betrayed by Delilah. Truth will always prevail!
In this regard, we must take off our hats to the present Prime Minister for revealing the names of the Approve Permit holders. If there is nothing to hide, then reveal the list completely. There should not be any fear if the revelation causes some to blush.
Best regards,
S. H. Huang
———-
Dear Bakri:
Thank you very much for your update on Kassim Ahmad. I am a fan of his writings and have menggeledah (prowled) many bookshops to find his books but there are none available. Thanks for his blog address. I will now get a chance to read his writings once again. Has he any publications in English?
It is vey true that Malay intellectuals do not get the acknowledgement and rewards due to them.

Hj.Mohamed Iqbal
————
Rizal Ishak writes:
One cannot help but to adore Noam Chomsky. The New Straits Times and the other local papers should summarise his writings for their readers. Tis would be a great way to educate the average reader about world affairs. He gives incisive, insightful and compelling arguments. No doubt Kassim Ahmad is isolated while Chomsky actually gets grants from the US government including the Departmetn of Defence ce. The US is far more mature at handling such dissent, and this is good.
We just have to stomach this crude and primitive knee jerk behaviour every so often as illustrated by the recent Approved Permit scandal. Will the average Negri boy get a piece of this? Does it help being the “son of the soil?”
Warm regards,
Rizal Ishak
——-
From Malaysia-Today.net

Jacque A. H. writes:
l have not heard about Kassim Ahmad but l have of the 1960’s “Pop Yeh Yeh” singer Kassim Selamat. Was it not him who sang that song “La Obe” and “Ngalompak,” and “A Go Go?” My brothers and sisters would go banana when they heard these songs.
I will read with interest about Kassim Ahmad. I also think that Hang Jebat should be the hero, not Hang Tuah. So in that respect, both Kassim and I have something in common.

Gerakilat writes:
For those who do not know who Kassim Ahmad is, here are some details:
He was a former lecturer in Malay Studies at the University of Malaya, Chairman of Parti Sosialis Rakyat Malaysia, and also a one-time ISA detainee at Kamunting (together with Abdullah Ahmad (Dollah Kok Lans)Syed Husin and others) in the late 70s. Kassim contested several times under PSRM ticket in the general elections but lost to UMNO candidates. He came very close to defeating UMNO’s Shamsuri in Balik Pulau in 1978 (?) general election.
Kassim a hardcore socialist, once wrote a controversial book on the Hadith. He joined UMNO in the 1980s after Mahathir became Prime Minister. The reason he gave was that despite being a socialist, he admired Mahathir’s the “Bersih, Cekap, Amanah” (Clean, Efficient and Trustworthy) commitment. Kassim however was not fully accepted in UMNO because of his socialist leanings. He has kept a low profile since then.

Baju writes:
Kassim Ahmad is not the intellect this author makes him to be. In fact Kassim’s grasp of hadith as espoused in his book “Hadis: Satu Penilian Semula” is minimal, rustic and rudimentary. (Oh yes, I have read it in Malay before it was supposed to have been banned! Was it actually banned? I wonder!
His arguments are not original. They were the views of the orientalists. Since most Malays are not well read, he thought that by bringing forth those arguments they may confound the readers. The issues he raised have all been addressed by other Muslim writers in the past. I am surpised that M Bakri Musa is so taken with Kassim’s arguments on the hadith. This shows how shallow Bakris’ understanding of the subject.
This is not the place to go throught what Kasiim wrote. I have previously argued publicly (during a wedding reception) with Kassim. He was not even able to answer my questions! Kassim is an ex-communist (socialist, what is the difference?) and I wonder if he had ever discarded this.
It is suprising that Kassim Ahmad actually believe in the existence of Tuah and Jebat (I believe that Hikayat Hang Tuah is nothing more than dongeneg kisah kisah lama [old fiction]).
I have also read Bakri’s book, The Malay Dilemma Revisited. I find it very interesting except where he writes about Islam. This is where I believe the author “Tersungkur Di Pintu Syurga” (stuck at Heaven’s Gate). In his book, Bakri speaks well of Kassim Ahmad, Sisters in Islam. Bakri aslo commented that most ulama currently lack modern knowledge and thus should not be taken seriously. This is also the typical view of Marina mahathir and cohorts’ arguments.
If only these people were to learn Arabic (it takes full 1-2 years to get to know it ) and start reading the books of Ibn Taymiyah, Ibn Qayyim , Ibn Kathir, Al Quthubi, Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani, Sheih Albani, Sheikn Ibn Uthaimin etc….would they realize that there is such a vast knowledge there untapped and these people would have then be completely refreshed with the pristine knowledge of Islam.
Alas these would rather take knowledge from people who are hostile to Islam. The scholars I have mentioned above are so good in their wrting that one would have easily answered any major controversies raised by these orientalist by reading their books. BTW many of their books are yet to betranslated in English although the Indonesians have started to translate many of Ibn Qayiim’s books in Indonesia.
Kassim Ahmad may be a Malay dongeng lama specialist but he certainly is no intellect when it comes to islam and his writing of it is not worth the “daki” (dirt) that is stuck in between the toes of the those writers that I have mentioned above.
Kassim should have just remained a “panglipulara kontemporar” (contemporary storyteller) by indulging in Hang Tuah, Jebat, Puteri Gunug Ledang etc. rather than wasting other people’s time to analyse of his worthless writing about Islam which certainly is dangkal and bucolic.
Bakri should have been more careful in his assessing of people such as Kassim Ahmad.
——————-
Jacque A.H. said:

Honestly, not many people know anything about Kassim Ahmad. As l said, personally l have never heard of him.
It is quite interesting to find out about his thinking but it does not mean that we all have to follow his ideology. We have to follow the norm.
Communism and socialism (correct me if l am wrong; there is a difference between the two – Communism is a hardcore socialism). Many people say the Labour Party (in UK and elsewhere ) is a right wing socialist party and most Brits now support it. It fights for social justice and equality. Communism in some part of the world would not even allow freedom of religion. One example is in Azerbadjan. Many citizens there who were once Muslims now have no faith. They may have Muslim names but they are not practicing Islam at all. How sad!
Communism is more of a control freak if you know what l mean.
As for Islam, there is only one Islam, the one taught by our Nabi Muhammad s.a.w. We are his followers and we should follow his teachings together with the Al-Quran, hadeeths and sunnah.
In the Holly Book Al Quran, Allah states, “This day l have perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion.” (Al-Maa’idah : versus 5:3)
——-
Peter said:
Bakri Musa:
Thanks for introducing the work of Kassim Ahmad to us. I did not know him then but I know him now.

