Mufti Perlis Attacks Traditional Ulama

Perhaps many haven't read the original interview as appeared in Malaysiakini, of which Ustaz Muhammad Azlan responded conclusively before. Below is the interview and see yourself the disparaging and sinical remarks of the so-called "mufti" to the traditional scholars and learning. Without reading the response of Ustaz Azlan, any layman can fall prey to the logical reasoning he brought forth disquised under the slogan: "return to the Qur'an and Sunnah", as if hundreds of Muslim scholars prior to him had not based on the Qu'ran and Sunnah before giving their fatwas or opinions.

Only Allah is the Guide and He guides whomsoever He wishes.

--------------------------------------

Q&A Loosen conservative grip on Islam

Fauwaz Abdul Aziz
Nov 27, 06 12:42pm

Exclusive

In the first of a two-part interview, newly-minted Perlis mufti Dr Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin - who at 35 is the country's youngest - looks at what it would take to free up thought processes on Islam in Malaysia.

Malaysiakini: You have spoken on the need to revive and reform the teachings and practice of Islam in Malaysia. What reform are you talking about? How is this reform different from the reform called for by other groups?

Mohd Asri: To me, the biggest challenge is to overhaul the hold that the conservatives have exercised over the Muslim community. There are those in the Muslim community whose thoughts the conservative religious authorities have tried to freeze. (They are being) kept from thinking but are nevertheless thinking. Among the religious conservatives are those who seek to stuff the mouths of the public and tell them, 'Don't speak of religion. Religion is our (exclusive) right', as what was done by the (Catholic) Church. 'Stop what you're doing, and just listen', they would say. This cannot be accepted by the younger generations, because they know they cannot be stopped from thinking. I believe two movements will influence the minds of Malaysians in the future: one is the Salafiyyah movement. The second movement, if things continue, is that of liberal Muslims. Liberals, they think. And they are thinking without boundaries and criticise and go against even those things that have been established in the religion and for which there are strong arguments.

The second group is that influenced by the Salafiyyah movement, which I am seeking to re-brand as the tajdid (revivalist) current in Malaysia. This tajdid movement that we are trying to bring about is an Islam that is genuine but that, at the same time, can confront the challenges that face us today, not the conservative form that confuses the modern generations. To me, being a Salafi is about going back to the fundamentals of Islam, going back to the foundations - the Quran and the Sunnah (recorded Prophetic traditions or hadith). That is what separates the Salafi from other reformists. Other considerations, of course, such as the ethics and manners (of disagreement), cannot be denied and must be abided by when questioning or challenging the scholars. But this Salafiyyah movement says we have the right to think, as the intellect has a function in religion, though the exercise of our thoughts should not go against the Quran and the Sunnah. What about those who say you are merely reinventing the wheel - deriving rules from the Quran and Sunnah - which is what the scholars are doing and have been doing? We are of the stand that the ulama, no matter how prominent they may be, are not ma'sum (divinely protected from error). They are fair targets for criticism and their ideas are fair targets for review. Not all of what people question pertain to the Quran or the Sunnah. What they are confused about are the views of the scholars. In the Salafiyyah current, people have a right to question the scholars and to challenge their views as long as those views are not clearly based on the Quran and the Sunnah. We are not renewing the Quran and Sunnah themselves (by deciding what is authentic or what is not). We are only renewing the understanding of the Quran and Sunnah. We are talking about trying to change our approach to understanding the Quran and Sunnah.

Some things have no basis in Islam but have become seen as such. As a small example, when we ask some Malays as to which is the public holiday for Muslims, many would answer 'Friday'. There are those who say the religious on Friday should not be working as Islam says Friday is a holiday. But the Quran never said so. The Quran says something quite different. It says 'When the prayers are called on Friday, hasten (to the Friday prayers) to remember Allah and leave your business transactions'. This means that on Friday there are business transactions. 'And when the prayers are completed, go out and seek the blessings of Allah', the verse says further. Even Imam Malik bin Anas preferred that there be some business transactions on Friday (to fulfill the Quran's exhortation). How can you 'leave your business transactions' if Friday is a holiday? I'm not calling for all states to have their holidays on Sunday. I am just saying that what is regarded to be Islamic may not necessarily be Islamic. This is just one small matter, but there are many things that have become established among the Muslim community and regarded as a fundamental but may not in reality be truly Islamic. What are the main challenges facing Muslims in Malaysia? We are facing several situations that have not been experienced before by Muslims. Even when we take into account the challenge presented by liberal Islam and its challenges and questioning of Islamic laws, the biggest problem is not that such views have been thrown (to the religious authorities to answer). The biggest problem is keadaan diri ummah Islam itu sekarang, the state of the ummah's present sense of self. 

