Speech delivered by Anwar Ibrahim at the Regional Outlook Forum 2008, 8th January, Singapore

They say that the great divide between Islam and democracy may be summed up in a few phrases: it is a zero sum game because democracy’s gain is Islam’s loss while Islamization and democratization are contradiction in terms. The very topic given to me would logically lead to the inference that this is a battle to be fought on an uneven playing field. In fact, the word “Islamization” would conjure a kind of negative imposition on society, even if the process may be confined to Muslims. We know that recent events in Malaysia have given rise to the concern that the process has led to state sanctioned intrusion into the religious practices of citizens who profess other faiths. I shall talk about that later but for now, let us go back to this question of names and labeling.

Unlike the phrase “Islamization”, “democratization” immediately suggests positive associations. There is generally no confusion as to what constitutes the essence of democracy itself. Democracy is not just about elections or the popularity of leaders. It is about human rights, rule of law, and freedom and by that, I mean fundamental liberties in its widest sense. Democracy is also about maintaining and protecting the sanctity of constitutional principles, which are the crowning glory of the compact of the people. And when fundamental liberties are eroded, the rule of law gives way to the rule of man. I must pause to add that these are moral imperatives of Islam too.

As succinctly stated by Muhammad Iqbal, the structure of Islam embodies the principle of movement, and this is known as Ijtihad. Unlike the Mosaic tablets, the Shari’ah was never cast in stone and evolves continuously through this dynamic process. To talk of finality and absoluteness is therefore to deny the dynamism that is central the Shari’ah itself. In order to maintain a middle ground, the essential ingredients of an Islamic methodology must then be conceived not in a unipolar, nor even bipolar, but a holistic perspective which will be universal and eternal in appeal. Notwithstanding these internal debates continues within Muslim societies, with Fazlur Rahman’s assault of orthodoxy, and that “Islamic Intellectualism has remained truncated.”

And just as immediately, I must lodge a caveat against the assumption of the truth of the expression “democratic society in Malaysia.” I am not being cynical here but I believe we may legitimately ask the question: “Do we really have such a society in Malaysia?”

I believe that the 40,000 Malaysians who gathered two months ago in Kuala Lumpur to demand for free and fair elections will say ‘no.’ The thousands of Indians who were drenched in chemical-laced water fired from police water cannons will say ‘no.’ And the hundreds of peaceful citizens who were violently dispersed just last Saturday night for holding a candlelight vigil to protest the use of the ISA will say ‘no.’ And neither Islam nor Islamization has anything to do with it.

This brings me to the point that if we were to look at the issue of Islam and democracy from the empirical angle, I daresay that the threat to democracy is not Islam at all. On the contrary, we see Indonesia and Turkey decisively choosing the democratic system rather than the traditional Shari’ah system. In addition, as for Pakistan, what we are seeing is in fact a classic scenario of secular autocrats and dictators raising the bogey of Islamic radicalism in order to subvert democracy and maintain their hold on power. The fact therefore remains that many Muslim nations ruled by secular regimes are dictatorships of varying degrees on the one hand and autocratic regimes or sham democracies on the other.

Before I come to the central issue about Malaysia, let me just try to put things in perspective about Islam in Southeast Asia. While Mohammad Abduh’s modernism in the Arab world lost steam by the second half of the last century, it was more readily embraced into mainstream Islam in Southeast Asia, avoiding the intra-civilizational clash unfolding in the Middle East. Modernity and moderation came hand in hand for the region. They did not throw away the baby with the bathwater. Natsir and Hamka, leading exponents of what they felt to be the Islamic worldview, which included the love of knowledge, promotion of democratic values and inclusiveness, was readily embraced. The writings of Sutan Takdir Alisyahbana, and Soedjatmoko among the most ardent advocates of Westernization ways were also well received after separating the wheat from the chaff: ideas about modernizing the education system were accepted while outright adoption of western ways was rejected. I daresay that it is this feature of Southeast Asian Islam that has enabled Indonesia recently to make its quantum leap from dictatorship to democracy. This is not to deny that radicalism can and does in fact pose a serious challenge to the region but for radically different reasons, political repression and marginalization being the chief causes – as we witnessed in Aceh until recently, and which remains a major problem in southern Thailand and southern Philippines.