Baju writes:
Great to know that we have someone like you who have a complete opposite point of view, someone who disagrees with Kassim. I respect your constructive writing, as a rebuttal Bakri’s endorsement of Kassim. There is one thing about your writing that shows your shallowness when you said that there is no difference between socialism and communism. To explain to you here will take too long, instead I will demonstarte to you the difference, then the rest you can read up yourself since you are quite a reader.
Many people think that Ernesto Che Guevara was a Communist. The truth is, he was never a communist,instead he was always a socialist.
To Bakri, can you please tell us how do we get hold on Kassim’s Perwatakan Hikayat Hang Tuah on the internet? Or where we can buy one? I would like to read it.
Even when I was kid watching P Ramlee potraying Hang Tuah and all the sejarah books I read, I always thought that Jebat was a hero, not Tuah. I did not know why I thought then that Jebat was a hero, but now I know and will know better maybe after I read Kassim’s Pewatakan.
And Baju, Hikayat Tuah and Jebat were not DONGENG. These people existed in the past. Itwas dongeng because people made it to be.

Geekpuk2 said:
Even as a primary school kid I realized that Hang Tuah is a douchebag and a simpleton. Jebat is my hero. He gets to kick the Sultan’s arse off his own palace and fuck around with the Sultan’s numerous gundiks.
His actions sure had the Malay world upside down. This from a time when Sultans were considered keramat or had daulat powers or white-blooded because they are so pure.
Hidup Jebat!!

Dissent said:
To nurture the Hang Jebat types is real easy Mr. Musa Al Bakri, we need
the “Bill of Rights” ala United States. The question is how to get it.
Lee Kuan Yew, Dr. Mahathir and other Asian leaders opposed. To them, it is community first. Does community oppose the right to speak freely, freedom of speech, and due process? Is ISA is a proper tool? How about an independant judiciary?
These rights are citizens rights. Freedom to speech, thinking and expression is like breathing fresh air, a neccessity. It is to protect citizens from the government. Being a dissenter does not mean that a person is a traitor or bad person rather as someone offering an alternative view.
By having those rights we will create rennaissance. Dissent is an important part of being a man.
One of these days before I die, I wish to see Malaysia Bastille Day. Get rid of these self serving bigshot bastards (too many of them) in the government. Hang em High. Some justify their snobbish and ridiculous statements in the name of protecting and promoting the Malay agenda. I feel like they are joining the devil when they are in a position of power which they use to make money.
Helping people is the last thingon their agenda. Rule number 1: Give people crumbs, not piece of meat. Else they gonna demand more. If they need more, join the aristocracy class, meaning BN or the royals.

Nurture Our Hang Jebats
M. Bakri Musa

[An abridged version appeared in the Sun (Weekend Edition), July 23, 2005]

A culture cannot aspire for greatness if it treats its thinkers and intellectuals with callous disregard. In any other culture, a talent like Kassim Ahmad would be amply rewarded, his achievements widely acknowledged. Yet the best that Malaysia could offer her shining star was a high school teaching position. This was at a time when the number of Malays pursuing graduate work was miniscule. Kassim had taught at the School of Oritental and African Studies, London. Worse, he was once detained under the ISA for daring to espouse his political views.

I first came to know of Kassim Ahamd through his writings while in secondary school way back in the 1950s. His novel and radical interpretation of the Malay classic, Hikayat Hang Tuah, shook the way I – and Malays generally – looked at our traditions and culture.

The traditional thinking was that the hero was Hang Tuah, hence the title. He personified the ideals of a Malay hero, someone loyal to the sultan. Even his name portends great things. Tuah means exceptional, a worthy name for a hero. His protagonist, Hang Jebat, was the traitor who dared challenge the sultan. Even his name rhymes with jahat (rascal), an apt name for a purported villain.

Then came Kassim’s Perwatakan Hikayat Hang Tuah (The Characters in Hang Tuah). It would have remained an obscure academic exercise except for the fact that Dewan Bahasa was desperate to publish works in Malay. It had to resort to publishing student’s theses!

Kassim frontally challenged the orthodox Malay thinking on authority, and royalty in particular. According to Kassim, the real hero is not Hang Tuah, rather the hitherto presumed renegade, Hang Jebat. To Kassim, Tuah is the typical palace sycophant who willingly sells his body and soul to the sultan, a loyalty conveniently reinforced by whatever largesse the sultan could bestow.

Jebat is the rugged individualist, not awed by those who wield power. His loyalty is to institutions, not individuals. To Kassim, Jebat is the true hero, not the prodigal son Tuah.

It is a conflict of commitment to principles and institutions represented by Jebat, versus personal loyalty as presented by Tuah. It is this universal conflict, concretized in the setting of a traditional feudal society, that makes Hikayat Hang Tuah such a powerful and enduring piece of literature.

The impact of Kassim’s Perwatakan is such that a generation later, when the journalist Rehman Rashid was interrogated by the police for possible detention under the Internal Security Act, his tomentors demanded to know from him who the true hero was, Hang Tuah or Hang Jebat. Rehman shrewdly replied, “Hang Tuah,” which may have accounted for his being released!

Kassim’s Perwatakan is one of my most valued possessions, its frayed edges and yellowed pages notwithstanding. I wish somebody would reissue it using modern spelling and syntax, and then distribute it to schools and libraries. If enough Malays read it, it might very well revolutionize our society.

Recently in a social gathering attended by a number of bright young Malay students studying in Ameirca, I inquired whether they had heard of Kassim Ahmad. None had, but they had all read Hikayat Hang Tuah. When I discussed Kassim’s radical character analysis, they were all stunned. Over half a century later, Kassim is still prying open bright young Malay minds and sparking their intellect.

The account of his incarceration, Universiti Kedua (Second University), makes painful reading. A poignant passage describes the guards, under the guise of friendship, taking away for “safekeeping” Kassim’s painfully written manuscript for a new novel. They then proceeded to destroy it in front of his eyes. Such cruelty! The spite of the guards was exceeded only by their ignorance. At a time when published works in Malay literature were sparse, this was an unbelievable act of utter stupidity, if not a crime against our culture.

When reading Universiti Kedua, I could hardly contain my rage against the authorities for their cruelty to this man. I felt great sorrow for Kassim, but far greater sorrow for my own race. A culture that treats its intellectuals with such cruelty cannot aspire for greatness.

The Indonesian writer Pramoedya Ananta Toer suffered through the same humiliation while in prison, but he was unfazed. He committed his novel to memory by retelling it repeatedly to his fellow inmates. When freed, he quickly published his Pulau Buru quartet, as well as his memoirs, Nyanyian Sunyi Seorang Bisu (The Mute’s Soliloquy) to international acclaim. Kassim however, never quite recovered, and the world of Malay literature lost forever Zaman Pencaroba (Era of Crisis).

Kassim’s ability to shake the collective Malay psyche remains undiminished. In 1986, he released his Hadis: Satu Penilian Semula (Hadith: A Reevaluation). I asked my parents to get me a copy right away. True to form, before he could get my copy, the authorities banned the book! Fortunately, an English translation soon became readily available.

My parents warned me about Kassim, and his supposed anti-hadith stand. Later on my vist home, I apprised my parents of what Kassim wrote. To my surprise, they agreed with Kassim! I wonder how many Malays (includinghte censors) who accused Kassimof being anti-hadith have actually read his book.

