Categories
Society

[2180] Of sneaky Hadi wants to sneak in Allah

Abdul Hadi Awang saw it and he capitalized on it. Given how the Islamic party he is in positions itself in the Allah controversy, he took the next step and suggested that the first principle of the Rukunegara[0] be changed from belief in god to belief in Allah.[1] If Allah is a generic term for god and god is the generic term for Allah, then they are equivalents, right?

Except, that I take the change as more insidious in nature. Not that the Rukunegara is the law of the land — hence its importance is debatable — but execution of that suggestion is problematic for future discourse on the status of Islam in Malaysia.

Equalizing god and Allah is really a double-edged sword. On one hand, it appeals to unity, at least among the Abrahamic religions especially after the divisive Allah controversy. On the other hand, quite sneakily, it offers greater ammunition for Islamists in future debates regarding secularism and the Malaysian state. I can imagine how later down the line some Islamists would support their arguments by citing the Rukunegara while conveniently forgetting that context which that suggestion was made.

I am not impressed by that suggestion. Even if the word god and Allah refer to the same concept, it is far easier to stick with the status quo rather than wade through the controversy that the change might ignite. Besides, not everybody subscribes to the argument that god and Allah refers to the same idea. I have not heard of Hindus, for instance, referring to their gods as Allah, never mind that the concept of monotheism does not appeal to Hinduism.

Consider also the atheists and the agnostics. Where are they in the grand scheme of things, Mr. Hadi? Burnt at the stake?

I feel there are many Islamists out there who subscribe to the exclusivity of the word Allah to the Muslim community in Malaysia. There would not have been a controversy if these Islamists do not exist. If the word god in the Rukunegara is to be changed to Allah, I am sure they will take this in some way as an Islamization of Malaysia. They will see it as a good move. I also will consider it as an act of Islamizing Malaysia. Unlike the Islamists however, I will be compelled to protest loudly.

As a secularist myself, I am not at all enamored by the first principle of the Rukunegara. I plainly dismiss it but I realize that raising objection to it is really a worthless exercise. Really, it is quite petty. But if Mr. Hadi wants to start a public discourse on the matter, let it be known that my default position is the abolition of the first principle.

And I think, I am not alone.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[0] — See Rukunegara at Wikipedia. Assessed March 22 2010.

[1] — KUALA LUMPUR, March 22 (Bernama) — Pas president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang on Monday suggested that the first Rukun Negara be amended as the word Allah was widely used by non-Muslims.

“I call on the government to amend the first Rukun Negara from belief in God to belief in Allah,” he said during the debate on the motion of thanks on the Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s speech, in the Dewan Rakyat.

Abdul Hadi said the Al-Quran did not bar followers of other religions from using the word Allah. [Hadi Awang Suggests That First Rukun Negara Be Amended. Bernama. March 22 2010]

Categories
Liberty Society

[2144] Of libertarian position on the Allah controversy

I have nothing clever to say with respect to the controversy involving the usage of the term Allah by Christians in Malaysia (specifically, Catholic Christians I suppose) and objection raised by considerable number of Muslims there.[1] What I have to say is just some plain old consequences arising from my libertarian position. I think I have somewhat clarified my position while trying to explain, what I think is why some more conservative Muslims in Malaysia object to the use of the term Allah by Christians in Malaysia.

In any case, I am going to explain my position.

From the principle of freedom, specifically religious freedom and more broadly, freedom of expression, there is no reason for me to be alarmed by the recent court decision to allow Christians to use the term Allah to refer to their god in Malaysia. For any group to claim exclusive right over an idea that cannot be, in a sense, privatized or perhaps — however ridiculous this may sound — trademarked, is problematic. I cannot quite find the right words to describe it but clearly, no individual liberty has been transgressed by this action taken by Christians. Meanwhile, to prevent Christians from doing so will violate their liberty, and therefore should be untenable for libertarians.

Furthermore, based on the concept of secularism, which I consider as an essential aspect of the libertarian concept of the state, the state should have no role in this at all. So, to me, the court decision is only right. If the court had ruled otherwise, it would call for government intervention in form of religious control in the society.

Not only that, that government intervention will expand the frontier of the state into private life of a person. Just imagine the kind of mechanism required to enforce a ruling that insists the term Allah belongs exclusively to Muslims and no one else in Malaysia. Well, actually, you do not have to imagine it. It is already in place.

Lastly, this conflict paints both Christianity and Islam in Malaysia in a bad light: those Christians who insist in using the term Allah when there are other alternatives and conservative Muslims for their schizophrenic attitude. It is true that the Christian insistence does not violate liberty but hey, a lot of things a lot of people say and do do not violate liberty either. Whether all those things are the smart things to do or say is another matter altogether, even within libertarian constraint.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — Dec. 31 (Bloomberg) — Malaysia’s High Court ruled that a government ban on non-Muslim publications using the word ”Allah” is unconstitutional, settling a dispute that stoked questions about religious freedom in the country.

