Category Archives: Articles

Scientism Issue

Scientism Issue
by Dr Jeffrey Abu Hassan

The call by Lacrema to choose either religion or science ( “Islam vs science :choose your side please” ; 10 Nov 2005 ) is as absurd as it is childish.

It reflects a lack of understanding of the philosophical foundations of modern science ( see our previous letter “science nothing more than a systematic study of the material world” ).

It typifies the naiveté of those – often with little or no scientific background – who are mesmerised by the achievements of modern science which are undoubtedly remarkable and beneficial to mankind.

Scientism embraces a positivist materialist vision of reality that denies a Transcendent reality and the cult of the self-sufficiency of man.

However, with the discrediting of modernism’s grand narratives of which includes scientism, there is today a sober evaluation on the limitations of modern science, a questioning of its epistemological premises and a concern over technology unrestrained by ethics and spirituality such that the unsustainability of the planet is a real, grave possibility.

Not that religion must dictate science, but the principle of the non-overlapping magisterium between the two is an out-dated dictum. Asking one to choose between science and religion reflects the silly arrogance of latter-day dogmatists of scientism, not science.

Dr Jeffrey Abu Hassan
Founding member
Muslim Professionals Forum
Suite 1810, 18th Floor, Plaza Permata (IGB Plaza)
Jalan Kampar, off Jalan Tun Razak
50400 Kuala Lumpur
Tel : 03-40426102
Website : http://mpf.org.my

Tudung Issue

Tudung Issue
by S.L. Pang @ Farah Abdullah

The Muslim Professionals Forum follows with interest the current debate on the ruling that requires non-Muslim female students at IIUM and parliament staff to don the tudung as initially raised in a Sunday Star editorial of 6 November 2005.

We agree with the Sunday Star editor’s objection to the ruling on parliament staff and commend the prompt intervention of parliamentary Speaker Tan Sri Ramli Ngah Talib.

However the IIUM ruling is a separate matter altogether. The autonomy of educational institutions to impose rules such as the dress code on their students must be respected. The IIUM is an Islamic academic institution. It would be most unusual not to expect a dress code that would reflect the teachings of Islam. For some 20 years non-Muslim students who freely choose to enroll into any of its faculties know this and duly comply with it.

Conversely Muslim students who choose to have their education in government supported mission schools must expect and comply with rules that they may not be comfortable with. This has nothing to do with fundamental human rights, of which there aplenty if the Sunday Star editor is genuinely concerned about them.

Let us not politicize this issue and leave it to the wisdom of the university authorities. Neither is this a polemic of whether the tudung is a measure of one’s Islamic piety as some quarters are so apt to raise whenever such an issue arises.

S.L. Pang @ Farah Abdullah Board Member
Muslim Professionals Forum
Suite 1810, 18th Floor, Plaza Permata (IGB Plaza)
Jalan Kampar, off Jalan Tun Razak
50400 Kuala Lumpur
Tel : 03-40426102
Website : http://mpf.org.my

Pluralism – a clear & present danger

Pluralism – a clear & present danger
by Dr. Musa Mohd. Nordin

The “many religions one god” truth claim as propounded by Ushiv et al sounds very appealing because it embraces religiosity with a mega dose of tolerance and mutual respect.

John Hicks, probably the icon for religious pluralism sums it lucidly when he writes ” …the great world religions constitute variant conceptions and perceptions of, and responses to, the one ultimate, mysterious divine reality”. It simply describes the different theophanies of the same truth.

On closer examination however, this pluralistic truth claim is in fact extremely problematic.

Firstly, it has undermined the absolute truth claims of all the religions on the world stage. It has relativised all the truth claims and have equated all religions as being relatively the same. Pluralism is degrading if not denying the absolute truth claims of these religions.

Secondly, it’s pluralistic-claim has inevitably added another “new ism on the block”, albeit man-made, to the phenomenon of religious diversity.

Ismail Faruqi wrote “The (truth) claim is essential to religion. For the religious assertion is not merely one among a multitude of propositions, but necessarily unique and exclusive”.

Thus any attempt to relativise the uniqueness and exclusivity of all religions, as Hicks et al has undertaken with their theology of religious pluralism, will inevitably add a new problem to the existing truth claims at best. Or at worst threaten the very existence of religions.

The pluralistic “all paths lead to the same summit” paradigm is not that benign, democratic and embracing as first perceived!

This “disguised enmity” of absolute religious truth claims is hardly surprising considering religious pluralism was gestated within the context of western secular liberalism; which had an innate abhorrence of anything metaphysical.

Wayne Proudfoot, in Religious Experience wrote “The turn to religious experience was motivated in large measure by an interest in freeing religious doctrine and practice from dependence on metaphysical beliefs and ecclesiastical institutions and grounding it in human experience”

Islam perceives religious diversity and plurality as a sunnatullah, the behest of the Al-Mighty. Hence, a religious truth claim, is an absolutist doctrine, must be respected as such, not simplified or relativised, let alone negated.