A few brave souls saw fit to honor Kassim. Universiti Kebangsaan conferred on him an honorary Doctor of Letters. A courageous editor praised Kassim as Intellektual Melayu Terakhir (The Last Malay Intellectual), a tribute to him but a sad commentary on Malay society.

Rustam Sani, then a Profesor of Sociology at the university, gave a very generous and heartfelt public oration for the occasion. As expected, Rustam did not last long with the university.

Kassim is still writing, the Hang Jebat in him still raging. Thanks to the wonders of the Internet, Kassim essays can now be widely distributed (www.kassimahmad.blogspot.com), totally bypassing the Hang Tuahs in the editorial suites.

Get Real In the Fight Against Corruption
M. Bakri Musa

Reprinted from the Sun (Weekend Edition) July 8, 2005

There are two crucial components to eradicating corruption: combating and preventing.

The suspension of Isa Samad was certainly a dramatic demonstration of UMNO’s commitment to combating “money politics,” the politicians’ euphemism for corruption. Abdullah Badawi now needs to demonstrate that he is equally resolute in preventing it. He could do this by radically reforming the current political system that permits money politics to thrive. One way to pull off the equivalent of an “Isa Samad” in prevention would be for Abdullah to declare boldly that henceforth he would decouple government – especially cabinet – appointments from party positions. That is, a party leader could not hold a government post, except for the President and Deputy President.

Dramatic actions in fighting corruption, unaccompanied by equally aggressive preventive measures, would be futile.

If Isa proved to be the only “big fish” snared, then the seriousness of the “fight” against corruption would remain illusory. Already there are charges of selective prosecution.

For UMNO’s Disciplinary Board to declare that its job is done with Isa’s suspension goes beyond naivety. It smacks of a hatchet job. It would be a toss up then as to who is more corrupt: Isa Samad or the panelists.

If Isa were spared criminal prosecution by the Anti Corruption Agency (ACA), it would effectively reduce the Disciplinary Board to a kangaroo court. The Board must have had compelling evidence that rises to criminality for it to mete out such a harsh sentence. If the Board does not refer the case to the ACA, then those distinguished lawyers on the panel are derelict in their professional duties as officers of the court. In America, that would be grounds for disbarment.

Thus, the dramatic impact of Isa’s suspension may yet prove illusory. Abdullah could however, institute measures that could capitalize on the current momentum and impress the nation that he is dead serious about corruption.

He should immediately terminate Isa’s cabinet appointment. “Innocent till proven guilty” is fine in a criminal court, but not in a position that demands high public trust. Besides, Isa cannot be an effective minister while consumed fighting this charge. By merely asking Isa to resign his party position, Abdullah appears to be waffling. Worse, he does not demand high standards of his ministers. By leaving it to UMNO Supreme Council to suspend Isa, Abdullah missed a splendid opportunity to demonstrate his personal resolve and commitment in combating corruption.

After firing Isa, the Prime Minister should then give his other ministers and political appointees one month to decide between their government job and party position. They should not have both.

The immediate impact would be to dampen the usual mad rush to run for party posts, thus reducing money politics. The party too would benefit, as those who seek those positions would have the party’s interest at heart.

The intense campaigning for even lowly divisional posts is because of the associated monetary rewards in the form of lucrative government jobs and contracts. These party positions are a license to print money, thus contributing to the fetid climate for corruption to thrive.

Decoupling would also diffuse power and provide an effective checks and balances system, both effective antidotes against corruption. Party leaders would check on ministers and other appointees, keeping them honest and effective.

Today the typical cabinet minister is head of an UMNO wing as well as being a Supreme Council member, on the board of Government-linked companies, and a Member of Parliament. Any of those jobs would tax the competence of any individual. These ministers think they can do it all. The reality is of course far different, and obvious to all.

By decoupling, ministers could concentrate solely on their cabinet duties and be freed from the political chores that presently distract them. Besides, the skills and talent that would make one a successful party leader are not necessarily the qualities needed to be an effective executive. Indeed the needed qualities for the two are quite the opposite.

There is yet another benefit to decoupling. The Prime Minister would have a much wider choice of talent instead of being restricted only to party leaders.

The Prime Minister has demonstrated only half of his resolve in eradicating corruption. He needs to demonstrate that he is resolute in preventing it.

[Reprinted from The Sun Daily June 24, 2005]

Editorial lead: At present all university vice-chancellors are appointed by the minister. If he makes wise decisions, the universities and the nation would benefit. If his judgment were otherwise, the entire system would suffer.

MALAYSIAN public universities are grabbing the headlines lately, alas for all the wrong reasons. As the fate of an institution is determined largely by its leader, the recent death of Universiti Utara Malaysia’s (UUM) Vice-Chancellor provides the Minister of Higher Education an opportunity to re-examine how such leaders are selected.

At present all vice-chancellors are appointed by the minister. If he makes wise decisions, the universities and the nation would benefit. If his judgment is otherwise, the entire system would suffer. That our public universities are enjoying less than stellar reputation is directly the consequence of less than sensible earlier appointments.

In choosing UUM’s next vice-chancellor, I suggest one of the following options for the minister. One, hire a “head hunting” firm; two, appoint a selection committee with wide representation; or three, use the Delphi method to narrow the candidates.

The use of a search firm is straightforward. It will use its resources to scout for the right candidates. Many universities are opting for this, as it tends to broaden the search to outside of academia.

Local selection committees are the traditional route. The advantage is local input. Those committee members of academics, students and alumni know best what is needed for their institution. The finalists would be interviewed not only by the committee but also by the other major stakeholders (deans, senior academics) who would then apprise the committee of their views.

Note, both methods only make recommendations; the ultimate choice is still the minister’s.
If the minister wants to be personally engaged in the selection, then I would suggest the Delphi method. I would e-mail all the vice-chancellors (past and present), leading academics, student leaders, and major employers and ask them to list the four or five major problems facing our universities generally and UUM specifically. At the same time I would ask them to name four or five individuals other than themselves who would best manage those problems and lead UUM. Then I would interview the top four or five candidates.

During the interview, I would ask the finalists what they think are UUM’s major priorities and how they would solve them. I would also gauge the candidates’ general philosophy and yes, also political views. There is no point selecting someone who does not share your vision. On the other hand, appointing someone who shares your vision but is otherwise less than capable would be counter-productive as he or she would not be able to execute your vision.

The ideal candidate would be an accomplished and highly regarded scholar, has the necessary executive talent, and above all, shares your vision.

There are two further considerations. First, one does not need to belong to the same political party or be of the same race and nationality in order to share the same vision. So there is no need to limit the search to a particular race or nationality. This point bears emphasizing, for presently political considerations weigh heavily on such appointments, to the detriment of the institution.

Second, and far more important, it is much easier to convert someone who is otherwise competent but does not share your vision to your side than it is to make someone incompetent, competent. That the latter enthusiastically embraces your politics is no consolation.