The Herald, a weekly publication of the Catholic Church of Malaysia, filed for a judicial review after it was temporarily ordered to stop publishing for two weeks in December 2007 after using the word, which means ”God,” in its Malay-language section. [Malaysia Court Rules Catholic Paper Can Print ”˜Allah’. Manirajan Ramasamy. Ranjeetha Pakiam. Bloomberg. December 31 2009]

Categories
Liberty Society

[2108] Of a liberal separation between religion and state

An optimist may take the view that politics is unifying. A realist will understand that politics is divisive. It is possible that this realization is the reason why the Sultan of Selangor expressed his concern about the use of mosques for political purposes. For better or for worse, political activities in mosques are inevitable, if there is respect for freedom. Divisiveness is a symptom of difference in opinion and freedom of conscience. Any effort to eliminate such divide, in most cases, involves abolition of freedom. It is for this reason that I do not share his concern. Rather, I am more concerned with the roles of mosques in Malaysian society.

When I speak of mosques, I do not speak of them literally, buildings with calligraphy adorning minarets, walls or domes. I am referring to a more substantial issue that is relevant within the context of separation of mosque and state, or the separation of church and state, if you will. I am talking about the role of religion in state and, therefore, public space.

While this debate has been going on for a long time, the issue still suffers from misunderstanding of what the separation entails. For liberals, more than anything else, such separation exists to support freedom.

It is true that separation between religion and the state — call it secularism if you must — can exist on its own without the idea of liberty as a pillar, and subsequently, may be hostile to religion. This happened in the Soviet Union in the past, when the communist state was openly hostile to religion.

The Soviet Union perhaps went to the extreme by adopting an atheistic outlook for the state, creating a nightmare state for both liberal and religious individuals. But then again, Soviet Union was not secular state. It was not a state that was neutral of religion. It was a state that was anti-religion and that is not the definition of a secular state. Thus, perhaps Soviet Union is an inappropriate example of a secular state.

A more appropriate example is likely to be Turkey, where secularism is embedded with hostility to religion is observable. In the country, especially in the past and perhaps less so nowadays, the state regulated religions to cement its own influence in the society.

Those states were and still are jealous beings, as with any authoritarian state.

Such separation is abhorrent to the concept of liberty and it deserves no contemplation at all. Adoption of such illiberal separation here in Malaysia will only witness migration from one unacceptable tyranny where religions breathe down the neck of individuals to another woeful type of tyranny where religious freedom comes under relentless attacks. That should never be the purpose of a person upholding the principle of liberty.

The function of the state is the protection of individual rights. It is the protection of individuals from coercion and fraud. Any further function that the state adopts, in most cases and within our context with respect to freedom of conscience, is excessive. And, too much excessiveness lays down the path towards tyranny.

Just as the institution of separation of powers of the executive, the legislative and the judiciary arms exists as an effort to ward off tyranny, the separation between the state and religion should be instituted to ensure the two forces would have less success in conspiring against free individuals. To have the mosques function as moral police stations, as proposed by Hasan Ali in Selangor, is surely good enough proof to demonstrate how such conspiracy is more than a product of someone’s wild imagination.

The separation may begin by having the state to not wield power to enforce religions and its rules on individuals. Religious laws should only be applied on the willing. Given that the religious laws themselves do not contradict individual liberty, the state has no role in their enforcement.

An individual is a sovereign and he or she alone is the final determinant of his or her conscience within the constraint of the physical world. It is not the business of a state to determine the religious belief — or lack of it, or even any kind of belief — of a free individual. It is not the business of the state to sanction any lifestyle that any religion deems acceptable for an individual to adopt.

That separation also means that no religion should receive funding from the state. Or if it must, the state can provide only limited funding to religious institutions, as the state may provide to various advocacy groups or non-governmental organizations.

Truly, religious institutions should only survive through donations which individuals or the faithful are willing to provide. After all, religious belief is about sincere belief. It follows that any money or resources for religion should come from the heart, not through coercion.

This separation prevents religions from being manipulated by the state and prevents individuals from being subjected to laws of conscience without his or her consent.

In this environment, parallel to the spirit of freedom of conscience, individuals can practice and express their religious belief. The proviso is that they can do so only without forcing others to live by the same ideals. These religious individuals may persuade others of their alleged morally superior lifestyle in line with freedom of speech but coercion is simply out of the question.