Islam accords special status to Judaism and Christianity, categorically calling their adherents, Ahl al-Kitab (People of the Book). It identifies itself with the People of the Book as the “Abrahamic family” within the Semitic Tradition (Hanifiyyah), the tradition of Abraham who is recognized as the father of the three Semitic religions.

References to other religions is however less straight forward. They are mentioned in a generic manner as implied by the Quranic injunctions on :

  1. Universality of the prophetic mission; “And verily We have raised in every nation a messenger, (proclaiming) : Serve Allah and shun false gods …” (16:36)
  2. And the unity of mankind (ummatun wahidah) ; “Mankind were one community, and Allah sent Prophets as bearers of good tidings and as warners, and revealed therewith the Scripture with the truth that it might help judge between mankind concerning that wherein they differed…” (2:213)

Islam allows the others to be fully others without any form of reduction, distortion or relativisation.

This unlike the wave of religious pluralism which deconstructs absolute truth claims, relativises religions and equates them within the parameters of human religious experiences of the Transcendental Reality. In short, it is unwilling to let others to be really others. Therein lies the clear and present danger of religious pluralism.

Dr. Musa Mohd. Nordin
musa@mpf.org.my
Consultant Paediatrician & Neonatologist
Damansara Specialist Hospital
119 Jalan SS 20/10
Damansara Utama
47400 PJ
Tel/Fax : 03-77293173

Science nothing more than systematic study of material world

Science nothing more than systematic study of material world
by Dr Jeffrey Abu Hassan (Oct 10, 05 3:42pm)

Godeath’s letter Science, religion inimical to one another erroneously universalises medieval Europe’s bitter experience in the conflict between religion and science at the threshold of the scientific revolution.

That experience, particular to European Christendom, has led to the elevation of modern science as a totalising, absolutist worldview on the nature of reality in competition with religion. Thus giving birth to secular positivism and the idea of the inevitability of human progress.

It is little wonder that the theory of evolution is preached as the theological dogma of this new religion of scientism, quite often by non-scientists or those whose fields of sub-specialisation are not in the biological sciences.

But cutting through the halo built around it, science is nothing more than the systematic, empirical study of the material world whose instrument is man’s faculty of reason.

The vastness of what can be knowable of the material world – ie, the hard sciences – is such that one can only be truly learned in a very narrow, highly sub-specialised field.

Cognisant of this limitation, the honest scientist today, whether religious or otherwise, would not be so foolish as to make grand claims about modern science in the manner of 19th century secular priests of scientism.

In the authentic spiritual traditions, nature or the material world is the ‘other’ revelation, an open book whose study is praiseworthy.

Notwithstanding the vastness of what is knowable through empirical study, the material world is but one level of reality. Science as a way of understanding this reality through reason is but part of the religious worldview, which recognises a higher reality beyond the material world.

Reason together with revelation and the intellect (defined by traditionalists as a faculty for spiritual understanding) sets man in his exalted position as a priori, and not as something to ‘evolve’ into with all the capriciousness and uncertainties that such an evolutionary process entails.

In summary, yes, traditional religion is inimical to scientism as a secular positivist ideology. But science as a way of knowing the material world as one level of reality it is in harmony with it.

Had Bacon and Déscartes foreseen the threat to man’s continuing existence on this planet today, they would have tempered their pronouncements on science with a healthy dose of humility.

Scientists are not the enemies of God

Scientists are not the enemies of God
by Helen Ang

Through the rise and fall of empires, many a thinking man has been browbeaten by a tyranny of the majority for adhering to ‘dangerous’ beliefs concerning Reason and Creation.

Two such early intellectuals sentenced to beatings (in the literal, painful sense of the word) for their ideas were rationalist philosophers al-Kindi (805-873CE) and al-Razi (865-925CE).

Reading Dr Syed Alwi Ahmad’s No scientific proof for special creation and the responses to his view published so far, I certainly hope that our own physicist will not be beaten over the head (figuratively speaking) until he retracts his belief in evolution.

Until one or the other is broken

But first, allow me share one of the saddest stories I’ve ever heard. It’s about a great name in mediaeval medicine, Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi, celebrated for his writings on the life sciences and considered one of the foremost scholars of Islam’s Golden Age.

Europe knew al-Razi as Rhazes. It could be that he took his name from his native city, Rayy, a few miles south of Teheran.

A clinical physician, al-Razi headed a hospital in Baghdad – at that time a world-renowned centre of learning – where he recorded his many breakthrough diagnoses. His case notes became the basis of encyclopedic work, among them the Arabic composition Kitab al-Hawi fi al-tibb (The Comprehensive Book on Medicine). Al-Razi’s medical references, translated into Latin in 1279, were in use as European textbooks until well into the mid-16th century.

Versatile and accomplished in many fields, al-Razi was a man of science, a revered teacher as well as compassionate physician. The good doctor’s only ‘fatal flaw’ could have been his rationalist views that were at odds with the Muslim orthodoxy of his times.

He believed in the existence of the five eternal principles: creator, soul, matter, time, and space. However, he refuted traditionalist dogma that the world was created out of nothing. Al-Razi was not averse to challenging tradition and his personal philosophy held that no authority was beyond criticism.

