Countering the scary view of Islam

By WAN HAMIDI HAMID

NST, 9 December, 2006

Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin, 35, is not only the youngest mufti in Malaysia, he is also among religious scholars who are calling for a more modern and compassionate face to Islam. He spoke to WAN HAMIDI HAMID on a host of issues including apostasy, race relations and the Interfaith Commission.

Q: Why is there a difficult relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims? Is it because Islam has been misunderstood by others?

A: The problem lies with Muslims, their appearance, their attitude and their focus on petty issues.

The religion that is supposed to take them forward is portrayed as a religion that is backward. This is because they have turned non-religious matters into religion.

While people all over the world are building intellectual thinking, some religious people are busy with jampi (incantation) with ‘magic water’ to make us more clever. They are not interested in focusing on research or study.

Whenever Muslims talk about Islamic medicine, what do they see? Jampi.

Are we saying that modern cancer treatment is not Islamic? The religion has been placed in a very narrow sense.

Sometimes, in office administration, religious departments are known for being one of the slowest government agencies. It is as if the department is a place to quarantine troubled officers and staff.

Another problem is the attitude of Muslims who like to send their less intelligent children to study in pondok (traditional religious school). This means sending the not-so-clever children there instead of the clever ones.

I met a prominent religious leader recently over the issue of apostasy. I told him we couldn’t rule a Muslim an apostate without evidence.

He told me his knowledge of apostasy came from the Internet. I was shocked. On the Internet, we don’t know who the writers are.

Q: What is the role of a mufti?

A: The basic role of a mufti (an Islamic scholar who has the power to issue religious edicts) is to handle the fatwa (religious edict) and hukum (ruling).

In Malaysia, sometimes such a person is a ceremonial mufti. I believe there must be a paradigm shift.

To me, a mufti’s role is to forge his intellectual capacity to develop a fatwa in this world. He must be responsible to bring the knowledge of Islam in this modern era.

To me, my duty is to present Islam in its modern face and get it out of the clutches of conservatives, who have made the religion look obsolete.

Q: As you mentioned, it is the senior religious leaders such as mufti who usually bring up petty issues such as having faith in magic water and banning Muslims from greeting non-Muslims on their festive days.

A: Maybe their understanding of things is limited. For example, in Malaysia, there was the issue of a religious leader who told Muslims that if non-Muslims eat their aqiqah meat (sacrificed animals), God would not accept the sacrifice.

But for these people, if they sell their land or businesses or turn their business into an Ali-Baba business, it’s all right to do so.

For that piece of meat, they would come out with a fatwa. But there is no nas (textual evidence) that says non-Muslims can’t consume aqiqah meat. Such a ruling is prejudicial against non-Muslims.

Q: But these people are the major source of reference for Muslims in this country?

A: Actually, many Muslims are not happy with their religious leaders. But they can’t speak about it because they do not have a religious background. When they speak, they will be attacked.

On the other hand, I, as a mufti, a religious person with a PhD in religion, am criticising some of these religious leaders.

Q: Do you think Muslims today are more close-minded?

A: No. I think they are more open-minded now. I think they have a better educational background. They are more exposed (to issues).

Many Muslims know that some of the things that religious people talk about are contrary to scientific facts. But they dare not say anything for fear of being accused of being opponents of Islam.

What makes Muslims confused is the question of which is the opinion of an ulama and which is the textual evidence of Islam.

We can’t oppose the evidence of Islam, and what is in the Quran and Sunnah.

But the interpretation of the Quran and Sunnah by the religious experts are open to evaluation.

When someone evaluates your interpretation, it doesn’t mean he is rejecting the Quran and Sunnah. He is merely rejecting your understanding of it.

Unless, of course, if the matter is very clear such as the prohibition of drinking and gambling.

Q: When Muslims are seen to be keen on punishment, is this translated into a fear of Islam among non-Muslims?

A: This is possible. In Islam, even when the religion is preparing for war, war can only be conducted after an explanation is made to the party on which war has been declared.

But what is happening now is that we attack first, then we want to explain. You can’t punish somebody in a situation where he does not know why he is being punished. The person has the right to self-defence.

Q: Do you think differences between Muslims and non-Muslims will affect race relations?

A: We base a lot of our relations on prejudice. Religious people don’t think much about explaining Islam to non-Muslims but rather focus on how to contradict them.

Non-Muslims have their own prejudice against Muslims because they don’t understand Islam. There is no explanation from our religious people.

When there is, usually it’s a scary view of the religion.

Islam, if explained properly, will make non-Muslims respect Muslims more. Non-Muslims today fear what Muslims might do to them.

Q: What do you think of inter-religious dialogue?

A: Such dialogue must be conducted harmoniously where everyone presents his case and others listen to his view in a mature way.

We shake hands, you tell us your belief and I tell you mine in an academic discussion.

After that it’s up to both parties to evaluate the discussion. At the moment, I don’t see such a dialogue being on the cards.

Q: Your thoughts on the proposed Interfaith Commission (IFC)?

A: The commission has gone to matters that it shouldn’t encroach upon. It is as if it has an agenda to focus solely on Islam.

It is seen as an attack on Islam. Even the government can’t accept it.

As an alternative, we should have inter-religious dialogue. Not a dialogue to recognise the truth of all religions; that I don’t agree with.

But everyone will have an opportunity to bring up religious matters in an academic manner and others will listen and give views. Such a dialogue should end without any riots.

After it’s over, people can leave the hall and buy books sold outside. They can buy the Quran, they can buy the Bible. People can evaluate.

Q: When you talk about being open-minded, what do you think of the government’s banning of non-Islamic religious books written in Malay?

A: I think the government may have done its study and has banned them perhaps for security reasons. In Arab countries, Bibles in Arabic are available. People read them but no one has converted to Christianity.

When a community is strong, their level of knowledge is high, there’s nothing to be afraid of.

Some religious people, including me, have to read the Bible.

If we don’t, how would we know about the Bible? There’s nothing wrong with reading the Bible.

Q: What is your opinion on apostasy?

A: In Malaysia, when Muslims talk about apostasy, they only think of killing apostates.

The Quran never said we must kill apostates. Yes, there’s a hadith (sayings of Prophet Muhammad) that says "Whoever changes his religion, kill him".

But the words "changes his religion" are very general. Does the person change his religion to the extent that he endangers that Muslim society? Or he simply changed his religion?

But what is more important is that we can’t simply make any ruling on punishment.

If we’re too focused on wanting to punish people, we’re wasting our time.