www.wansaiful.com

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2131471,00.html

Free speech is now the rallying cry of escalating tensions, but we can also use it to expose double standards on both sides

Karen Armstrong
Saturday July 21, 2007
The Guardian

In the 17th century, when some Iranian mullahs were trying to limit freedom of expression, Mulla Sadra, the great mystical philosopher of Isfahan, insisted that all Muslims were perfectly capable of thinking for themselves and that any religiosity based on intellectual repression and inquisitorial coercion was “polluted”. Mulla Sadra exerted a profound influence on generations of Iranians, but it is ironic that his most famous disciple was probably Ayatollah Khomeini, author of the fatwa against Salman Rushdie.

This type of contradiction is becoming increasingly frequent in our polarised world, as I discovered last month, when I arrived in Kuala Lumpur to find that the Malaysian government had banned three of my books as “incompatible with peace and social harmony”. This was surprising because the government had invited me to Malaysia, and sponsored two of my public lectures. Their position was absurd, because it is impossible to exert this type of censorship in the electronic age. In fact, my books seemed so popular in Malaysia that I found myself wondering if the veto was part of a Machiavellian plot to entice the public to read them.

Old habits die hard. In a pre-modern economy, insufficient resources meant freedom of speech was a luxury few governments could afford, since any project that required too much capital outlay was usually shelved. To encourage a critical habit of mind that habitually called existing institutions into question in the hope of reform could lead to a frustration that jeopardised social order. It is only 50 years since Malaysia achieved independence and, although the public and press campaign vigorously against censorship, in other circles the old caution is alive and well.

In the west, however, liberty of expression proved essential to the economy; it has become a sacred value in our secular world, regarded as so precious and crucial to our identity that it is non-negotiable. Modern society could not function without independent and innovative thought, which has come to symbolise the inviolable sanctity of the individual. But culture is always contested, and precisely because it is so central to modernity, free speech is embroiled in the bumpy process whereby groups at different stages of modernisation learn to accommodate one another.

It has also, as we have been reminded recently, become a rallying cry in the escalating tension between the Islamic world and the west. Muslim protests against Rushdie’s knighthood have recalled the painful controversy of The Satanic Verses, and last week four British Muslims were sentenced to a total of 22 years in prison for inciting hatred while demonstrating against the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

It would, however, be a mistake to imagine that Muslims are irretrievably opposed to free speech. Gallup conducted a poll in 10 Muslim countries (including Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) and found that the vast majority of respondents admired western “liberty and freedom and being open-minded with each other”. They were particularly enthusiastic about our unrestricted press, liberty of worship and freedom of assembly. The only western achievement that they respected more than our political liberty was our modern technology.

Then why the book burnings and fatwas? In the past Islamic governments were as prone to intellectual coercion as any pre-modern rulers, but when Muslims were powerful and felt confident they were able to take criticism in their stride. But media and literary assaults have become more problematic at a time of extreme political vulnerability in the Islamic world, and to an alienated minority they seem inseparable from Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay and the unfolding tragedy of Iraq.

On both sides, however, there are double standards and the kind of contradiction evident in Khomeini’s violation of the essential principles of his mentor, Mulla Sadra. For Muslims to protest against the Danish cartoonists’ depiction of the prophet as a terrorist, while carrying placards that threatened another 7/7 atrocity on London, represented a nihilistic failure of integrity.

But equally the cartoonists and their publishers, who seemed impervious to Muslim sensibilities, failed to live up to their own liberal values, since the principle of free speech implies respect for the opinions of others. Islamophobia should be as unacceptable as any other form of prejudice. When 255,000 members of the so-called “Christian community” signed a petition to prevent the building of a large mosque in Abbey Mills, east London, they sent a grim message to the Muslim world: western freedom of worship did not, apparently, apply to Islam. There were similar protests by some in the Jewish community, who, as Seth Freedman pointed out in his Commentisfree piece, should be the first to protest against discrimination.

Gallup found there was as yet no blind hatred of the west in Muslim countries; only 8% of respondents condoned the 9/11 atrocities. But this could change if the extremists persuade the young that the west is bent on the destruction of their religion. When Gallup asked what the west could do to improve relations, most Muslims replied unhesitatingly that western countries must show greater respect for Islam, placing this ahead of economic aid and non-interference in their domestic affairs. Our inability to tolerate Islam not only contradicts our western values; it could also become a major security risk.

Perdagangan bukan perkara asing bagi rakyat Malaysia. Para petani dan penoreh getah di kampung-kampung semuanya menjual hasil titik peluh mereka. Tidak sedikit juga yang membuka kedai makan atau kedai runcit di merata-rata tempat. Ada juga yang menjalankan perniagaan yang lebih besar seperti membuka pasaraya, atau mengurus korporat multinasional.  