It is said that, a principled man, al-Razi lost his eyesight for his elevation of the power of Reason. According to some sources, al-Razi’s blindness resulted from his irking a conservative emir of Bukhara who ordered him to be hit on the head with his beloved book … until either the book or al-Razi’s head broke.

It is important to ascertain here that even as alleged that he lose his eyesight due his propagation of the elevation of the power of reason thus being hit by the manuscript till either one break, the thought process and arguments presented to elevate reason I take it here against revelation must be stated. To be fair the conservative Emir consternation must also be aired or Helen risk being selective and biased in her argument just to drive home a point. Freedom of thought and freedom to express it in public is a non issue, as if clearly al-Razi is in violation of a proven fundamental principle of Islam here the bigger danger is leading the nation astray and if unexacerbated for generations to come. I liken it though in a small and simple way to allowing a revered Maths teacher to teach the ignorants and the less vocal that 2+3=6.

It is worth to note that his punishment is in itself poetic justice. Notice that the Emir said to hit till either one break NOT untill al-Razi head broke which in itself probably invoking divine intervention and can be seen as showing his reverence and recognition for al-Razi other work. There’s only one Quran and no other books of revelation are in the same league thus Helen I believed if you are privileged enough to study its authenticity from a learned teacher of your choosing and reverence than perhaps you can understand why I claimed as above after having read the Old and New Testament, the Veda and Puranas and why the Emir and Muslims adhered to it with the grit of their teeth.

Rejecting remedial eye surgery, al-Razi replied: “I have seen enough of this world and I do not cherish the idea of an operation for the hope of seeing more of it.” But this poignant reflection could just be apocryphal, similar to Italian astronomer Galileo’s whisper, under his breath, that our Earth did indeed revolve around the sun, after the Christian Inquisition forced him to recant.

Courage of his conviction

Like al-Razi, Abu Yusuf Yaqub ibn Ishaq al-Sabbah al-Kindi was a man of many talents – physician, mathematician, musician and scientist.

Al-Kindi had received an appointment by the Abbasid caliph al-Ma’mun to the House of Wisdom in Baghdad where he translated Greek philosophical and scientific texts in addition to writing commentaries on a number of Aristotle’s works.

Although feted as a great philosopher, al-Kindi was unfortunately still not spared punishment when al-Ma’mun’s nephew, al-Mutawakkil Ala Allah Jafar bin al-Mu’tasim, succeeded to the caliphate.

Al-Mutawakkil was keen to involve himself in religious debates and had little tolerance for other schools of thought or for ‘unorthodox’ Muslims. A Sunni, he oppressed the general population of Shias and destroyed the shrine of Husayn ibn Ali. He also decreed that the synagogues and churches in Baghdad be torn down.

According to one version of events, al-Kindi was subjected, at the age of 60, to a public flogging for incurring al-Mutawakkil’s displeasure when he refused to accede to the caliph’s arguments.

One detail agreed on by historians is that his remarkable personal library – dubbed the Al-Kindiyah – was confiscated. It was a loss that broke the old philosopher’s heart, and from which he never recovered.

Deadly religious intolerance

In any closed society suffering from a deficit of freedom, there is never much leeway given to enquiring minds seeking and speaking impartial truths.

In fact, from recent displays of public keris-waving and the banning of books, I would venture to add that the might-is-right brigade, aided by a barrage of repressive legislation, has clearly demonstrated its will to out-shout and shut out any competing ideas. This approach does not augur well for our intellectual growth.

And there’s no other single source of contention that touches so many raw nerves as ideology surrounding the primacy of particular religions, and no other people more susceptible to zealotry than the religiously dogmatic.

We witness murderous clashes between Muslims and Hindus in India and Pakistan, Muslims and Christians in parts of Europe, Africa and Indonesia, including the breakaway East Timor (now Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste). In Sri Lanka, there have been deadly confrontations between the minority Tamils in the island’s north and the majority Sinhalese Buddhists.

Then there are killings occurring within the same religion, such as the Catholics’ long-running battle against the Protestants in Northern Ireland, only now tapering off, and the Sunni-Shia conflagrations in Iraq.

Very close to home, we see the bloodshed in southern Thailand claiming hundreds of Muslim and Buddhist lives.

But never in the history of human conflict have we seen fanatical bands of scientists taking up arms with the aim of “taking out” those opposed to them.

Room for progressives

Dr Syed Alwi is a scientist and I’ve been impressed with the progressive viewpoints he often sets forth in his series of letters to malaysiakini.

He, together with columnists like Salbiah Ahmad, Dr M.Bakri Musa, Dr Farish Noor and others – I have to add contributors AB Sulaiman and Umar Mukthar’s names to this list – have opened a broader perspective and added nuances to Malay and Muslim public discourse, to our collective benefit.

Their articles have shown that there is indeed a wider interpretation to Islamic tenets and teachings than what we would have gleaned from mainstream reading alone. On the domestic front, the newspaper religious columns by the ustaz-uztaz and Institute of Islamic Understanding (IKIM) officers – pious, learned men though they undoubtedly are – do not push the envelope in terms of exploring ideas, or ijtihad.