Malaysia too, during the formative period of independence and nation building, placed great emphasis on constitutionalism with Islam being given its pride of place in the private realm. Recognizing its multicultural and multi-religious society, Malaysia’s Muslim leaders were generally more inclusive. If I am using the past tense, it is because today, this sense of inclusiveness is under serious threat. With a combination of chauvinism and religious bigotry, irresponsible politicians exploit public sentiments in order to garner support. One may say that radicalism may actually be on the wane and I will not argue with that but the problem, at least in Malaysia, is not radicalism. The real issue is what I would describe as state-sponsored Muslim Puritanism borne more by racist sentiments than religious principles. It is the kind of theology that leads to the rejection of the constitutional freedom of other faiths to espouse and practice their religion in the manner they so wish.

It preaches the exclusivist doctrine that Muslims must constantly prevail over non-Muslims. It is this theology that prohibits Muslims from using the Islamic greeting of “Assalamualaikum” to non-Muslims or even more audaciously, that forbids non-Muslims from using the Islamic greeting for Muslims. The self-proclaimed guardians of this theology will have no compunction in breaking up families separating mothers from their children or incarcerating them for purposes of religious ‘rehabilitation’. Goaded by chauvinistic sentiments and emboldened by this theology, the authorities will not bat on an eye in tearing down places of worship. Moreover, it is this theology that has orchestrated a whispering campaign to label me a pro-Hindu just because I supported their legitimate demands and that their temples should not be wantonly destroyed.

Some thirteen years ago, I had the honor of addressing a gathering of Catholic priests and scholars at the Atheneo de Manila University in the Philippines. Among other things, I had quoted the following passage from the Qur’an:

“O mankind, We have created you male and female and have made you made you nations and tribes so that ye may know one another. Lo, the noblest of you in the sight of God, is the one who is the most righteous.” Al-Hujarat 49:13

This verse is addressed to all humanity, so had the religious authorities bothered to check the Qur’an they would have known better than to advise the Home Ministry that only Muslims have the birthright to be ennobled in the sight of God. Are the guardians of the religion laboring under some form of proselytizing zeal that drives them to believe that this puritanical stance would induce non-Muslims to “see the light and embrace the truth”? If this were their idea of an Islamic worldview, then I would say that they have completely missed the heart of the Islamic message, which is primarily a message of love and understanding, of compassion and tolerance and of peace. It tells us to strive for justice, fight oppression and oppose tyranny. There are many tribes and communities, cultures and languages and all these will impinge directly on our worldview. Yet we must never lose sight of the fact that humankind is only one.

And as for the ridiculous nonsense of appropriating the word “Allah” only for the use of Muslims, and that other religious faiths are not allowed to use it, a quick check with the Qur’an will tell them that God’s command in this regard is unequivocal:

“Say that we believe in that which hath been revealed unto us and revealed unto you; our God and your God is One, and unto Him we surrender” Al-Ankabut 29:46

To my mind, this verse clearly underscores an inclusivist approach to religion, and not one that attempts to build walls of exclusivity. It demonstrates undoubtedly that Islamization is not the issue. Respecting the constitutional rights of all citizens of all faiths is an Islamic imperative. Honoring the social compact which places such rights as sacrosanct which should not be trampled upon for whatever reason is also an imperative. What, therefore, is the rationale for this overzealous display of intolerance?

Desperate politicians are not averse to exploiting religious sentiments in order to get political mileage. For some reason, it is the belief of this administration that playing the puritanical card would be the best bet for the Umno dominated ruling coalition to secure electoral success in the coming elections. It is no secret that a significant shift has already taken place among the non-Malay electorate leaving the ruling party to refocus their strategy on the Malay Muslim heartland. By holding themselves out to be the staunchest defenders of Islam, they hope to garner greater support from conservative Muslims. This is to be executed in tandem with a superbly orchestrated government controlled media campaign as well as incessant character assaults on Muslim leaders who preach the message of moderation and inclusiveness.

Islam is universal but if the notion of this universalism is to mean anything, it would require that its values of justice, compassion and tolerance be practiced everywhere. Islam regards freedom as one of the higher objectives of the divine law in as much as the very same elements in a constitutional democracy become moral imperatives in Islam – freedom to speak out against tyranny, a call for reform and the freedom of conscience. These aberrations are indeed cause for alarm for all those who cherish freedom and democracy and I am convinced that Muslims too are equally appalled by this reckless display of narrow mindedness and intolerance.

Thank you.