Bagi umat Islam, perdagangan bukan perkara asing. Rasulullah (saw) dan Saidatina Khadijah (r.a) merupakan ahli perdagangan yang berjaya. Rasulullah s.a.w dikatakan pernah menyebut bahawa “sembilan per sepuluh punca rezeki adalah daripada perniagaan”.  

Apabila negara kita berdagang dengan negara-negara lain, rakyat Malaysia secara keseluruhan mendapat faedah. Barang-barang elektronik yang diimport daripada China adalah lebih murah dan membolehkan rakyat membeli pelbagai jenis alatan yang menambahbaik kualiti kehidupan. Apabila pasaran ekonomi kita dibuka, maka faedah yang diterima oleh rakyat juga bertambah. 

Usaha kerajaan mengadakan perjanjian perdagangan bebas bilateral dengan Amerika Syarikat dan negara-negara lain adalah satu usaha yang boleh membawa kebaikan kepada rakyat yang miskin atau kaya.

Secara umumnya, liberalisasi pasaran samada secara multilateral, bilateral ataupun unilateral adalah satu perkara yang baik.  Tetapi, golongan sosialis dan lain-lain golongan yang berkepentingan pasti akan membantah liberalisasi pasaran. Mereka menakut-nakutkan rakyat dengan menuduh bahawa perjanjian perdagangan bebas akan membawa impak negatif kepada negara.  

Golongan sosialis mahukan ekonomi negara dikawal oleh puak-puak tertentu. Mereka tidak mahu wujud persaingan kerana persaingan akan mereka kehilangan pengaruh. Mereka hanya mementingkan kantung golongan tertentu sahaja dan tidak memikirkan faedah yang lebih luas yang akan diterima oleh rakyat jika pasaran kita dibuka. Mereka mendesak kerajaan melindungi industri mereka walaupun barangan yang mereka keluarkan lebih mahal dan kurang bermutu.

Jika kerajaan terus melindungi mereka ini, maka yang akan menanggung bahana ialah para petani, penoreh getah, golongan berpendapatan rendah dan rakyat terbanyak. Kita akan terus menerus terpaksa membayar harga mahal untuk barang-barang yang rendah kualitinya. Inilah kezaliman sosialisme! 

Pembukaan pasaran kita akan memperhebat persaingan dalam negara, menurunkan harga barang keperluan, membawa masuk lebih banyak pelaburan antarabangsa, dan mencipta pelbagai peluang pekerjaan. Semua ini baik untuk rakyat.  

Malaysia Think Tank London baru-baru ini mengeluarkan satu laporan bertajuk “Menghapuskan Sekatan Perdagangan: satu tuntutan moral”. Laporan ini ditulis oleh Professor Julian Morris, pengarah eksekutif International Policy Network yang berpusat di London. Laporan tersebut menyatakan bahawa sekatan perdagangan adalah salah dari segi moral.  

Menurut Professor Morris, penghapusan sekatan perdagangan membawa potensi pembangunan ekonomi negara yang pesat. Golongan miskin akan mendapat faedah besar daripada liberalisasi ekonomi kerana harga barang-barang akan turun dan kuasa membeli juga akan meningkat. Peningkatan ekonomi negara akan mempelbagai peluang pekerjaan dan perniagaan. Hasilnya, kita semua akan menikmati kualiti kehidupan yang lebih baik.  

Menurut Professor Morris, “Perdagangan bebas membebaskan manusia. Perdagangan bebas membolehkan rakyat secara keseluruhan menambahbaik kualiti kehidupan mereka. Perdagangan bebas boleh membantu membasmi kemiskinan” 

Ulama Islam juga tidak menggalakkan kawalan ekonomi. Ibn Khaldun mengatakan bahawa “aktiviti perniagaan yang dijalankan oleh kerajaan adalah merbahaya kepada rakyat dan boleh merosakkan pendapatan dan pentadbiran kewangan negara”.  

Ibn Khaldun menjelaskan bahawa jika pihak-pihak tertentu menguasai ekonomi, maka akan wujud monopoli yang akhirnya memaksa rakyat membayar harga yang tinggi. Situasi sebegini membebankan rakyat. 

Jika rakyat Malaysia benar-benar mahu mengamalkan sistem ekonomi yang baik, maka langkah pertama ialah memastikan sistem pasaran bebas kembali diletakkan ke tempatnya. Usaha kerajaan kita untuk menghapuskan sekatan perdagangan, baik secara multilateral, bilateral ataupun unilateral, perlu disokong selagi mana ia dijalankan dengan telus. 