On my part, I write this comment piece as a small effort to keep a tiny wedge open in our thin corridor where liberal Malay-Muslim voices are heard. Quite frankly, should a non-Malay raise these issues, there’ll be hell to pay and the spectre of the Sedition Act and ISA immediately set on our heels.

For anyone in this day and age to support the theory of evolution is in itself nothing remarkable. What is out of the ordinary is that in our suffocating society and clouded climate, Syed Alwi has openly stated his stand. Given what we’ve seen of recent adverse developments in the sphere of public religion, he’s brave to have done so.

Under the circumstances, I feel that the least I can do is to let Syed Alwi know: “You have my moral support

Reponse to this article : Islam not hostile to science by Dr Rafidah H Mokhtar

Islam not hostile to science

Islam not hostile to science
by Dr Rafidah H Mokhtar (Sep 27, 05 3:56pm)

This article is in response to Scientists are not the enemies of God by Helen Ang

In my opinion, there are multiple flaws in Helen Ang’s article (Scientists are not the enemies of God) due to her cursory and superficial research methodology.

Her suggestion that al-Razi’s blindness was inflicted by an emir of Bukhara is disputable. Several biographies of al-Razi reported differently.

In A History of Muslim Philosophy, MM Sharif writes “…it began with cataract which ended in complete blindness…”

In Wikipedia; the following causative factor of his blindness was offered. “…The massive book thoroughly offended a Muslim priest whom Razi had apparently contradicted somewhere in its pages. The priest ordered that Razi be beaten over the head with the manuscript until one of them broke. Razi’s head broke while the manuscript remained intact. The result was permanent blindness for Rhazes…”

To therefore infer that al-Razi was a victim of an incompatible equation between religion (in this case Islam) and science is very misleading verging on slander.. Even if the event of the Muslim priest hitting al-Razi was true, it is an isolated event and should not be extrapolated as an adversarial Islamic policy towards science and research.

A thousand years ago, wedged between the late Roman Empire and the Renaissance, most of Europe gloomed in the “Dark Ages”. TB Irving writes: “The Islamic world never lived in the same Middle Ages as Western Europe …For 14 centuries the Islamic world has formed a vast cultural enterprise which gathered up and prolonged the legacy of antiquity and transmitted this into the European Middle Ages and Renaissance for use in modern times…”

The paragraphs on al-Kindi was a melodramatic piece with undue emphasis and piecemeal reports of tragic events missing the complete historical perspective.

Al-Kindi served at least four Abbasids caliphs, al-Ma’mun (813-833), al-Mu’tasim (833-842), al-Wathiq (842-847) and al-Mutawakkil (847-861). Caliph al-Ma’mun established the “House of Wisdom”, a pioneering academy where Greek philosophical and scientific works were translated. The succeeding two caliphs continued to facilitate this tradition of learning and research and became great patrons of scholars.

Al-Mutawakkil was however the exception. Unlike his predecessors, some reported that he persecuted non-orthodox Islamic scholars and minority groups.

Al-Kindi was an innocent victim in the bitter rivalries to earn the favours of the caliph. He held firmly to his belief that the pursuit of philosophy was compatible with orthodox Islam unlike the caliph’s conservative thoughts.

To generalise the “ill conduct” of al-Mutawakkil as reflective of the caliphate’s persecution of scholars is a poor reading of history.

And to further complicate historical analysis; others would contend that it was during the caliphate of al-Mutawakil that deviationist elements were purged from the works and writings of researchers in his endeavour to adhere strictly to the pristine teachings of the Quran and the traditions of the prophet.

History testifies that from the Atlantic to Central Asia, scholars were to be found in every city and excellent colleges existed in most of them. The great jami’at, madarsas and kulliyat which the Muslims fostered gave Europe its new word “university” as a loan of translation, meaning a place where ‘everything’ was ‘gathered together’ for study.

The statement “never in the history of human conflict have we seen fanatical bands of scientists taking up arms with the aim of ‘taking out’ those opposed to them”, is unnecessarily provocative. It only reflects a desperate attempt to conceal poor arguments.

The discourse in this forum has thus far been a healthy and constructional one. I similarly applaud the authors she had mentioned for invoking hitherto taboo subjects which is refreshing for our intellectual inquisitiveness within the framework of evidence based science and for Muslims, Shariah compliant too. Credit should also be given to the likes of Abdul Rahman Abdul Talib, Abu Mubarak and Steven Foong for their erudite pieces, thus affording the readers a more objective perspective.

Traditional Islam and a tale of 2 reformations

Traditional Islam and a tale of 2 reformations
by Dr. Mazeni Alwi

Ah love! Could thou and I with fate conspire
To grasp this sorry scheme of things entire
Would we not shatter it to bits
And remould it nearer to the heart’s desire!

