Quo vadis, a Latin phrase meaning “Where are you going?”

We’re going West – towards Middle East.

Islam came here centuries before 1957 Federal Constitution, its influence, gentle, non- obstrusive nor assertive, blending with local and other cultures and practices. Wayang Kulit, a part of our cultural heritage, as a visit to Museum Negara will testify, is traditionally based on the Hindu epics of the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. Where is it now? Then young Malay girls, with sarong wrapped around the breasts carried pails or earthenware pot to leaky communal pipes to take water. Now many wear head scarf and swim in public pools fully clothed. Then traditional greetings used to be “selamat pagi,” now the Arabic “assalam aleikum”.

Then, in the 1988 case of Che Omar Che Soh v Public Prosecutor the five-member Federal Court led by then Lord President Tun Salleh Abas Federal Court ruled that Malaysia is a secular nation, and not an Islamic country. Today in 2007 the same Federal Court led by Tun Ahmad Fairuz by majority ruled that Lina Joy could not leave Islam without Syariah Court’s certification, leaving out from purview Article 11(1) of the Federal Constitution that “Every person has the right to profess and practise his religion in which “every person” include a Malay by birth like Azlina Jailani aka Lina Joy.

The Prime Minister said that it was not a political decision : government did not exert pressure on the judges. Maybe. The three hundred or more gathered outside the Place of Justice, chanting prayers, might have. More than that, the pressure comes from everywhere – it is ubiquitous – the civil forces, the uniformed services, the religious establishment, the muslim group lobbies. The voices, calling for more and more Islamisation, have changed from subtle and soft, like a whisper, to stentorious with Islamic groups celebrating Lina Joy’s decision advising everyone that “those hoping for an opposite outcome to reconsider their position and to consider modifying their expectations to suit what is good and more sustainable considering our realities”……

The realities are that Political Islam has got a strong foothold here after quarter of a century of aggressive Islamisation programmes embarked upon by the Mahathir Administration to out-islamise PAS in competition for Malay-Muslim votes.

[Political Islam is a brand of the faith worldwide that is influenced by the Wahhabi and Salafi variant of the creed, a comparatively more rigid practice with many strictures insisting on the return to fundamental purity of original sacred texts and viewing the faith as all embracing on every aspect of one’s life and conduct. Wahhibism is a variant exported from and subsidized by the government of Saudi Arabia, distinct in its nature when religion is used by the state for political ends as what Ayatollah Khomeini achieved in the Iranian Revolution and used as a model by the Taliban mujaddin in Afghanistan. Unlike other traditions that accommodate dissenting views, the Wahhabis claim to possess an undebatable vision of “true or fundamantal Islam.” Such a vision of Islam holds the faith as an absolute truth, that all other religions are false and that there can be no meeting ground between a Muslim and a non-Muslim. Dialogue, debate or reasoning is not permissible under such a medieval version of Islam. Hence the conflicts in various flahpoints in the Middle East in which Political Islam and its adherants are engaged in a mortal conflict with the Modernity and Westernised values propagated by the Anglo Saxon Duo of US/UK representing the Judea-Christian traditions].

Fueling the new Islamic identity is the steady process of transformation as ideas, practices and finances flow from the Arab world. The transformation brings about conflicts – not only within Islam as to its correct interpretation and desirable way of life, but also often among Muslims and others in otherwise tolerant and harmonious plural societies like Malaysia and Indonesia, where Islam originally arrived, mostly peacefully, through trade centuries before our 1957 Constitution.

Fast forward 50 years thence after a proliferation of countless religious boarding schools (madrassas) buttressed by the return of many Islamic teachers and clerics from schools, colleges and universities in the Middle East, many of whom join the religious establishment, civil service, universities, indeed just about every sector, what realities do we now have?

To be sure, many of our political elites are modernised and Western Educated, some more given to the hedonistic than the ascetic streak. Yet they have to maintain strict control and power over the religion that is so much a religio-cultural identity of the main constitutency over which PAS competes. Any perceived slackening to uphold the tenets of the faith is perceived a minus for UMNO and a plus for PAS.

The PM speaks of Islam Hadari. It is to counter extremist interpretations. It is a good thing but how does it square against those around in overwhelming numbers whose agenda is Political Islam?

When speaking of our 1957 Constitution, the issue has always been whether we could keep the integrity of that Constitution intact 50 years later when realities have changed especially amongst the majority malay Muslims.

The controversies regarding the conversion cases of Moorthy Rayappan, Subashini, Marimuthu and Revathi and Benedict Gopal, Perak Mufti Harussani’s SMS episode , the restrictions on Article 11 forums, the postponement of international Muslim-Christian dialogue – the Building Bridges seminar – organized by the London office of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the reluctance to amend the lacunae in Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution and the Lina Joy decision have to be viewed from the context of these new realities signified by mobs outside pressing for their agenda.

Like it or not, we still however have a substantial Non malay muslim pupulation for whom the Constitution structured around 1957 realities is the important Social Contract!

But that proportion is fast dwindling as the young and educated choose to take flight by emigration than fight, whilst those who remain have very small families so as to concentrate available resources for maximisation of educational opportunties – also in preparation of flight!

And no matter how just and right is the Cause for civil liberties and the intregrity of the Constitution its proponents, by their education, training and disposition, are not prepared at all to demonstrate or become a “mob” so to speak to demand their agenda : so what kind of pressure can they exert compared to those presurring for the opposite agenda and prepared to do anything to uphold it? The 300 or more gathered outside the Palace of Justice awaiting the Lina Joy’s decision are testimony of this.

That in a nut shell is the sad story, the plight and dilemma of non malays in this country.

Interesting our “inverted” feudal norms : if you are rich and “suck up”, you maximise your chance of procuring the conferment of honorific titles supposedly engendering respect like Datuks and Tan Sri ship. If you stand your ground, refuse to suck up or refuse to submit to tyranny of majority on grounds of conscience, you get the title of being “stupid”! :)

I think Malaysiakini reported that Lina Joy would now likely emigrate with the one whom she intended to marry – after the exhausion of all legal avenues on the matter of her constitutional right to religion. As to why Lina Joy didn’t do it earlier, the following are her statements reported in 2 newspapers (NST & The Star):

New Straits Times

“I am disappointed that the Federal Court is not able to vindicate a simple but important fundamental right that exists in all persons, namely, the right to believe in religion of one’s choice, and equally important, the right to marry a person of one’s choice and to raise a family in the Malaysian context.

The Federal Court has not only denied me that rights but to all Malaysians who value fundamental freedoms.

I am hoping that my case would have made a difference to the development of constitutional issues in the plight of many others.

Asked if she would leave Malaysia for good, she said: It would be extremely difficult to exercise freedom of conscience in the present environment”.

Star

“Only God knows what is in my heart and I hope everyone will respect my conviction.”

I submit that nothing in her statements reflect that she has been a “fool”.

“…//….If they can choose their own life partner why on earth they cannot choose their own religion and drop the religion they have born into??…..//….” – Irene.

There is no inconsistency there.

In the latter case, if one were allowed to choose to opt out, the Religion loses one less adherent. In the former case, when one chooses one’s own life partner, the Religion gains one additional adherent.

In politics, quality implies people will question and may not support the leaders. Quantity, without quality of the questioning kind, means more votes, more strength for such leaders.