Menghapuskan sekatan perdagangan merupakan satu kewajipan atas kepada semua manusia tanpa mengira agama atau bangsa. 

Liberalisasi ekonomi akan merangsang inovasi dalam pelbagai sektor, mempertingkat produktiviti, seterusnya memacu perkembangan ekonomi negara ke arah menjadikan Malaysia sebuah negara yang gemilang.

See also malaysiakini report here.

Trade and business are not alien to Malaysia. Our farmers and rubber tappers all sell the products of their efforts to consumers. Many run retail shops, foodstalls, or restaurants. Some ventured into bigger ventures like supermarkets or multinational businesses.

Trade is also customary among Muslims. Prophet Muhammad and his wife, Khadijah, were both successful entrepreneurs. The Prophet was claimed to have said “trade is nine tenth of sustenance (income)”.

When nations like Malaysia trade with other countries, Malaysian as a whole benefit. Cheap electrical equipments from China allow improvement in our quality of life. If our economy are opened up, everyone, rich and poor, would benefit.

Our government’s trade negotiations with various countries are a good step forward, as long as they are done in transparent manner. The ongoing free trade negotiations with America must be welcomed by all. In fact, trade liberalisation is generally good - be it multilateral, bilateral or even unilateral.

Socialists and some other parties with vested interests would obviously campaign against what our Ministry of International Trade is doing. Typically, their scare-mongering tactics would include telling the people that FTAs bring destruction to our economy.

Socialists and vested interests want our nation’s economy to be controlled by certain quarters only. They abhor competition for they fear being weeded out. They reject the open market as they fear losing control.

By opposing competition, they seek to guarantee only their own sustenance, and deny the public like you and me the benefits of free markets. They campaign for the protection of certain ineficient sectors despite the fact that these sectors maybe producing expensive yet inferior goods. If the government succumbs to their campaign, the victims would be farmers, rubber-tappers, villagers, and those with low household income.

Simply put, the vast majority of Malaysians would be victims of continued protectionism. We would have to continue paying higher prices for inferior products and services. This is socialistic oppression! The reality is, opening up our economy would drive up competition, improve productivity and lower prices. Foreign investment would increase and so will job opportunities. All these are good.

In a report “Penghapusan Sekatan Perdagangan: satu tuntutan moral” published by Malaysia Think Tank London in January 2007, the author professor Julian Morris explains that removing trade barriers brings significant potential for economic development. The poor would particularly benefit from economic liberalisation as the prices of household items would be reduced and their purchasing power would increase. Our economy and national productivity would grow tremendously and we will have more new jobs and new industries.

The outcome of liberalisation is for all of Malaysians to enjoy.

Towering figures like Ibn Khaldun and Friedrich Hayek has argued that the market should be left free from unnecessary interference. Economic control brings the possibility of monopoly by certain groups, which ultimately victimises the people at large.

In controlled economies, the people cannot exercise choice. They are forced to accept whatever high price charged by the monopolies. This is clearly unacceptable.

If we truly want to help improve our national economy, then we should support multilateral, bilateral, or unilateral efforts to liberalise our economy so long as it is done tranparently. This is a moral imperative for everyone, regardless of race and religion.

As Professor Morris said in the report published by Malaysia Think Tank London, “Free trade frees people. It enables all to improve their lives and has the potential to eliminate poverty.”

(Freely adapted from an original article by Dr Imad Ahmad, Minaret of Freedom Institute)

Muqaddimah

Perniagaan bukan perkara asing bagi umat Islam. Rasulullah (saw) dan Saidatina Khadijah (r.a) merupakan ahli perniagaan yang berjaya dalam pasaran bebas pada masa itu. Kitab suci Al-Quran juga penuh dengan pelbagai ayat yang menyentuh hal ehwal pernaiagaan. Malahan, jika kita teliti sejarah perkembangan Islam, kita pasti mengakui peranan penting yang dimainkan oleh ahli perniagaan dalam menyebarkan Islam ke seluruh pelusuk bumi. Islam sampai ke Tanah Melayu melalui ahli perniagaan yang bergerak dalam pasaran bebas dunia, bukan melalui bala tentera.   Malangnya, hubungan intim antara Islam dan pasaran bebas tidak begitu dihargai oleh dunia, termasuklah oleh umat Islam di Malaysia.  

