PAS and the success of the contemporary Islamic movement - Mat Sabu

Thursday, 09 June 2011 08:17

Share Frankfurt, German- Kertas kerja yang telah dibentangkan oleh Tuan Hj Mohamad Sabu di Universiti Goethe, FRANKFURT dan Universiti Humboldt, BERLIN, kepada Professor-professor dan pensyarah-pensyarah serta pelajar di universiti tersebut. "Klik di sini utk melihat gambar-gambar Hj Mohamad Sabu di German..." _________________________ KERTAS KERJA : _________________________ PAS and the success of the contemporary Islamic movement Early Developments The Islamic Party of Malaysia (PAS) was established in 1951 at a time when the Muslim ummah the world over was in a very weak position, colonized by European powers and at most beginning to achieve independence as in the case of Pakistan and Indonesia. Muslims were suffering, in a state of identity loss, their civilization threatened and faced general apathy and helplessness. Their lives were patterned according to the interpretations of the local ulama and leaders. In the midst of this weakness amongst the Muslims everywhere, without any economic strength, weak militarily, and without the support of a civilization, there arose a reformist movement in Eastern Europe and in Russia. This movement was a social reform movement that wanted to redistribute the wealth of the nation and was led by the socialist or communist movement. However, the movement and its ideologues like Karl Marx, Lenin or Mao Ze Dong who promised social justice did not find support or interest from amongst the PAS leaders at the time. Although there were some Malay-Muslims who were attracted to the message of socialism particularly when it promised to fight for the poor masses – the farmers and ordinary labourers – and there arose leftist political parties like the PKM (the Communist Party of Malaya), the Parti Rakyat (Peoples Party) in Malaysia as well as the communist party in Indonesia, PAS however shied away from communism and in fact took an anti-communist stand. The British on their part carried out their propaganda amongst the Muslims that the leftist movement was against all religions. In this they were successful in attracting Malay-Muslims to their cause of weakening communism on the premise that communism was against religion. The same held true for the socialist movement as well. Although the communists launched a military campaign against the colonialists in Malaya (Malaysia) and employed violent tactics against the British – PAS was also against the British – yet, PAS stood steadfast against communism. This strong position was clearly evident amongst the religiously-educated group in the party. My view is that the movement inspired by Marx and Lenin which described religion (read Christianity) as an obstacle to progress adequately described the way the religion was exploited. This was because the clergy in Europe at the time worked closely with the Czarist rulers in their oppression of the people. We all know that under the monarchs who ruled at the time the people suffered, lived in poverty and had to obey their rulers without question while the rulers lived in opulence and oppressed the people. Such a way of life was not checked by the clergy who had much influence over the masses under the dictate of religion. Christianity became a tool manipulated by such clergy to justify the unjust situation that prevailed. So in this sense it would be right to say, as Marx has observed, that religion “is the opium of the masses”. The people were held in place under the influence of religion. Sunday mass was used to ensure compliance and obedience to the unjust rule of the monarchs. The people were made to understand religion as mere worship of God and nothing to do with politics or even attempt to look into the oppressive rule that prevailed. So, the clergy actually delivered “opium” to the masses; the people had to accept their condition as fated. Their living conditions, their lack of education, progress, and plain suffering was to be accepted as something ordained by God. Thus, I can accept Marx’s and the rest of the socialist idea that “religion is the opium of the masses” when we analyze the situation that prevailed then. The Court Ulama and the state of the Ummah And this situation is not unique to Europe. It was also true of the Muslim world. Religion (read Islam) was manipulated by the ulama to preserve the tyrannous rule of the kings and rulers. There is a special term to describe this type of ulama – the court ulama. They would “sell opium (religion)” to the masses where they would coerce the people to accept blindly rulers who would be lavishing in excesses and committing debauchery. As a result of the collusion between these ulama and the rulers, Western colonialists found it easier to influence the rulers and expand colonialism in the Muslim world. This happened all over; in Asia, the Arab world and the Far East. The ulama’s role was just to appease the rulers and justify their oppressive rule by manipulating verses of the Holy Quran and the Traditions of the Prophet. Never was there an attempt to shake the status quo that was in total contradiction with the basic message and teachings of Islam. In fact, Islam was presented in such a deviated form that the people – not well versed in religion and having left all interpretations to the court ulama – felt that questioning the ruler (especially a tyrannous one) was tantamount to questioning the commands of Allah. As a result of such malaise afflicting the Muslim ummah, there arose reformists within the Muslims who attacked the capitulation recommended by the court ulama. These were people like Jamaluddin al-Afghani who called upon the people to reject the narrow and unIslamic interpretation of the religion and to galvanize their strength to rise against colonialism. Jamaluddin’s call was well received by many segments of the ummah, and in particular PAS was also influenced by the reformist thinking of the scholar. PAS