(from the Rubaiyat by Omar Khayyam; translation by EJ Fitzgerald)

Writing in the Washington Post last month, Salman Rushdie has lent his weight to the rousing chorus that calls for the “reformation” of Islam in the wake of 7/7 London bombings (bring in the Islamic Reformation, 8 August). Rushdie is a master of timing. At a time when muslim are given to deep introspection, that “our own children” had perpetrated the bombings in the words of the Sir Iqbal Sacranie, head of the Muslim Council of Britain, the author of the Satanic Verses dons his uniforms for the new wave Islamic Reformation. To Rushdie, “traditional Islam is a broad church that certainly includes muslims of tolerant, civilized men and women but also encompasses many whose views on women’s rights are antediluvian, who think of homosexuality as ungodly, who have little time for real freedom of expression, who routinely expresses anti-semitic view … what is needed is a move beyond tradition – nothing less than a reform movement to bring the core concepts of Islam into the modern age, a Muslim Reformation to combat not only the jihadist ideologues but also the dusty, stifling seminaries of the traditionalists …”. This has uncanny resonance with the calls of Irshad Manji who anchors Canada’s QueerTelevision and hailed by the western media as “Muslim lesbian intellectual” with the publication of her book the Trouble with Islam, “If ever there was a moment for an Islamic Reformation, it is now. For the love of God, what are we doing about it?” If “Islamic Reformation” has too close an association with Christianity, “Liberal Islam” is more recognizable to muslims as the agenda to empty Islam of its ethical, moral and juristic tradition and bringing it in line with “modernity”.

The problem of racial bigotry, disgust of homosexuality and unmodern views on women exist in every society, not least within america’s bible belt which has thrown up the occasional bombers and a senator who recently called for the assassination of a democratically elected president of a sovereign state. Do they now need a Re-Reformation? But what really drives today’s fashionable question of “why has Islam not undergone a Reformation like Christianity and Judaism?” is “Islamic terrorism”. This is a question asked by both well-intentioned non muslims and those impatient at muslims’ resistance to post-christian consumerist materialism of the west.

We acknowledge that terrorism as a political weapon of the weak is largely a muslim problem today. But what muslims really need is a reformation of their politics, not their religion – a political reformation that will seek to establish distributive justice, genuine representation, respect of fundamental human rights, good governance, people oriented policies and serious efforts at poverty eradication. Since September 11 volumes have been written by experts on the roots of muslim terrorism. Denying Al-Qaeda new recruits is not such a difficult thing. Just simply stop propping up brutal dictators in the middle east and let the people choose their own governments. Secondly stop subsidizing economically, military and politically the state of Israel and restore justice to the Palestinian, and thirdly end the occupation of Iraq, all this at no cost to american tax-payers. Bringing “the core concepts of Islam into the modern age” as Rushdie wishes us to do is a mischievous opportunism that exploits the pervasive fear and distrust, quite a lot of it is manufactured, towards a people whose values may not accord with modern liberalism.

With secularization, modern western education and penetration of western culture into traditional muslim societies, the proponents of Islamic Reformation or liberal Islam attempt to deconstruct at doctrinal level the scholarly consensus on Islam’s traditional pillars of theology, jurisprudence and spirituality, and at praxis level to dilute muslims’ observance of Islam’s rituals and practices, and questioning its moral teachings whenever they appear incongruous with the values of modernity. Naturally the most vexing issues are the ones where Islamic norms and teachings are most jarring to modernism’s eyes such as the question of the rights women, sexuality and Islam’s moral strictures. This have been the vehicle by liberal Islam to effect a complete break from the stifling weight of tradition and the dogmas of orthodoxy which have always been blamed for muslim decline. The panacea is appropriation by all and sundry the right to “ijtihad”, to re-interpret religion, to remould it nearer to the heart’s desire.

It must have been a source of wonder to non-muslim observers why is it that the propents of “liberal” or “progressive” Islam have remained on the fringes, unable to penetrate the Islamic mainstream despite its noble themes centred around such liberal values as human rights, gender equality, human progress, and freeing society from the moral strictures of an era long gone. Why are muslims so resistant to positive changes?

First, despite their pretensions to liberalism, the main concern of liberal Islam appears to be to graft western norms in matters of sexuality, morality and women issues onto a largely conservative muslim society masquerading as “fundamental freedoms”. Though these are problems that need to addressed, they are relatively peripheral issues. Our central concerns are really the widening income gap, urban poverty, stresses on family life imposed by the modern exploitative economy, and in may muslim countries, the suppression of those truly fundamental liberties of expression, thought and political association which are the cornerstone of a genuinely representational, democratic polity. What is really promoted in the end is not so much a political liberalism whose emphasis on fundamental rights muslims have no difficulty identifying with, but rather a moral libertinism of post-christian west. Secondly, and this is perhaps a far more serious concern, liberal Islam’s stubborn insistence on the right to “ijtihad” or re-interpretation of Islam is based on the highly persuasive argument that religious truths should not be the monopoly of traditional scholars, who, stuck in the cobweb of stagnant traditions, have spectacularly failed in making muslims conform to the liberating values of modernity. This strikes at the heart of traditional Islamic scholarship with its strict emphasis on hierarchy of knowledge and respect for specialization in various branches of Islamic sciences of theology, jurisprudence and spirituality. What muslims see in this “ijtihad” by proponents of liberal Islam who have no formal pre-requisites of Islamic knowledge is the destruction of a major pillar of Islam, the sunna, upon which rests Islamic praxis (the Shariat), and the selective rejection of Quranic verses that contradict modernity’s latest fashionable ideas. What mainstream muslims see in this whimsical “ijtihad” is a confusion and chaos that will lead to the dilution and ultimately the destruction of Islam itself.