 Usaha mengawal pasaran

Di awal kurun ke-20, hubungan rapat beberapa negara Arab dengan Soviet Union menyebabkan sistem sosialisme mula meresapi Timur Tengah. Sehingga hari ini, masih banyak lagi negara Arab yang mewarisi sisa-sisa sistem eknomi sosialisme yang mana kerajaan menguasai dan mengawal pergerakan ekonomi negara tersebut. Perkembangan pemikiran sosialis di negara-negara Arab akhirnya merosakkan sistem pasaran terbuka yang diwarisi masyarakat Arab sejak zaman Rasulullah (saw) lagi.  

 Bagaimanapun, sejak beberapa tahun kebelakangan ini, kita melihat betapa negara-negara umat Islam mula menunjukkan rasa tidak selesa terhadap sistem ekonomi sosialisme. Beberapa negara umat Islam, termasuklah Malaysia, telah kembali kepada sistem pasaran yang lebih terbuka dan berdaya-saing.  

 Malangnya, masih terdapat beberapa kelompok di kalangan umat Islam yang menentang sistem pasaran yang lebih terbuka.  

 Ada kelompok umat Islam yang masih pekat dengan fahaman sosialisme. Mereka ini mengatakan bahawa kita tidak boleh memiliki harta peribadi kerana apa-apa harta yang kita miliki mestilah di kongsi dengan rakyat secara keseluruhan. Dalam bahawa Inggeris, mereka ini digelar sebagai “economic egalitarians”. Fahaman pro-sosialis mereka menyebabkan mereka lebih selesa jika rakyat dan syarikat dikenakan cukai yang tinggi agar harta boleh dibahagi-bahagikan, termasuklah kepada mereka yang tidak bekerja.    

 Kelompok kedua pula meyakini bahawa untuk membangun, semua hal ehwal dalam sesebuah negara mestilah dikawal oleh kerajaan (autoritarianisme). Mereka ini berpegang dengan pandangan bahawa menteri-menteri adalah orang bijak pandai yang pakar dalam mengawal ekonomi negara. Oleh itu, aktiviti ekonomi mestilah dikawal sepenuhnya oleh kerajaan melalui proksi-proksi tertentu. 

 Kelompok ketiga pula menentang sistem pasaran kerana mereka tidak suka kepada kesenangan dan kemewahan. Bagi mereka, harta hanya menjauhkan kita daripada agama. Sebaliknya, mereka mahu hidup dalam dunia tersendiri dan tidak mencampuri urusan mencari pendapatan untuk hidup selesa (asetikisme).  

 Ketiga-tiga kelompok di atas mempunyai persamaan yang ketara. Mereka semuanya mengatakan bahawa harta atau kekayaan adalah sesuatu yang tidak baik untuk dimiliki oleh individu. Sebaliknya, pendapatan rakyat mesti dijadikan milik negara, contohnya melalui cukai yang tinggi, dan harta tersebut akan dikawal atau diuruskan oleh negara demi menjaga kebajikan semua rakyat. 

Semua fahaman ini sebenarnya tidak selari dengan sistem Islam yang mahukan setiap individu Muslim berusaha dan bekerja, mengumpul harta daripada pekerjaan yang halal, dan kemudian melakukan sebanyak mungkin amal jariah secara sukarela. Dalam sistem Islam, penekanan yang tinggi diberikan kepada setiap individu Muslim untuk membantu menjaga kebajikan jiran tetangga dan rakyat keseluruhan, bukan mencari helah dengan mengatakan bahawa itu adalah tanggungjawab kerajaan.

(To be continued, but most probably on a different platform)

In Malaysia, non-Muslims are not allowed to preach religion to Muslims. Non-Muslims, like Christian missionaries, for example, who try to proselytize risk prosecution.

But it is difficult to categorically say that it is illegal for Muslims to convert. There are many cases where Muslims wanted to register their conversion to another religion but were prevented from doing so for various technical reasons. As far as I know, the precedent so far is that you can change religion, but you cannot officially register that conversion with the National Registration Office.

In other words, as long as you keep quiet, you’ll be ok.

Many Muslims defend the criminalization of missionary works on Muslims by arguing that the sanctity of Islam must be protected, and that this protection is granted by law. To me, this argument is flawed.

Firstly, how can you defend the sanctity of Islam by curbing the right of non-Muslims to spread their religion? Only the weak protect themselves by limiting the liberty of others. As an exalted way of life, surely Islam is stronger than that. Curbing the freedom of non-Muslims serves only to display the weakness of Muslims than anything else.

Secondly, if a non-Muslim government, say in Singapore or America, made it illegal for Muslims to spread the message of Islam to non-Muslims, will Muslims accept that? I suspect many Muslims will start shouting about human rights, freedom of speech, etc. But we in Malaysia are doing exactly that to the non-Muslims. Why the double-standard?