When a new view is put forward - for one thing it may not conflict at all with the Quran and the Sunnah - but is seen as conflicting with the Quran and Sunnah, the usual reaction is not to compile all the arguments and to clarify to society at large the position of Islam on that matter. They are always reacting: 'what actions are we taking? This is deviant! This has gone astray!' and so on. That is the reaction of people who are angry and agitated. In the end, the fellow who originally voiced or was influenced by an apparently offending view responds by opposing the Muslims who were reactionary because he did not get the clarification sought. 

This attitude of the religious groups is continuing. Whatever view does not concur with theirs, they go amok instead of presenting arguments, reasons and evidences and answering intellectually. If this goes on, we may find the youth will see religion as an obstruction (to their advancement).

That is not the nature of Islam. Islam puts forward arguments. The Quran often says 'Bring forth your arguments if you are indeed truthful'. Allah tells non-believers to bring forth their arguments. If you are in doubt as to what we have brought down upon our slave (Muhammad) then bring forth one verse comparable to this (Quran) and summon your witnesses other than Allah if you are indeed truthful'. Of course, non-believers would not be able to counter with arguments to effectively defeat the arguments of the Quran, but nevertheless, the space to 'bring forth their arguments' and evidence is still accorded to them. 

This is different from our usual tendency, which is to go crazy whenever there is a difference of view and say 'No! Don't speak!' Perhaps this can silence people in such times when we are in power. I've said many times, once an idea has been cast into society, it cannot be killed off except by another idea more powerful than the first. That idea will live on in the minds and thoughts of people. If we want to kill off an idea or understanding, it is not by the use of force. It is to bring arguments more powerful which will kill off the ideas that had previously entered the minds of people. If the religious groups continue with reacting in their usual way, they will commit the same errors as those committed by the Church and its priests who went against science and led to the expansion of secularism throughout Europe. For this, we need religious scholars who are equipped with the necessary tools.

Do we lack ustaz and religious scholars with the necessary tools?

Sometimes, in our discussions with medical doctors there are basic terms that are used (as terms of reference) in the discussion that up, until the end of the discussion, are not understood by the religious scholars. If even these terms (of reference) are not understood, how are they to understand the rest of the discussion? We have to change a lot of things. We have to re-mobilise things, upgrade the ustaz to be more rational in order to face the challenges of this era. 

Some religious figures cannot even differentiate between aedes mosquitos and Aids/HIV. One Friday preacher I heard spoke of 'the aedes disease that has spread among society as a result of free-mingling between the sexes'. Friday prayers are a time for many to nap. The old texts of scholars dating hundreds of years in the past should not be utilised as the primary approach of teaching and presenting Islam in the modern times. The Quran and hadith should be brought in directly to answer the challenges of these modern times, rather than to speak only about things that have long been settled and buried. Eventually, we have come to speak of issues that do not exist any more and we do not answer the issues that are presently confusing us. For example, ways to discuss/debate aqidah (beliefs), such as the traditional way of teaching the 20 Sifat (20 characteristics of Allah). He Is, the opposite is He Is not, which is impossible, so He must Be. He is All-Hearing, the opposite is He is deaf, which is impossible, so He must be All-Hearing...

This is part of an old philosophical methods of teaching aqidah to which generations of today sounds more like a joke, as something funny. The One who exists of course must exist, the One who is All-Hearing of course He's not deaf, the One who is All-seeing, of course He's not blind.

Islam and the greatness of God should be explained by the use of modern words and meanings and by approaches that are scientific that are more in line with our current environment. The Quran speaks many times of the greatness of God in the signs that we see all around us. The scholars of old could not grasp such verses thoroughly, but science can do so now. The discourses of the religious about such things should now be through such scientific explanations. Let's talk of the greatness of God as seen in the science and wonders of His creation. (Turkish intellectual) Harun Yahya writes now of the Quran and science. We can read of what scientists have discovered of the world today, and our faith increases because the Quran had disclosed of such things many years ago. Fiqh rulings have to respect and accommodate the findings of science, as far as those that have reached finality are concerned. Instead, religious scholars today, when asked about smoking, stick to the (decades-) old ruling of it being merely makruh (reprehensible). This is because at the time the ruling was derived the studies were not sufficient and up-to-date to reach the conclusions we can today. 