However since “the war on terror”, we have seen liberal Islam or Islamic Reformation improve its fortunes. The neo-cons’ “war on terror” is using liberal Islam to do its bidding in the muslim world. They are natural allies as both have a healthy dose of disdain for people who prefer to live their lives as muslims rather than succumb to western culture, and not so much that all 1.3 billion of them are potential terrorists. On the eve of the US invasion of Iraq, Paul Wolfowitz confided that “we need an Islamic Reformation”. One year later, another prominent neo-conservative, Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum (MEF) declared that the ultimate goal of the war on terror had to be Islam’s modernization or as he put it “religion-building”. Pipes was then seeking funding for a new organization, tentatively named the Islamic Progress Institute (from AntiWar.Com, “Neo Cons Seek Islamic Reformation” by Jim Lobe). One of the people whom Pipes has invested hope in this Reformation project is Irshad Manji whom he calls a “moderate” muslim. It is strange that in a few short years what is generally understood as “moderate” muslim has shifted from that of a fully practicing muslim who sees terrorism as against the teachings of his/her religion and shares the humanistic universal values with the rest of the world, to someone whose idea of reforming Islam is to make it conform to western sentiments and norms who argues that Islam’s disapproval of homosexuality is the result of a faulty exegesis of scriptures. That makes all of us extremists except Rushdie, Manji and propents of liberal Islam.

Thus the thrust of the neo-cons think-tanks like Pipes’ MEF and the Rand Corporation is to support and give prominence to individuals and groups that range from Irshad Manji and the Al Fatiha Foundation in the west to intellectuals, scholars and NGOs that seek to propagate liberal Islam in muslim countries. But the choice a trojan horse in Salman Rushdie from whom muslims are still smarting from his denigration of their Prophet, Irshad Manji and a whole host of liberal Islam advocates in the muslim world is too unsubtle and crude that mainstream muslims have no trouble recognizing instantly that “Islamic Reformation” is an attempt to neuter Islam.

This is not to say that muslims have never thought about “reforms”. Given the state of muslims in the 20th century where poverty, political despotism, corruption, enfeebleness, economic backwardness are the norm – we are often given to nostalgic sentimentalizing of our glorious civilization before the ascending of europe. On top of that anti-semitism, dogmatism, sexism and paranoia in rife in Islamic societies today. Although this is not exclusively a muslim problem, it is reasonable to accept that this is more pronounced among muslims for the main reason that it has been on the losing side of a long conflict with the west. Many thinking muslims agree that we need to make ourselves feel at ease with modernity and awaken from our centuries of stupor, stagnation and dependency. Very few disagree on the need to master modern knowledge and the sciences, modern administration and polity, and learn to live and interact with other people as part of one humanity in all its diversity. This need for reforms started to be felt in late 19th century when large swathes of the muslim world came under western domination through colonialism and the progressive defeat of the Ottoman empire. There is a vast body of scholarly literature on these pioneering reformers of Islam – Jamaluddin Afghani, Muhammad Abduh and Rashid Rida – and the Islamic movements of the 20th century inspired by them. This genuine reformist movement aimed at taking muslim society out of stagnation and decline by creating a synthesis between modern values and systems, i.e. the positive aspects of western civilization, and Islam’s universal values. They also used the language of progress, modern knowledge, the primacy of rational thought and ijtihad. However like today’s proponents of Liberal Islam on a mission of Islamic Reformation, there was also the general tendency of doing away with accumulated tradition of jurisprudence of the 4 legal schools (madzahib), theology (kalam) and spirituality (tasawwuf), if not laying the blame of muslim decline on these “sclerotic” traditions.

But history has not been kind to this reformist project through both internal and external factors, not least western support of secular muslim dictators in the middle-east. This has been charted well by Olivier Roy in his well-known work l’échèc de l’Islam politique (the failure of political Islam). In this insightful work, Roy examined the metamorphosis in the reformist movement in its struggle for a social, political and economic revival of the muslim world led by modern educated professionals and technocrats who nevertheless remained pious muslims, to what he calls “neo-fundamentalism”, a literalist and rigid interpretation of scriptures that seek to bring muslim society back to an idealized past.