Thirdly, protecting a religion by legislation implies that the religion cannot stand to protect its own sanctity. It is as if we are saying Islam cannot be saved unless there is a law protecting it. Surely Islam can stand well above the test of reasoning.

Fourthly, Malaysian constitution states that while Islam is the official religion of the country, those of other religions have full right to practise their beliefs. What about those who believes that their religion encourages them to undertake missionary works, like Christian missionaries? Legislating against missionary works by adherents of these religions is the equivalent of preventing them from fully practising their religion. This is against the constitution, and, most probably is against Islam too.

Fifthly, I cannot understand the current law. How is it acceptable that we make it illegal for non-Muslims to do missionary work, but there is nothing in the law about Muslims changing religion so long as they do not seek official registration of their conversion? This is clearly upside-down - Islam is ‘protected’ by encroaching into others’ religion and by limiting non-Muslims’ freedom and liberty.

In short, I cannot see how we can justify continuing the ban on missionary works while continuing to support Islamic da’wah and the associated organizations. This is a clear double standard to those who are citizens of the same country. Politicians from all parties must recognize that Muslims and non-Muslims alike are citizens of Malaysia. As citizens, we all must enjoy the same rights and shoulder the same responsibilities. There must be no double standards.

I have been asking many people about this matter and the best they can come out with is the standard argument that the sanctity of Islam must be protected and one way of doing so is by maintaining the ban. Obviously I am most unhappy with this answer as it avoids providing any real answer at all.

But that was until I read a few books written by Abul A’la al-Maududi which discuss this issue. There are at least three relevant books by him that touch on this issue but the best summary of his opinion is perhaps a quote from his booklet entitled “Human Rights in Islam” (Islamic Foundation, 1976).

In the first chapter “The political framework of Islam” (this chapter is not available in some online versions of the book), Maududi stated:

“The Islamic state may not interfere with the personal rights of non-Muslims, who have full freedom of conscience and belief and are at liberty to perform their religious rites and ceremonies in their own way. Not only may they propagate their religion, they are even entitled to criticize Islam within the limits laid down by law and decency”.

That to me is a very bold statement. It shows confidence. As long as the law and common decency norms are respected, non-Muslims have full rights to propagate their religion.

Perhaps a law can be drafted in-line with the spirit of the British incitement of religious hatred bill in which it is wrong for people of all religion to incite religious hatred but it is not wrong to debate religion in a civilised way or to proselytize.

As for us Muslims, the way forward is not by curbing non-Muslims’ rights to propagate their religion. But it is by strengthening the aqidah of Muslims through rigorous education. Islam has its own way of preventing riddah. There is a specific clause in the syari’ah that tells us how to deal with riddah. That clause certainly does not include curbing the rights of non-Muslims.

I want to end by challenging the leaders of PAS. Do not just go half-way by inviting non-Muslims to be members of the party. Take the whole full step. Let them practice their religion to the full.

I want to see a PAS that represents Malaysia as a whole, not just a sectarian party representing the narrow interests of a group of Malaysians.

I want to see a PAS that portrays Islam as a blessing to all mankind, not as a religion that limits the freedom of non-Muslims.

I want to see a PAS that is serious about treating all Malaysians as equals, not just shouting rhetorics about wanting non-Muslims to become party-members but at the same time continue to curtail their right to preach their faiths.

I want to see a PAS that is confident in the ability of Islam to withstand criticism, not one that hides behind the shield of restrictive legislations.

Thus, if PAS truly want to represent the voice and the ideals of ALL Malaysians, and if PAS is not fighting just for the narrow interest of a small section of the Malaysian community, then PAS must lead the campaign to ensure every religious person in Malaysia, Muslims and non-Muslims, can fully practise their religion. PAS must be consistent even if it means allowing non-Muslims to preach to Muslims, and abolishing the ban on missionary works.

Protecting the Muslims’ aqidah must be done through education. If legislations are necessary, then it must only be for Muslims. Islam certainly should not be “protected” by treating non-Muslims as second class citizens and limiting their entitlements. In the words of Maududi, “Not only may they (non-Muslims) propagate their religion, they are even entitled to criticize Islam within the limits laid down by law and decency”

———————

NB (13 June 1006): This article has been published in Malaysiakini (click here) and some related comments have been posted in my previous blog here (don't ask me why). 

The article was also quoted by Teng Chang Khim  and responded to by a Malaysiakini reader.

A Malay language version is available here.

I also received several comments via email and sms. Some of the comments are very encouraging, while a few are too "violent" to share publicly.