All these methods have their limitations. Using a professional firm would shift the lobbying from the minister’s office to that of the firm. However, by selecting a company of known integrity and sterling reputation, you reduce this greatly. Local selection committees tend to perpetuate the status quo. At times an institution would be best served by a total outsider who would shake the existing structure in order to lead it to greater heights. Such candidates would not likely have warm receptions with local committees.

The Delphi technique, originally designed for forecasting trends, would also tend to select mainstream candidates. It is not likely to pick the one unique individual who may just have the right combination of contrarian insight and executive talent to lead the institution into a new direction. The Delphi method would miss the real trail blazers.
One thing is certain. Whatever the limitations of these techniques, they are far superior to the present method, whatever that may be.

Hi Dr. Bakri:

I recently read your article, “The Path to A True Islamic State.” I had problems posting a respond through your website, so, I thought I would email you.

I am enthusiastic to learn that you are tackling this issue. I eagerly await your views in your new book. Until then your posting has actually raised more questions than answers with me. I find the ending in your article a bit “secular.”

“A nation mired in economic stagnation and its citizens in physical and moral degradation cannot be considered to be Islamic. Lift the yoke of poverty off our people, bring them light through superior education, and empower them by giving them their merdeka (liberty). This is the only path towards an Islamic state,” to quote you.

I am a bit raw on my knowledge of the Quran and Hadith to know what the appropriate response would be from Muslims to your article, especially to the way you have ended it. I guess I should not be ashamed to respond with what I have learned from Jesus the man, hopefully with ideas close enough to a Muslim, as I have learned Jesus too is considered a prophet in the Quran.

Two thoughts from the Gospel came to mind:

1. Luke 6:19-2120: Looking at his disciples, he said:
“Blessed are you who are poor,
for yours is the kingdom of God.
2121 Blessed are you who hunger now,
for you will be satisfied.
Blessed are you who weep now,
for you will laugh.

2. Matthew 11:29: Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.

Comparing those two verses with your ending note, I find that yours seems a bit “secular” for an Islamic state, if I may use the word, since it uplifts the superiority of education, and ignored the possible fallacy in human wisdom. My first reaction in reading your ending note is that a Nazi is not necessarily lacking in education. This applies to today’s bin Laden also. Overconfidence in education is almost exactly the reason why religion still thrives amongst today’s elites. I could imagine many Muslims would also react the same way. I know you do not mean that, but the way you have ended your essay raised this doubt in my mind.

Dr. Bakri, I really hope you can be successful in realizing the potential you see in “that Islam can play in Malaysia and the region.” I hope you will not be out-Islam in the creation of an Islamic state. May the God of Abraham shed light to you in your book! May it indeed shine light in the words you will be putting down in your next book!

Weng Lee
Milpitas, CA.
——–

Dear Weng Lee:

Thank you for responding to my essay. I will post your response to my website. I am still unsure whether to have free open comments on my website or have them filtered through me. I want to spare my website from trash and libelous material, so all postings come through me for now!

It is interesting that you quote the Gospel. Muslims today remind me of Christians of the Middle Ages in our attitude towards the poor, interests (or usury), and wealth. The poor shall inherit the earth as you quoted from the Gospel portrays a mindset that glorifies poverty.

Then came John Calvin with his novel interpretation. He said yes, God has predestined us. “Our fate is written in the book,” as we Muslims would say. But then, according to Calvin, He tips His hands. He would give us a preview on this earth those He favors.

Suddenly everyone worked very hard to be successful so they would be seen as being God’s chosen ones. If they were successful here on earth, they would be successful in the hereafter. Out of this new outlook emerged the famed Protestant work ethics. Poverty is no longer glorified, rather now it is seen as a sign of divine disfavor! Whether Calvin is right or wrong is immaterial but the consequences of his teaching is such that the world today is much better than before him. That is tribute enough!

Thank you for your prayers and best wishes for my next book.
Sallam,

Bakri

Letters are edited for purposes of brevity, clarity and liability.

Reprinted from www.Malaysia-today.net
Tuesday June 14, 2007

“The basic question – Are these laws just? – is never asked. Hand amputation deprives a person the means to feed, clean and protect himself. Stoning to death is barbaric; even a rabid dog should be spared such a torture.

Nor are these laws fair. A non-Muslim caught stealing would be jailed; a Muslim, amputated. That would surely drive Muslims away from our faith.”

Dr. Bakri may be an expert in his field, but I am rather disappointed at his level of “expertise” in his own religion, assuming that he is a Muslim. I wonder whether he even bothered to read the Hukum Hudud draft thoroughly before making his opinion public.

Waja Steele
—————
Thursday, June 16, 2005

Dr. Siti Mariah:

I read with sadness M Bakri’s article. There is lack of understanding of what Islamic laws and state is all about. You wrote as if in an Islamic state corruption, poverty, dishonesty, breach of trusts, economic stagnation, supression of liberties, ISA and other injustices are acceptable as long as hudud laws are implemented. In your understanding, this means the cutting off hands and stoning to death for adultery. Sadder still is when you said that “their justifications are nothing more than endless recitations of some Arabic texts interspersed liberally with Quranic quotations”. Please go back to the Quran and Sunnah. Verses and Hadiths regarding the punishment for stealing and adultery are very clearly stated.

Do you think that once the laws are passed, when someone is caught stealing, he or she would be immediately dragged to the town square and the hand chopped off? Of course that would be barbaric! Due process of law would have to take place. The witnesses, the evidences, the prosecution, the defence, the appeal and the whole wheel of justice would have to be implemented. Do you also imagine that all cases will be treated the same – with the hand choopped off – whether the stolen article is worthless or the victim robbed at gunpoint? You also choose to ignore that circumstances for stealing are also taken into consideration when passing the sentence. You conveniently forget that cutting off the hands is not the only punishment for stealing. There are jail sentences as well as fines and other punishments including remedial sentence that can also be employed by the court (this is called takzir, and we already have that in our laws).

Cutting off the hands is the severest form of punishment, and the conditions under which this will be applied are also stringent. The details of implementation are up to the lawmakers. This is where the consensus of the ulama (scholars in law, not the ustaz in the village who teaches tajwid or quranic renditions) come in! You think it is injustice to the thief but you forgot the victim and future victims. Where is the justice for the victim and community members who live in fear? Where is the justice to the victims who toil and sweat to earn an honest living? Islamic laws are meant to be a deterrent and to strike fear in the hearts of sinners-to-be. You also speak as if once the law is passed our streets would be filled with people with amputated arms and hands or wobbling around with no feet. Are you saying that a majority of our people are thieves? If that were the case, then there is something awfully wrong with our society. Imagine if there were one amputated thief who walks around and be seen by others, the message gets across – crime does not pay! Potetnial thieves would think a thousand times before choosing this easy way to make a living.