If there is coercion in that respect, then the liberal state will be there to meet the illegitimate coercion with legitimate force.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

First published in The Malaysian Insider on November 3 2009

Categories
Books & printed materials History & heritage Liberty Society

[1939] Of a major revolution in secularism

I now understand a step in the history of evolution of secularism. Though I think it is ultimately irrelevant to why I subscribe to secularism, it nevertheless enlightening to see how the school of thought evolved.

Ethics is the work that provided the energy for a quantum leap in the area.

Public domain

Baruch Spinoza completed Ethics in 1676 and it was published posthumously in 1677.

Reading these giants makes me feels small. Not only do they make me realized that I am not the first to hold whatever I hold, they had given thought to many other things which I have yet to think of independently.

I am not reading Ethics in Latin of course. Rather, I am still reading The Courtier and the Heretic: Leibniz, Spinoza, and the Fate of God in the Modern World by Matthew Stewart.

It is through Stewart and later Wikipedia and other sources that I learned that Spinoza considered that God and Nature are two of the same entity. As a result, God is everywhere while bounded to the law of physics. God bows to the law of Nature. With that as the premise, he elegantly went on to create a system to explain how everything is a manifestation of God.

The implication is that unlike religion — in this context the Abrahamic religions, specifically, Christianity — which assumes that God is an active participant of this world, Spinoza’s God is removed and irrelevant to the workings of the world.

“In that event, what would be left for God to do?” Stewart wrote that in a different context but the same sentence is applicable to the implication of the idea that God is Nature.

I do not subscribe to Spinoza’s reasoning but how he arrived at the inevitable need to create a secular state is most ingenious. It nothing less than shocking to me when I began to comprehend the gravity of his ideas.

One may wonder why Spinoza considered God and Nature as one. I am still struggling to understand that at the moment.

Besides secularim, Spinoza holds an enlightening view on social contract. I believe, those that are all to eager to talk about the Malaysian social contract  — especially those who believe that a social contract is written in stone  — should give Spinoza a go.

Categories
Liberty Politics & government

[1639] Of an odd path to secularism

Activist monarchy runs contrary to organic politics and for that I am not too comfortable of having monarchs meddling in business of the state. Despite that, some actions by monarch may coincide with favorable consequences like giving new breath to federalism but the involvement of monarchs in politics remains an inorganic decision. The latest case of activist monarch revolves around the royal house of Perak over-ruling the decision of the Menteri Besar to remove the state religion department director.[1] While the down side of this episode is about having the monarchy institution in the picture, the bright side of the equation provides an opportunity for secularism.

Secularism, if its definition has to be clarified, aims to separate the state from religious beliefs and vice versa. A secular state is a state neutral of religious values. As further argument for secularism goes, religious belief is a personal matter and the best way to maintain it that way and protect religious freedom is to have a secular state.

The situation in Perak at the moment basically separates religion, or at least some part of it, from the purview of the executive branch of the government. If the Sultan has the ultimate say in religious matters, that would basically make the religious department answerable only to the Sultan while the executive is left with little influence in the matter. In the state of Perak where the monarchy takes a progressive political stance while the head of the executive is a member of an Islamist political party, I cannot help but maintain a slight inclination to stand with the monarch, even when I distrust him. In my opinion, from a certain point of view, this path may lead to secularism. In my opinion, this helps in preventing PAS from enlarging the role of religion in our society through coercion.

This perspective however assumes that the monarchy institution itself is not part of the state and that only the executive, judiciary and the legislative branches of government are considered as part of the state. The truth is, the monarchy together with the three branches are the institutions of the state.

In the purest sense of the word, we are still far away from secularism. Yet, this tussle between the Sultan and the Menteri Besar, especially when the executive is backing down,[2] creates an opportunity to advance secularism in the Malaysian society. It is an odd path but it is a path nonetheless.

But of course, there is no guarantee that the monarch himself has liberty in his mind. For all we know, the Sultan may only be interested in advancing the influence of the monarchy which has long waned.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — IPOH, May 2 (Bernama) — The Sultan of Perak, Sultan Azlan Shah, today ordered Perak Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin to immediately retract the 24-hour tranfer order issued to Perak Islamic Religious Department director Datuk Jamry Sury on Tuesday. [Sultan Azlan Shah Orders Transfer Order On JAIP Director Retracted. Bernama. May 2 2008]

[2] — IPOH: The Mentri Besar will apologise to the Sultan of Perak over the hasty transfer of Perak Religious Department (JAIP) director Datuk Jamry Sury without first consulting the Ruler, who is the head of Islam in the state.

[…]

Meanwhile, Jamry has yet to receive a letter reinstating him as JAIP director, although he said he has been asked to meet state secretary Datuk Dr Abdul Rahman Hashim tomorrow.[Perak MB to apologise to Sultan of Perak. The Star. May 4 2008]