(16 June 2006): I just remembered that I made a statement about riddah which was published in Malaysian newspapers. I think it was back in January 1998, and can be read here and here. I no longer have the original statement.

The Ethics in the Workplace seminar organised by IBE on 24 October 2005 with David Logan was excellent. I have heard a lot about IBE as well as about David Logan, and the seminar confirmed my belief that both are doing some very important work in promoting ethical business practices.

Having listened to David and others at the seminar, three things came to my mind.

Firstly, I am rather perplexed to hear the suggestion that religion generally is sceptical of business. I have always thought that religion in general advocates the right – or even the necessity – of man to work and to rid himself of hardship and poverty. For example, both Islam and Protestant Work Ethics promote hard work and discourage dependence on help from others. I am sure if we go through the basic tenets of other religions we will find teachings in similar spirit.

Secondly, the observation that Islam is very accepting of business is certainly true. The Prophet Muhammad himself was involved in trade and his first wife was also a very successful businesswoman. While many call Adam Smith the father of economics, I would suggest we read texts by Ibn Khaldun, a great Muslim sociologist and economist, who advocated free-market economics 300 years before Smith.

If we look at the works of Ibn Khaldun, we will discover that Islam embeds ethics as an integral part of the economic system. In Islam, businesses too must flourish if the nation’s economy were to grow. But at the same time, businesses have to be ethical, for otherwise the managers will face the consequence. And even if they escape “worldly” consequences of unethical business practices, they will definitely not be able to avoid Allah’s judgement in the hereafter. Thus, in Islam, even in the absence of pressure groups or NGOs promoting ethical business practices, businesses must still be socially responsible because God is the ultimate advocate of CSR!

In contrast to Smith’s assertion that CSR is an unintentional by-product of self-interested quests, Islam makes no distinction between CSR and profitability. Both are important and neither can be put above the other.

And in contrast to Adam Smith, Ibn Khaldun did not just advocate free-market economics. He outlined the basic principles of ethical free-market economics.

Thirdly is the issue of imperialism. I believe the constant repetition of issues like emancipation of women is influenced by how we look at imperialism. In the seminar, someone mentioned that capitalists have changed their attitude - capitalists no longer have anything to do with imperialistic agenda. I too believe that physical / political imperialism is not a motivating factor for capitalists nowadays.

Nevertheless, when discussing imperialism, many Muslims do not talk just about political / physical occupation. But they worry about ethical imperialism. An imperialism in which an external power – be it a foreign government or a foreign multinational - forces an alien set of values onto the Muslim society.

I think the refusal to accept foreign values is not unique to the Muslim world. Let me illustrate by using the example of dress-code. In Islam, women should cover themselves from head to toe, exposing only the face and palms. This is interpreted differently across culture – there are variations between women’s attire in Malaysia and in Iran, for example.

If a multinational from the UK opens a branch in Jeddah, should they say that Muslim women should do away with the hijab under the guise of women emancipation? Or should they respect the local culture and encourage women to abide by their religious belief?

Just imagine the reverse. Here in the UK, women wear differently from in Saudi Arabia. What would we say if a multinational from Jeddah opens a branch in London and starts telling all female staff regardless of their religion to put on the hijab? If a western company can impose their beliefs onto a society in a different country, how will we react if companies from that country start imposing their values onto the western society? Surely even we in the West will reject ethical imperialism.

When going into a society with a totally different set of values, multinationals should respect the cultural differences. Yes, there are some values that are universal like integrity, honesty and social responsibility. But in everything else, universality of values is questionable. The answer lies in ethical relativism, not ethical imperialism.

.

I met Robert Davies, CEO of the Prince of Wales International Business Leaders Forum (IBLF), towards the end of July this year. Visibly tired from what must have been a long day, his face gleamed with enthusiasm when I asked him to tell me about the Tsunami Taskforce he is sending to India, Sri Lanka and Thailand in end August 2005.

IBLF is an international educational charity founded by HRH The Prince of Wales. Originally established in 1990, its aim is to encourage businesses to become socially responsible particularly in new and emerging market economies. As an active network of businesses, its list of members and supporters is impressive. Among its members are global industry leaders like Accenture, the management and technology consulting firm; GlaxoSmithKline, the world leader in pharmaceutical industry; Vodafone, the world largest mobile telecommunication company; and Toyota Motor Corporation, the third largest auto-manufacturer in the world.

As members of IBLF, all these companies made a commitment to continuously improve their business practice by enhancing dialogue with stakeholders and by making corporate social responsibility a strategic part of their worldwide operations. IBLF works by directing the attention of companies to what they can do to build social progress, and by facilitating cross-sector partnerships between businesses, the public and NGOs.