M Bakri, however, contradicts himself when he says, “non-Muslims at the time time of the prophet s.a.w. respected and obeyed the Medinah Compact not because the laws were Islamic, rather those laws were just to them as well as to Muslims.” So you agree that the non-Muslims then accept Islamic Laws because they were just! Mind you among the laws implemented then was the hudud laws that you claim to be unjust.

Your perceived concept of All-Merciful and All-Beneficient (Ar-Rahman and Ar-Rahim) is definitely not the same as that intended by the All-Mighty. If you think that the laws given by Allah s.w.t are unjust, what about heaven and hell? Are you saying that Allah ceased to be Ar-Rahman and Ar-Rahim because those who sinned will be punished in Hell? What about those unfortunate ones born with congenital deformities and diseases? What about those inflicted with incurable diseases? What about those who live in poverty and perpetual suppression? Since God is Al-Mighty, why didn’t He created this world and bestowed His creations with everything that they need? He could make all people nice, happy, good, etc. Then can only we say God is All-Merciful and All-Benevolent? Just because the Quran prescribed something that we perceive as “unjust” we say, “Oh this is not from God. How can it be? How can this come from the Creator who profess to be Merciful?” Allah s.w.t has 99 names describing His qualities. Please take a look at these names and you will understand better. If we go by your human logic , everything that God does becomes illogical! That is why believing in every single word of the Quran becomes an article of faith in Islam. A Muslim cannot reject even a single word, what more a verse from the Quran. If we do that we cease to become a Muslim in faith.

I heartily agree with M Bakri on Islam Hadhari! We have to embrace Islam in all aspects. We cannot pick and choose the so called “progressive” elements (stable economy, eradication of poverty, ensuring basic utilities to the rakyat, etc.) and leave “the non progressive” ones (must be the hudud, no drinking of alcohol, usury, adultery). We cannot ask people to do good things and at the same time encourage evil practices. Islam Hadhari is about contradictions in Islamic practice. Simplay having Muslims adminster the state does not it an Islamic state. Piety alone is not enough to run an Islamic state but piety (taqwa) is the guiding light for the leaders to be just and honest. It is piety that prevents one from corruption because even though one knows that the rakyat may not know about it, but God knows and takes into account of one’s conduct.

I thank you Dr Syed Alwi for suggesting that PAS members should read M Bakri’s article. I think the article is more relevant to UMNO members. The bulk of the article is actually directed at them. They are the people causing all these mess in our country. All the laws in this country were enacted and passed by the UMNO/BN. PAS/BA just wants to take the nation to the Islamic ideals and correct the injustices. Given the chance, all the things that M Bakri proposes – cleansing the society of corruption, ISA, eradication of poverty, all acts suppressing basic rights – are what we have in mind. With regards to Hudud laws, we are confident if sufficient education, discussions, explanations, correcting the weaknesses in existing enactments, etc, that in due time Malaysians will accept them.

Dr. Siti Mariah
——————
Thursday, June 16, 2005

Dear Dr Siti Mariah:

If chopping off the hands of thieves and stoning of married adulterers are so difficult to implement, then why bother having them in the Penal Code in the first place? It makes no sense. We no longer subscribe to 10th century, Middle Eastern values, and I do not need to be hypocritical about religion. Some faith is good but too much of it is dangerous as the previous PAS leadership has abundantly demonstrated. My view of PAS is well known: Keep religion personal. You – Dr Siti Mariah – are free to believe whatever you want to, but do not dream of ever forcing down your beliefs on me! I will fight tooth and nail against that.

Regards,

Dr Syed Alwi
—————-

My dear Dr. Syed Alwi:

Whatever gives you the idea that I can force my values and beliefs on you? I respect your beliefs and I expect you to do the same for me. The fact that we are engaging in democracy to forward our ideas, beliefs, struggles and values means that we do not plan to coerce rather to persuade. If the majority accepts, and I do not it see coming during my lifetime, then I have made it. If not, I have tried my best.

Why do we keep saying that the hudud laws are not implementable? We have not even tried it! Just because it is a “10th century idea from the Middle East” does not necessarily mean that it is not good or effective. Why are we so worked up about the hudud law? Even if we were adulterers, are we going to be that shameless to commit it in the open for four witnesses to see and describe it in court? Even if the laws were in place, it need not mean that there will be convictions as cases may not be admissible or qualify for prosecution under hudud laws. During the prophet’s.a.w time, the punishment was meted only to a few who confessed and repented and wanted the punishment in this world rather than the hereafter.

Man’s desires and behaviors have not changed since the time of Adam ,and will remain very much the same till doomsday. Only the Creator knows the real nature of His creations and the remedies for their maladies. For practicing Muslims, whether the law can be implemented or not is another story. There are many reasons that could qualify for the suspension of any specific law, rule and regulation in Islam. During the rule of Caliph Omar Al-Khattab, the hudud law for theft was suspended when economy was bad. But it was not abolished. What we would like to do is to implement God’s law (whose primary source is the Quran and Sunnah) as we believe in it and in its supreme ability to ensure that justice is done to the accused as well as to the victim. If I were to use your same reasoning that laws perceived not implementable should not be enacted, then would you agree with me that laws that are not effective should also be abolished? Can we now abolish the death sentence for drug addicts/distributors, jail sentence for stealing, fines and whipping for many offences as they are not effective in controlling these crimes. The crime rates are ever increasing. Why cannot we mere mortals submit to the supreme knowledge of God?

Anyway, why are we arguing about the small portion of that we disagree on? We have much more that we agree on like fighting corruption, restoring real democracy, abolishing ISA and other oppressive laws, and many more that M Bakri wrote about and which we all very well know about. Let us settle these mainstay issues first for the sake of our beloved nation, and once we have achieved them we can settle this nagging issue of hudud in a civil and democratic manner. None of the opposition parties can make it alone, and we know that. We cannot claim to be democratic if we cannot learn to respect each other’s ideology. Nor can we call for all parties to drop their ideology or belief as a prerequisite for cooperating and working together. That would be hypocrisy.

Dr. Siti Mariah

May 25, 2005

Dear Bakri:

Please see my comments below re: your Islamic State essay. My advice is not to get caught in this Islamization politics of UMNO and PAS.

You cannot be a “unifier” because of the nature of our politics, especially Malay politics due to the UMNO/PAS and KeADILan divide. We badly need a very strong leader who can put a stop to this politics of division and who can prepare us for the challenges of globalization. Religion is a form of escape because we are basically insecure and not ready to face the challenges of a secular world (that is, the real world, and we Malays must thrive in it).

To me it does not matter if you should sound divisive. The message is important and a strong one at that. We must not allow UMNO a free hand to make pronouncements without dialogue and debate with its coalition partners and members of civil society (NGOs like Sisters in Islam, Suaram, et. al).

We must encourage these sleeping partners in BN to wake up from their stupor and speak their minds. UMNO must listen to the NGOs before it is too late and we would have a repeat of May 13, 1969. Indian and other non-Muslim leaders in BN must also speak up now. How long do you think Malaysians can keep mum before they implode?