Increasingly, many commentators, muslims and non muslims, like Roy and Benjamin Barber in “Jihad vs Ms. World”, have argued that it is this militant neo-fundamentalism, itself partly a product of cold war proxy politics in Afghanistan, combined with romantic individualism of the west, that has created the modern phenomenon of Islamic terrorism. This is the unintended, mutant outcome of the initial impetus for Islamic revival or reform. Caught in an impasse between a rigid literalist interpretation of Islam that is vehemently anti-west in tone and a hyperliberal one that seeks to remould Islam to the mores and ethics of post-christian west – both driven by self-styled “ijtihads” that repudiate the consensus that has been built over centuries of classical Islamic scholarly tradition – muslims are now re-examining “traditional Islam” . There is a growing literature that is beginning to have an influence on modern educated muslims on traditional wisdom and texts, especially the extensive corpus of Al Ghazali that covers theology, spirituality, Islamic praxis and morality. Rather than sclerotic, stagnant traditions, classical Islam was alive with theological and jurisprudential debates. In “bombing without moonlight” (Islamica, Spring 2005), Abdal Hakim Murad wrote, “it was on the basis of this hospitable caution that non-Qutbian Sunnism engaged with modernity. Reading the fatwa of great twentieth century jurists such as Yusuf Al Dajawi, Abd Al-Halim Mahmud and Subhi Mahassani, one is reminded of the Arabic proverb cited on motorway signs in Saudi Arabia : there is safety in reducing speed. Far from committing a pacifist betrayal, the normative Sunni institutions were behaving in an entirely classical way. Sunni piety appears as conciliatory, cautions and disciplined, seeking to identify the positive as well as the negative features of the new global culture”. That elusive enlightenment we have been seeking for more than a century is not likely going to be through an Islamic Reformation of either the anti-west literalist interpretation or a hyperliberal self-loathing one born of an inferiority complex to the west, but a return to the wisdom, beauty and richness of tradition.

Dr. Mazeni Alwi

Bandung 50 Years After

Bandung 50 Years After
by Dr. Mazeni Alwi

The London terror bombings have consigned events of the last few weeks to distant memory. Headline – grabbing demonstrations in Edinburgh and the “Live 8” concerts that preceeded them today seem particularly very dated. Even more so, the celebrations to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the historic Bandung conference, with which the pop music concerts and the calls for the leaders of 8 wealthy nations to take concrete action share a common thread – third world poverty. Only a few among the young of today’s generation have probably heard of or cared about it, and those old enough to have a memory of it so disillusioned by its failures that they probably would rather prefer not to remember “the spirit of Bandung”.

Of my numerous trips to Indonesia over the years, my most recent one was as a guest of the Ikatan Dokter Anak Indonesia (Indonesian Paediatric Association) triennial convention in Bandung. This was only a few weeks after the celebrations of 50th anniversary of the Bandung Conference (which was held in April 1955). Gedung Merdeka, the venue of the original conference, a magnificent colonial era building is the heart of the city, was still dressed in celebratory mood, with banners and posters to remind visitors the historic event 50 years ago where Sukarno hosted leaders of newly independent nations of the 2 continents. Among them were also leaders of liberation movements of Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco, then in the midst of struggle for independence from French colonial rule to compare notes and take inspiration from the newly sovereign leaders. The atmosphere must have be electric, a gathering charismatic leaders who were then larger than life in the eyes of their people like Sukarno, Nasser and Hocine ait Ahmed (of Algeria’s FLN). Attempting to neutralize the air of radicalism, there was the pro American camp of leaders of Turkey, Ceylon, Pakistan and Iraq with their denunciations of Soviet colonialism, while Nehru stood as a symbol of relative moderation, having successfully avoided the excesses and violence of India’s independence process.

More than half of humanity was represented in Bandung in 1955 to proclaim the end of the colonial era and the emancipation of the coloured peoples in Asia and Africa. It was hailed as a new dawn for “the wretched of the earth”, whose goal was not just political independence, but ultimately economic, social and cultural liberation.

The new dawn was supposed to herald a new vision and strategy of freedom, solidarity and progress for the formerly colonized peoples, to take their destiny in their own hands after centuries of colonial oppression, exploitation and humiliation. Some sympathetic western intellectuals likened Bandung to humanity’s 1789 (the French Revolution). It was in relation to the historic event that the economist Affred Sauvy invented the term “third world” (tiers-monde), the peoples of Asia and Africa, who collectively hold immense material and human resources of the planet. Alas history has not been very kind to the denizens of the third world. For many, not much has changed 50 years post Bandung – remaining the wretched of the earth, and for some others, things have taken for the worse.

As for Bandung the city, those of us who know Indonesia through our experience of visiting Jakarta might be persuaded to think that she has lived up to the spirit of the conference she hosted half a century ago. She carries the burden of embodying its vision if Indonesia the nation cannot. The compact former hill station of the Dutch retains many of the beautiful colonial era buildings, notably the Governor’s residence, the Gedung Merdeka, a couple small churches and those used today as government and military offices. The pride of Bandung are her educational and scientific institutions, notably the Institut Teknologi Bandung and Universitas Padjajaran. But perhaps one institution that the conference hosts may want to pride themselves as their success in alleviating disease and poverty in the third world even if this is purely co-incidental is the Bio Farma, a biotechnology complex that manufactures vaccines and sera for Indonesia as well as supplying them to the third world in collaboration with the WHO. This is located in the “Pasteur” district of Bandung as Bio Farma was once called “Institut Pasteur”, next to the sprawling Hassan Sadikin Hospital complex, a teaching institution for the Universitas Padjajaran medical school. This former Dutch company was nationalized after Indonesia’s independence and now runs profitably as a state-owned company.