In response to the disaster of the tsunami, IBLF immediately engaged with its corporate members to assess and identify how to react. IBLF's members initially committed over USD$40 million in aid for the region, as well as provided support for various relief efforts including provision of clean water, food distribution and medical assistance.

Later, the IBLF published a management action brief outlining what businesses and their managers can do in the longer-term. The brief describes a three-phase framework of rescue, relief and recovery for responding to disasters. The brief argues that in the recovery phase, the question of sustaining long-term livelihoods will overtake many other needs and businesses have an important role to play. The local coastal economies will not be revived if business leaders do not take proactive actions, engage with relevant parties and work together to augment the recovery and rehabilitation of local communities.

This is where the IBLF Tsunami Taskforce comes into action. Consisting of managers from various business interests, the taskforce will visit some of the areas struck by the tsunami. The good thing about this taskforce is, it will consist of business executives with different expertise, thus enabling them to look at the situation from a variety of perspectives. Their aim is to produce a report targeted at board-level audience to explain what roles businesses can play to ensure sustainable social and economic redevelopment of the region.

India, Sri Lanka and Thailand are fortunate because they are receiving the attention of such an international coalition of businesses. But I wonder what is happening to the victims of the tsunami in Malaysia. Yes, they may now have accommodation. Their children may be able to go to school. Some may have even gone back to the sea as fishermen. Perhaps life is returning back to normal. But is it really possible for their lives to be normal again after such disaster?

Has any of the Malaysian businesses stepped in to exercise their corporate social responsibility?

In Malaysia, it is illegal for non-Muslims to preach religion to Muslims. Non-Muslims, like Christian missionaries, who try to proselytize risk prosecution.

But it is difficult to categorically say that it is illegal for Muslims to convert. There are many cases where Muslims wanted to register their conversion to another religion but were prevented from doing so for various technical reasons. As far as I know, the precedent so far is that you can change religion, but you cannot officially register that conversion with the National Registration Office.

Many Muslims defend the criminalization of missionary works on Muslims by arguing that the sanctity of Islam must be protected, and this protection is granted by law.

To me, this argument is flawed.

Firstly, how can you defend the sanctity of Islam by curbing the right of non-Muslims to spread their religion?

Secondly, if a non-Muslim government, say in Singapore or America, make it illegal for Muslims to spread the message of Islam to non-Muslims, will Muslims accept that? I suspect many Muslims will styart shouting about human rights etc. But we in Malaysia are doing exactly that to the non-Muslims.

Thirdly, protecting a religion by legislation implies that the religion cannot stand to protect its own sanctity. It is as if we are saying Islam cannot be saved unless there is a law protecting it. Surely Islam can stand well above the test of reasoning.

Fourthly, Malaysian constitution states that while Islam is the official religion of the country, those of other religion have full rights to practise their beliefs. What about those religions that encourage their believers to undertake missionary works? By legislating against non-Islamic missionary, we are preventing them from fully practising their religion, which is actually against the constitution.

Fifthly, I cannot understand the current law. How is it acceptable that we make it illegal for non-Muslims to do missionary work, but there is nothing in the law about Muslims changing religion so long as they do not seek offical registration of their conversion? This is clearly upside-down - the protection of Islam is granted by encroaching into other religions and limiting their freedom and liberty. Surely the correct way is by legislating against riddah, which is confined only within Islam, while allowing missionaries to attempt to spread their beliefs.

In short, I cannot see how we can justify continuing the ban on missionary works while the national government continue to support Islamic da’wah organizations. This is clear double standard to those who are citizens of the same country.

I have been asking many people about this matter and all they can come out with is the standard argument that the sanctity of Islam must be protected and one way of doing so is by maintaining the ban.

That was until I read a few books written by Abul A’la al-Maududi which discuss this issue. There are at least three relevant books by him but the best summary of his opinion is perhaps a quote from his booklet entitled “Human Rights in Islam” (Islamic Foundation, 1976). In the first chapter on “The political framework of Islam” (this chapter is not available in some online versions of the book), Maududi stated:

“The Islamic state may not interfere with the personal rights of non-Muslims, who have full freedom of conscience and belief and are at liberty to perform their religious rites and ceremonies in their own way. Not only may they propagate their religion, they are even entitled to criticize Islam within the limits laid down by law and decency” (emphasis added).