My second point is that there are already too many laws. The Badawi Administration is the epitome of bureaucratization. Malaysia is now run by committees and commissions. It is legislation after legislation and review after review, leading to utter confusion and loss of investor confidence. This will go on unless the PM is firm.

Abdullah Zin and Mashitah, two new politicians in the Prime Minister’s Department, are merely grandstanding ahead of the July UMNO General Assembly. They are not thinking of the country but their own popularity and political advantage. How do we deal with such types when you have a leader like Badawi?

My third point is that UMNO’s Islamization has gone astray; they are clueless and caught in their own game, with PAS gaining the upper hand. PAS is looking more liberal and tolerant, thus gaining the hearts and minds of not only the Malays but also disgruntled non-Muslims. This is dangerous because the PAS leopard does not change its spots.

Islamization has serious implications for our country and the region. Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew is concerned that Malaysia (he did not mention Indonesia!) might one day be ruled by Islamists. I hope he is wrong, but at the rate we are going, he may be right.

I think you should not focus on making just laws. We should have a moratorium on new laws and instead fix the problems of an already divisive nation. Unity is fundamental because we are a plural society. Go back to the Malaysian Constitution.

You should start your piece with your last paragraph, but do not mention Islamic state. We need good governance, and keep religion separate from politics. George Bush for example does not understand this when he embraced the Christian Right Movement. UMNO’s Islamization policy has failed because the party fell into a trap set by PAS in the 1980s. Anwar Ibrahim let UMNO down badly on this. He was not interested in the future of our country, only in power for himself.

We should become more liberal in dealing with social issues, with justice for all, including women and minorities. We should stop sucking up to the conservative ulamas. For God’s sake, we are in the 21st century.

Regards,
Din Merican
——————
June 12, 2005

Dear Bakri,

I was at The Starbucks Coffee House, AmCorp Mall, Petaling Jaya, this afternoon and overheard a conversation between four young Malaysians (a Chinese and three Indian university students). They were discussing your “Christian Clobber” article which appeared in today’s The Sun Daily.

They said that Dr. Bakri had an easy style of writing and conveyed his message simply, clearly and directly. “We students can understand him and see the drift of his arguments. He presented his views logically and sometimes in a very amusing way.” But the point was, they continued, that Dr. Bakri made a lot of sense!

“Islam is basically very simple, and it is the basis of the laws for Muslims. In Malaysia whatever the Fatwa Council and state religious departments do also affect us, and our relationship with our Muslim friends and their relationship with us. Our friends and classmates are so up tight now. Semua tak boleh.” [Everything is forbidden!]

They went on to talk about the Malaysian proclivity for labels, instead of real substance. They quoted Islam Hadhari as an example. “If, as Dr Bakri said, Islam is progressive, then this new label is not helping non-Muslims, and confusing the Muslims. Is this another sect like the now defunct group by a certain Ustaz Azahari?” they asked aloud.

Furthermore, they felt sorry for Malaysian Malays who were being told by their UMNO leaders, ulamaks, PAS politicians, Tablighs from Pakistan, Wahhabis from Saudi Arabia and other groups to “follow in their paths.”

All religions are about being moral, tolerant and doing good; but why, they asked, should the Malays be Muslims in a particular way? And if they do not conform, they would be branded as infidels, or worse, apostates.

Here I am reminded of Ziauddin Sardar’s book, Desperately Seeking Paradise, where the author related his experiences with the Tabligh Groups in the United Kingdom. Dr Sardar’s encounters were interesting as well as disturbing.

On corruption, they said, that the Badawi Government is not serious about it. The police will remain corrupt no matter what because the culture is deeply entrenched. The public will not come forward because they are not protected if the corrupt were exposed. Due process is time consuming, as in the Eria Chia corruption case. So they asked themselves a simple question: “If we wanted to cooperate, who do we report to?” They answered rhetorically: “To the Anti-Corruption Agency? That organization is a toothless tiger!!”

They came to the conclusion which is that “we can try to make laws, even just laws, but who is just and honest enough to enforce them. Everything can be fixed in Malaysia as long as you know who to deal with.”

This conversation which I overheard while sipping coffee tells me that the young generation is aware of the problems they face in modern Malaysia, but they are quite helpless to do anything about them.

Best regards,

Din Merican
—————-

June 8, 2005

Dear Din and Pat:

Thank you for both your kind comments. As usual, I find them very stimulating. Unfortunately you both confirm my worse suspicion of Malaysia. I had wished that I was wrong or misinformed!

I am now at a chapter entitled “Islam: Problem or Solution?” in my latest book. I am trying very hard to have a positive outlook and that what we have portrayed is not pre-ordained and that we can change things. With all the current development it is hard to be positive, but I am determined to find that ray of hope! Indeed I cover in my chapter the points you raised.

The reason non-Muslims are not partaking in this Islam debate is that they have concluded that although they would be impacted by the outcome, it would not be as much as liberal Malays. So they cop out and let the liberal Malays fight it out. Pat, you are the rare exception, as usual! Thank God! Most non-Malays are too scared to be tarred as “anti-Islam.” That would not be career enhancing!

However, the greatest loser in this unnecessary battle would be Islam and of course the Malay community. Islam is a great faith and had withstood far greater challenges like the Mongols. So I am not concerned. For Malays however, that is a different story.

However when I see the potential that Islam can play in Malaysia and the region, I get my adrenalin rushing again!

Din, I will finish the first draft of my book by year’s end, Insha’ Allah!

Bakri

Dear Dr. Bakri:

I read your essay. It is good. I would only qualify that the so-called Hudud laws is not anywhere near Quranic teachings. It is a misreading and actually a deviation from them.
Warm regards.

Kassim Ahmad

Dear people:

This is a good article which PAS people must read.
Regards

Dr Syed Alwi
(From www.Malayia-today.net – reprinted with permisision)

Dear Dr. Bakri Musa:

Yesterday I read your guest column in the Sun Daily newspaper on the path towards a true Islamic state. I congratulate you for an enlightening article. Hopefully, leaders in Malaysia, both in the Government and Opposition, Muslims and non-Muslims, will read, chew, ponder and act accordingly.

You mentioned JUST laws. Very true! Few could say that our laws are just or being implemented fairly. People everywhere in the world are crying for JUSTICE – fairness, if you like. Without promoting justice among all, injustice will be the consequence, and the innocent, helpless, uneducated, and defenseless will suffer.

Men who attain power tend to abuse it to satisfy their egoistic tendencies, and to trample on the disadvantaged and defenseless. History is strewn with such examples, in Muslim and non-Muslim countries. Man forgets himself once he is intoxicated with power. And then there are those who lust for power, using all sorts of trickery to obtain it. Once they attain power, they rule with an iron hand and will brook no opposition or resistance from the subjects. The people are subjected to all sorts of abuses. Some will run away and become refugees and seek political asylum; but many others suffer in silence, accepting injustice as their fate.