Unlike Jakarta, we do not see in Bandung the poor living in squalid squatter colonies and under flyovers, nor do we see children begging in the streets. The elegant old bungalows along her narrow, tree-lined streets are turned into commercial offices, or increasingly as factory-outlet stores of branded fashion goods- Bandung’s main attraction today. The new tolled highway has cut down traveling time from Jakarta to 2 ½ hours, such that hordes of the capital’s residents invade Bandung on weekends and during school holidays, making the traffic jams nearly as bad as that of the capital city. For this reason, I had to leave for the airport immediately after giving my lecture at the convention as it was held in the midst of school holidays in Indonesia. The driver deftly weaved through the congested traffic and the city’s back streets, having been told that I could not afford to miss the flight home as I had one to catch for Japan the next day.

Our familiarity with our neighbour with whom we share many things in common is such that one would not be easily deceived by Bandung’s air of new prosperity and old elegance, for Indonesia is another of those third world country that could not hide its extreme inequality, where there is an unbridgeable chasm between the rich and the poor. The two seemingly mingle but live in separate social universes outside the work place. When occasionally I get invited to help with some work in a private hospital, I would be chauffeured from the 5 star hotel to the hospital and have meals in Jakarta’s expensive restaurants, enabling me to catch a glimpse of how that section of society lives. Thankfully most of the time they’re institutional invitations where I get to see up close Indonesia’s poor and those who just manage to get by who are lucky enough to live near an urban centre.

In his opening address, the president of the Ikatan Dokter Anak read off startling statistics of the nation’s infant mortality rate and maternal deaths (during delivery), figures that would shock today’s public health experts in the developed world. And notwithstanding Bio Farma as Indonesia’s biotechnology showcase in the area of vaccine production, the nation recently saw outbreaks of polio among children that were highlighted in the international media.

Given what I do to earn a living, I can’t help using health indicators to illustrate the failures of nation building of a third world country like our neighbour, not out of condescension but as a sobering reminder for our own trajectory. For greater accuracy on this, one can always consult the UNDP reports. Its experience is by no means unique. Many of the new nations and those in the process of political liberation that were represented at the Bandung Conference had a disturbingly similar trajectory, particularly the Arab states. Political independence did not lead economic prosperity and social well-being for their citizens, self confidence and flowering of local culture. Instead, oppression and exploitation was continued by the new ruling elite, corruption became endemic, and poverty remains the lot of many.

Emanating from the grand ceremony of Bandung, the concept of the third world has however lost much of its moral weight in the last few decades. One of the more sympathetic figures of that generation that had expressed solidarity with the spirit of Bandung, the recently deceased Paul-Marie de la Gorce, gave a melancholic account 20 years ago, “Many hopes have been deceived, many illusions have vanished, many predictions proven false by history. The fashion today, even if seemingly excessive, is of disenchantment and skepticism : the third world would not have been able to resolve any of its problems – hunger, under development, disunity. The socialist experiments have turned into tropical dictatorships and the capitalist experiments into cosmopolitan corruption. No centres of power, no new international order could have been born from it. And it is remarkable that in France, Paul Bruckner’s Le Sanglot de l’homme blanc (Sobs of the white man) has had considerable success, a book full of bitterness and rancour, where all anticolonialism, every effort to understand the third world, our struggle against under development (on the part of western sympathizers) is seen as a sentiment of guilt, self-hate and masochism” (from “Bandung ou la fin de l’ère coloniale” by Jean Lacouture, Le Monde Diplomatique, April 2005, the quote taken from a 1984 issue of the same journal which I have translated here).

From Bandung to the invasion of Iraq, via the defeat of Nasserism, the sterile victory of Vietnam, the horrors of the Khmer Rouge and the Rwanda genocide, the third world has lost much of its moral capital. The Non-Aligned Movement, The G77, the South-South Commission – later incarnations of third world solidarity failed to gain respect and credibility as their meetings are nothing more than jamborees of corrupt dictators and semi-autocrats who have no respect for their own people.

Yes, there is the hypocrisy, unwillingness to relinquish its economic interests and sometimes naked desire for hegemonic control by some western powers, which means that the colonial masters never really left their colonies. We can blame these external forces as the cause of the continuing misery and poverty of ordinary people of the third world, but more than that, it is the leaders of the third world themselves on whom the responsibility rests. Long on rhetoric and short on ideas, not a few were autocratic, power crazed, corrupt and inept, readily accepting the role of proxies for the cold war warriors – even Sukarno, Nasser and the Algerian revolutionaries. They served as grave reminders of how power corrupts noble intentions and alienates those who wield it from their people if they don’t continually interrogate the whisperings of their egos.

Little wonder then that there was little to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Bandung. The new face of transnational terrorism born out of failed nation-building in the muslim world is perhaps the most potent symbol of its failure, and the raucous scenes of europeans begging on behalf of Africa’s poorest in Edinburgh or media flashes of young westerners of the “me” generation who think their pop music jamborees can end world poverty, its greatest humiliation. In this era of economic globalization whose currency is ruthlessness and greed, is a new vision possible to lift the world’s poor out of poverty and confer on them a human dignity long denied?

Dr. Mazeni Alwi