That to me is a very bold statement. As long as the law and common decency norms are respected, non-Muslims have full rights to propagate their religion. Perhaps a law can be drafted in-line with the spirit of the incitement of religious hatred bill proposed in the United Kingdom - it is wrong for people of all religion to incite religious hatred. But definitely not to an extent that non-Muslims are banned from propagating their beliefs.

As for us Muslims, the way forward is not by curbing non-Muslims’ rights to propagate their religion. But it is by strengthening the aqidah of Muslims through rigorous education. Islam has its own way of preventing riddah. There is a specific clause in the syari’ah that tells us how to deal with riddah. That clause certainly does not include curbing the rights of non-Muslims.

It is interesting to read the debates taking place at Bob, Rajan and Shin, with Menj joining in to add more heat.

When Bob asked the question “NEP for whom?” another blogger replied by saying that PAS would probably introduce an “Islamic Economic Policy” if they were to win. This sparked a debate that became more wide-ranging, eventually ending up with a competition of who hates PAS the most.

Shin was rather childish in her comments on the topic – constantly using the acronym PIS when referring to PAS. Her comment “we cannot blame the PIS members you see, because had they been able to think, they wouldn’t have been in PIS in the first place” is condescending. Denigrating the syariah, too, is not a way forward. She should realize that there are many people out there who are progressive but still believe in syariah. As a Muslim, it is my democratic right to want the syariah, and if we were to work together, appreciation of others is a must.

In any case, the problem in debates like this is the fact that no one is willing to critically look at themselves and ask if it is themselves who are actually the problem. How will it be possible for Keadilan, PAS, DAP and other opposition parties to unite if their members are constantly bickering against each other?

As a PAS member, I should be asking myself, what should I do to make PAS more accommodative to others in opposition. I expect those from Keadilan and DAP to do the same. Surely that is much better than a Keadilan member denigrating DAP, a PAS member slandering Keadilan, or a DAP member belittling PAS. How much longer are we going to point fingers at others, forgetting that it is us that may be the problem?

I would argue that everybody has to change their attitude if they want to form a strong coalition – and a coalition is a must if we were to defeat BN, itself a coalition of many parties.

PAS must change its attitude and realize that it is no longer enough to just initiate a relationship. They must work to maintain and strengthen that relationship too. While working in a coalition, PAS cannot unilaterally produce policy statements if they know others will not agree. Publication of the Islamic State document was a mistake and steps must be taken to mend the damage.

DAP should realize that the majority of the Malays still see it as a chauvinistic Chinese party. And, just like PAS should be careful when using the term Islamic when labelling its policies, DAP too should think twice about using the word “socialist”. Despite my commitment to PAS, I also believe DAP has proposed some excellent policies. I have no problems with elements of socialism, Malaysian Malaysia, etc. But the vast majority of Malaysians have a negative impression of these various concepts. Just like PAS, DAP too must tread carefully.

Keadilan is a relatively new party that relies almost absolutely on DSAI. Until today it has not been able to categorically state what it stands for. Imagine if DSAI were to die tomorrow. Both PAS and DAP will definitely survive death of a major leader (or leaders) because they both have a strong enough ideological base. But will Keadilan survive? If we were to take things a bit further, imagine if both DSAI and Wan Azizah were to die tomorrow. Can you imagine what would happen to Keadilan? Who will take over the presidency? Unfortunately many still see Keadilan as an “Anwar’s party” rather than a force by itself.

We as members must remember that the leaders of our parties have a duty to represent our views. If we continue with the negative views of each other, we cannot blame party leaders if they merely reflect the situation on the groud. After all, each party has a specific audience to entertain and to keep happy. If we in the audience continue to foster negativities, we cannot blame party leaders if efforts to strenghen the BA falter. It is not totally their fault. We have to look at ourselves too.

Once the opposition parties, especially Keadilan, are able to properly articulate their main principles, it is important for them to sit down and thrash things out. We cannot expect things to be resolved within one or two years. In the mean time, we as politically conscious citizens should work to reduce the tension, not add to it. We have to ensure we do not create issues that may divide BA further.

Not so long ago, there were talks about enhancing federalism in Malaysia. This is one viable option for BA. The states should be allowed to legislate according to the wishes of its own citizens. BA components should then produce one national manifesto plus more specific state manifestos. Prior to that, there must be a comprehensive study on what the people really want. If it can be statistically proven that the majority of people on a particular state do not want syariah, then the state manifesto should clearly state that BA will not force the syariah upon the people. But if support for syariah can be proven, then BA component parties should work together to give the people what they want.

At the national level, I don’ think it is prudent to campaign for a national implementation of syariah.

I suppose the term Islamic State (Negeri Islam) is the right phrase to use. Not Negara Islam (Islamic Country).