You said, “When corruption is tolerated and the religious police zealously prey on the young for holding hands or not wearing tudung, then the leaders have lost their moral compass.” How true! You have said it! The question is how to rectify and set the “compass” in the right direction? As I said, once leaders get into power, they forget themselves. They are drunk, literally!

There is a pathetic attitude of closing one eye and shutting the other, when corruption is rampant and nothing is done to stem it. No number of Institutes of Integrity will change the mind-set, unless some definitive ACTIONS follow pronouncements. The time has come when the preaching must stop and ACTION must follow. Without action no words will eradicate or minimize corruption.

Punishing young couples who are deeply in love for holding hands shows lack of insensitivity and smacks of intolerance. It also says that the raiding officials are very righteous. It is the same with wearing or not wearing a tudung. It is a personal decision. I believe (correct me if I am wrong) that wearing tudung in desert areas is understandable because of the blowing sand.

I believe these officials should instead go after the drug addicts and try to rehabilitate them. These enforcement officers should go after the rapists, robbers and thieves. These are criminals worth going after. The reason these police officers do not go after these criminals is that they are tough nuts to crack. Those innocent young couples are easy target. As you said, our leaders have lost their moral compass. You have put it nicely!

Again, you have put it clearly when you said proponents of Islam Hadhari are putting the cart before the horse. Getting rid of poverty, giving education, reinforcing justice, and eradicating corruption are the burning issues and should have priority over the other trivial issues. We should tackle the URGENT and MOST IMPORTANT problems and issues FIRST. They touch the lives of very many people.

Yes, the Royal Commission Report on the Police is out. There are many important and BIG things to be tackled first. Going after the small bribes taken by the police and ignoring or taking lukewarm actions against the BIG looters is akin to barking up the wrong tree. Is enough being done to nab the big sharks? Taking firm action against the ikan bilis sends the wrong signal. Making examples of the small man is injustice in itself.

The International Perception Index on Corruption for Malaysia has worsened, not improved. Though it is just a perception, people do talk and judge accordingly. Transparency is an important issue here. Recently, our former PM asked for ALL the AP (Approved Permits) holders for importing cars to be made public. I understand there are well over 66,000 APs to import cars given out. Why should their names be kept under wraps? If there is nothing to hide, there is nothing to hide. This is my view. If it causes embarrassment, so be it! Let them be embarrassed. It was also reported that the former PM was angry that his son’s name was mentioned. Why be unfair to him and to his son only? Reveal all the names; and check who received more than their fair share of this lucrative cake! Is it because of fear of political repercussions because some deserving ones did not get any AP license? If so, who is responsible for that? Here TRANSPARENCY is the issue; being OPEN is the criteria.

I understand that the national car (Proton) sales could be affected because of the influx of imported cars under APs. Well, where does the national interest lie? National interest demands that the nation must come first, well above self-interest, and also well above partisan interest. The “moral compass” is out of focus and should be set right, for the sake of the NATIONAL interest.

This is a test case of TRANSPARENCY. We cannot hide behind the curtain of the Official Secrets’ Act; and say it is top secret. Here national interest is involved. Here transparency is involved. Do we dare to be transparent in this and other instances?

If the list is not revealed, suspicion will be the order of the day. To kill it, OPENNESS is the only solution.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

S.H. Huang
—————–

Hello Bakri and Din:

You both make very good points, and thank you very much for sharing this with me. Din’s points especially resonate with me.

We must not allow UMNO a free hand to make pronouncements without dialogue and debate with its coalition partners and members of civil society (NGOs like Sisters in Islam, Suaram, et. al). We must encourage these sleeping partners in BN to wake up from their stupor and speak their minds. UMNO must listen to the NGOs before it is too late and we have a repeat of May 13, 1969. So, Indian and other non- Muslim leaders in BN must speak up now! How long do you think Malaysians can keep mum before they implode?

I am leaving in a few days for the PAS muktamar (convention) and to do research and fieldwork up there. I am thoroughly depressed; my research assistants and I attended a number of fora lately: “Bahaya Islam Liberal” (Dangers of Liberal Islam); before that, the more politely worded but similar sentiments with academic bigots, this time at UIA [Islamic University]. Preceding both we have the IKD forum organized with Mujahid Yusuf Rawa and Zainah Anwar.

Oh god! My own young research assistants are ready to emigrate – and they are Muslim Malays who enjoy the haven and heaven of Ketuanan Melayu! So things must be really scary. Yet no one speaks up! I did at the one meeting where I met you Din (but you left early, I thinks, at the break) when I said, “Don’t tell us non-Muslims to shut up, we have every right to speak about the Shari’a because it impacts us!” I described how, but right that night someone from the Muslim Professional’s Forum asked how to “get even” with me.

Take care, both you good gentlemen! I am trying to get over a bad bout of flu.

Pat M
————

Dear Dr Bakri:

I think this is excellent and I hope the Sun will publish it. I am sitting here in Melbourne trying to write my column for this week and am too depressed to think of anything. This past week Kelantan, the state that cannot protect its people from typhoid, has announced mandatory premarital HIV testing for all Muslim couples. (Note: this is a not a PAS initiative, it started in Johor and is spreading despite our attempts to counter it). It is unjust and leads to more injustices because of the stigma and discrimination attached to AIDS. To me this exemplifies the state we are in now, where state religious departments are making health policy, which is the purview of the Federal government, but the Health Ministry is impotent to do anything about it. The Minister does not want to do anything when it touches on Islam, so he is allowing non-professionals to do something that will affect the health of millions of Malaysians. With mandatory testing, all we will see is more HIV, not less, as people will go underground. Twelve years of work in the HIV field and this is what we have come to, because of politics more than anything.

I am getting Dr Shad Faruqi to write a paper on the continuing encroachment of state authorities, particularly the religious departments, on Federal powers, using the mandatory premarital HIV testing as an example. It is the backdoor Islamisation of the administration which our people are not even seeing.

Even Australia under a no-class bloke like Howard is getting to look more attractive than home at the moment.

Thanks and regards,

MM——————-

Dear Dr. Bakri Musa:

What a coincidence – you writing about Islamic Law and Islamic State. Attached is a brief on Hijacking of Islam by Aidid Safar. Very thought provoking but logical!

I am just beginning to read the book but I have attached a brief to whet your appetite. Hopefully I can finish reading the book soon.

Salam,
IK
——————-

Thanks Bakri. Very well put!

R
——————

Dr. Bakri Musa:

Thank you for this spiritual piece.

Yes it should be that simple isn’t it? I do hate writing on Islam, laws, state, etc., and I said that oh so often to Steve Gan. But Muslims can be really strange. I sometimes do not know how we get to be this way.

I have liberal, socialist trained Muslim friends who said that non-Muslims should not get into the debate on Islam. Go figure!

S——————

Dear Dr. Bakri:

I am awed at the strength of the message you have brought in this article. You have put a voice to perhaps the silent majority in the country. What is the feedback so far? Lots of angry or supportive voices? How do you handle the negativity and threats (if any) to yourself? Is it easier because you are outside of the country?