Conservatives, however, stick to the books of old when purifying leather, for example, without taking into account the chemicals developed today that can be used. The scholars based their rulings on their knowledge of their times. In research, we have what is called methodologies of research, the systematic and scientific acquisition of facts. Yet, you have many ustaz saying drink this air jampi (holy water) so that you'll pass your exams, some say. Why don't they just pray over dams? 

Why do you think we seem to have produced so many ustaz of this type?

One reason for this is because of the way Malays have treated studies of this religion. Whichever child is behind academically, they send them to Islamic madrassa. 'My child cannot do well in his 'academic' subjects. Let him study religion at the ma'had tahfiz (Quranic memorisation schools)',parents nowadays would say. All the ones picked for such schools are the ones at the bottom of the list, not the best of students. When they become ustaz or religious scholars, they are the ones with the slow intellect, with intellectual shortcomings, without the intellectual strength to make a proper analysis. How can they when they cannot even pass their SPM Bahasa Melayu papers, mathematics, geography? When they cannot even understand their science subjects? Perhaps the parents that sent them to these schools think Islam is only the talqin (funeral prayers) and the tahlil (recitation of prayers) at festive gatherings. People don't understand that Islam is a system that comprehends laws, ways of life, matters of governance, aqidah, literature, science, and so on. The expanse of Islam is wider than the narrow branches of knowledge and sciences. There are even Muslim professionals who understand Islam more than the ustaz who studied the religion. Perhaps these professionals might be weak in writing in Arabic, but their readings on Islam are better, they might have memorised more hadith. They just did not go to religious schools and did not acquire the religious certificates. 

Malays assume that ustaz understand the religion, but to what extent do they really understand the religion? We have to encourage the young to study the religion. We have to throw away the view that religion is only for those labelled 'ustaz'. Religion deserves to be understood by everybody.

How do we maintain respect for the hierarchy of expertise or scholarship while answering the questions, concerns and challenges?

We respect a medical doctor for the expertise he possesses over his field, but it does not mean we have to accept his opinions wholly. We have the right to question the specialist and to get a second opinion from another specialist and to make a comparison between the two specialists on the views that they have given. Medical doctors do not know every aspect of medicine. That goes for religion as well. In Malaysia, for example, hadith is not a field entered into by many students of Islamic studies. Many ustaz read hadith that are false but are regarded as hadith. We respect the position of an ustaz who is a specialist in tafsir (exegesis of the Quran), for example. 'Ask those who have the knowledge if you are not in possession of it', says the Quran. The religion prohibits us from following an opinion without knowing the reasons behind that opinion. 'Why yes? Why No?' 'Because in this and this hadith, it is said... so on and so forth.' But here, we have situations where the ustaz says, "If I say so, it is so!" We cannot be that way. 'Don't ask about this matter. Just do as I say'. Religion does not agree with that. The ustaz are not prophets. Islamic views, practices, and teachings all must have strong foundations in the Quran and Sunnah. For every view derived from the religious, we have to ask 'what is its source or where does it come from?' 

When that happens, it leads to the ummah practising what is original (in Islam). Secondly, the religious groups cannot do things arbitrarily, to say no if they do not like something, or say yes if they like it. They must prepared and present the reasons and reasoning behind a matter connected to the religion. We know that the religion is simple, so we are calling for a fiqh that is simple, that can settle the problems of the ummah. This is consonant with the spirit of the times. In matters not related to rituals and worship, as long as there is no prohibition in the Quran and Sunnah, the matter is allowed. Go on. In worship, however, it is the opposite, for there must be an explicit sanction in the Quran and Sunnah. In the fiqh that we teach today, we are constricted. That's why when people become Muslim, three weeks after their conversion, they still do not know how to pray because he is still being taught the various categorisations of water. In some traditional religious schools, they are still being taught textbooks that were used 300 to 600 years ago. They speak of using water from snow, and so on. In Malaysia, there is no snow! It wastes our time. We must simplify the presentation and the contents of the matter of fiqh. 

***