Above all, thank you for sharing.

Take care and Salaam,

H————–

Thanks so much for the “Sun” article. Plenty of food for thought in this one, Bak.

KC
————-

Reprinted from www.malvu.org:
(Reprinted with permission)

US-based Malaysian Bakri Musa makes a common sense point for all to ponder: calling something Islamic does not make it so. For those who want an “Islamic state,” it is better for them to fight for the central idea of the religion, that is, justice! For without justice, a society cannot be said to be Islamic, democratic, Malaysian, compassionate, etc.

Now you can see where the fight for Islamic state/country by UMNO and PAS has misled Malaysians to. It is not a fight over spirituality/being true to the noble values of religion, but over the use of the Islamic tag in so far as to bring votes/political power. So who should be fooled?

From Malvu.org: Anon comment #1:

This item is well thought out and I am surprised there have been no comments attached so far. Does it mean we all agree or are we all trained or brainwashed into not commenting on religious and sensitive topics. It is a sad truth of Malaysian attitudes.

Anon comment #2:

Well said, Mr. Musa! Politicians in this country have certainly learnt a major weakness of our people, that is, if you call a horse a dog at least 20 times, the horse WILL be a dog; in the minds of the majority, at least. A clever but irresponsible method of how these so-called politicians rise to the ranks of true leaders! Knowing that the Muslim society in this country are not prone to speaking up on religious topics for fear of being branded as blasphemous, these politicians have grabbed the opportunity to use this knowledge to control the mind and culture of the people. This strategy has been fully utilized by BN and the Opposition parties alike. Whether they realize it or not, this is the sorry state of affairs in Malaysia. To add to the already skewed wave, then there is the ISA in the background. It will be a long struggle to banish the use of religion to shut the people up as it is with the struggle to oust corruption from the realms of government service. No wonder Islam has lost a lot of respect in the world especially among non-Muslims when we have supposedly Muslim leaders forging the path through unIslamic methods to rule its people. These leaders wear the mask of Islam to beguile the people. Islam stands for human rights and freedom, and it takes a strong Islamic leader to free Malaysians from the chains of irresponsible politicians we have today.

Anon comment #3:

The problem with equating religion with truth is that it confuses both the believers and the non-believers. For believers, the truth is hijacked by the religion. Thus you have “we must do this because the holy book says so … and it must be true.” But the truth is, as Musa points out, is the truth, so the holly book uphold its truth! This difference in implications separates fanaticism and superstition from rational belief and objectivity.

For non-believers, they think that they cannot object to something held dear by the religious believers. For example, the wearing of tudung; this ignores the fact that the holy book never mentions the tudung, only the general principle and advice for moderation in attire, an advice which is sensible enough in any religion. The politically-inspired attire is made out to be a religious requirement, and non-believers are fooled into thinking that it comes from the religion. Between the tudung and the burqa, it is the human politicians who decide which is closer to the teachings of the holy book. So just treat and discuss it as such. Most non-Muslims will feel the topic is “too sensitive” as it pertains to religion. They forget that the central value of justice behind any religion.

So wake up!

The Path Towards A True Islamic State

M. Bakri Musa
The Sun Daily (Malaysia) June 10, 2005

Christian cobblers do not make Christian shoes; they make good shoes, observed Martin Luther. Likewise, Islamic leaders do not craft Islamic laws, they craft just laws. An Islamic state is not one adorned with Islamic paraphernalia, rather one that is just.

Merely tagging laws as Islamic does not make them just (adil), let alone Islamic. The first imperative is that they be just. Killing is wrong not because the Quran says it is so; killing is wrong and that is why the Quran says it is wrong. The difference is not at all subtle.

Sparing philosophical waxing on the meaning of justice and being just, I will instead examine their antonyms. Injustice is like pornography, I know it when I see it, to borrow the phrase of an American jurist. There is no justice in depriving people of their freedom, nor is it just to keep them in bondage or abject poverty. Leaders who do or tolerate that cannot claim the mantle of
Islamic leadership.

Islamic laws like hudud provides for amputating the hand for thievery and
stoning to death for adultery. Their justifications are nothing more than endless recitations of some ancient Arabic texts interspersed liberally with Quranic quotations.

The basic question – Are these laws just? – is never asked. Hand amputation deprives a person the means to feed, clean and protect himself. Stoning to death is barbaric; even a rabid dog should be spared such a torture.

Nor are these laws fair. A non-Muslim caught stealing would be jailed; a Muslim, amputated. That would surely drive Muslims away from our faith.

These laws are not consistent with my concept of an All-Merciful, All-Beneficent Allah (Ar Rahman Ar Rahim).

Similarly, the closing of businesses and entertainment centers at times of the Muslim prayer would not be just to their non-Muslim owners and patrons. Non-Muslims at the time of the prophet s.a.w. respected and obeyed the Medinah Compact not because the laws were Islamic or that they were enforced by Muslims, rather those laws were just, to them as well as to Muslims.

Before enacting more Islamic laws we should first cleanse the present laws from “unIslamic” or unjust provisions. Is the Internal Security Act just?

When Muslim leaders ban books, it is not with the noble intention of protecting the minds of their followers, rather for the more sinister reasons of trying to control. Leaders, Muslims and non-Muslims, are not immune to abuse of power.

When corruption is tolerated and the religious police zealously prey on the young for holding hands or not wearing tudong instead, then the leaders have lost their moral compass.

There cannot be an Islamic state when we have rampant corruption, untrustworthy
institutions, and dishonest personnel. The recent Police Commission Report is a reminder of the ugly reality in Malaysia. The loot from corruption and breaches of trust is enormous compared to that of petty thievery. If the latter is punishable by amputation, then the former must surely be capital offences.

Ulamas must first fight corruption before they can even contemplate setting up an Islamic state.

Proponents of Islam Hadhari have it backwards; they are putting the cart before the horse. We need the Hadhari before the Islam. We need progress first: in alleviating poverty, enhancing education, enshrining liberty, and reducing corruption. Islam brought light (nur) to its believers during their Age of Darkness (Jahiliyah). The faith enlightened and emancipated its believers.

You cannot be an Islamic leader, no matter how exquisite your tajweed
(rendition of the Quran), if your people still die of typhoid because you cannot provide potable water and sewer system. You would be a great leader, Islamic and otherwise, if you could uplift them from the dehumanizing clutches of poverty through effective economic policies. Kemiskinan mendekuti kekufuran (Poverty invites impiety), goes an ancient Malay wisdom.

Our faith is progressive, inclusive, egalitarian, and above all, liberating. An Islamic leader embraces those principles; piety alone is not enough.

A nation mired in economic stagnation and its citizens in physical and moral degradation cannot be considered to be Islamic. Lift the yoke of poverty off our people, bring them light through superior education, and empower them by giving them their merdeka (liberty). This is the only path towards an Islamic state.