later went on to work with the leftist movement in the struggle to achieve independence without compromising its basic ideology. In the closing stages of colonialism, the British brought in immigrants from China and India to expand their tin and rubber industries. This influx in very large numbers made the Malay Muslims anxious over the question of their survival. It could be seen as a threat to the political position of the Malay Muslims. This more so as the British granted these immigrants citizenship following a compromise they made with the Malay Muslims. After independence, the citizenship status of the Chinese and Indians could not be questioned as it was already provisioned for in post independent Malaysia’s constitution. As for PAS Youth, the survival question was very much incorporated into its struggle to make the Malays aware of their position in Malaya (Malaysia). In the 1950s and 1960s, PAS focused its struggle on the issue of Malay survival and the guarantee of Malay and Muslim rights. The Umno-led administration however tried to convince the people through various forms of propaganda that it was struggling for the Malays. It tried to convince the Malays that their rights and that of religion would be protected. On the issue of protecting Muslim rights however, the nationalist-secular movement as in the case of Umno, could not be seen as successful as in the case of the Islamic movement. It is important to note that religion – in the context of Islam in particular – can in a way be seen as “opiate” of the masses. This is because of the wrong interpretation of religion, in which case it would stifle growth and advancement. On the other hand, the right interpretation of religion would bring progress in the right context and protect the Muslims. The rise of Khomeini and the revolution in Iran I feel that after Jamaluddin al-Afghani, several ulama and thinkers had arisen to awaken the consciousness of the Muslims as to the true meaning of their religion and in this I would say it was Imam Khomeini who had the most profound influence on the direction of the Islamic movement. Imam Khomeini was successful in his struggle to re-establish Islam. His success is in using the platform of Islam to achieve the goal of reviving the Muslim ummah in their struggle to achieve true independence, justice and destroying the feudal structure established in Iran under the Shah. Besides, his was struggle of the oppressed (Muslim masses) against the oppressors (the Shah and his aristocratic class). The difference between Khomeini’s struggle and that of the socialists was that he used religion to mobilize the people to overthrow oppression whereas the socialists rejected any role for religion in their struggle. Khomeini’s movement under the banner of defending the oppressed (mustadhafin) and facing the oppressors (mustakbirin) drew my attention as well as my friends in PAS Youth in the early 1980s. The Islamic revolution in Iran was the focus of our attention – we studied it, followed events in the Islamic republic and increased our awareness of the movement brought about by the revolution. Therefore, never in our minds did it cross that we would have to sideline religion as the basis of a struggle. In a party based on Islam, we in PAS, we further galvanized by the success of the Islamic revolution. This feeling and commitment began to spread amongst the Muslim youth. However, as usual, the court ulama –peddling religion as opiate – tried and succeeded in stemming the consciousness of the youth by embarking on the Sunni-Shiah issue thus denting the movement towards success. The monarchies ruling over the Muslims particularly the Saudis launched a propaganda war against the Shiah hoping that this would then ensure their survival. The other Arab leaders were also wary of the growing influence of the Islamic movement and tried to stop the march of the movement in order to remain in power. The other factor was of course the strong influence the US and some other Western powers had over the Saudis and other Arab states especially in the Gulf. These countries rich with oil are practically vassals of the US and therefore were only too willing to become tools of the superpower in facing the new awakening brought about by Khomeini. If Shiism was the reason for the Saudi attack on the Islamic movement arising after the revolution, then why did they not oppose the Shah in his heyday when he too was a Shiite? It is obvious that the reason is that during the Shah’s time, the court ulama held influence, but after the revolution, the true ulama were spearheading the movement. My view is that this propaganda of the Shiite threat is merely created to save the thrones of the rulers in the Arab countries. And in this the US and European countries are also very keen to maintain the status quo in the Muslim world so that their survival can be better ensured and the flow and exploitation of oil will continue unhindered. The influence of Imam Khomeini’s thoughts and the movement in Iran was also felt amongst the youth in PAS. A small number of PAS Youth members became ardent followers of Imam Khomeini’s message. A few of them attended courses held in Iran in order to understand the uniqueness and success of the Islamic movement there. These courses had nothing to do with weapons training as some may have thought, but simply about learning about repeating the success of the Islamic movement and how it could get so close to the people in Iran. Amongst the success of such interaction was the setting up of the Amal Unit which copied the success of the Jihad Sazendagi (JZ) movement in Iran. The JZ was an all encompassing youth volunteer movement that helped the poor farmers increase their yields, brought education to the rural areas and carried out welfare work amongst the masses. This success influenced PAS Youth to set up a similar movement and in the mid 1980s and later the movement has expanded to form the Amal Foundation that does relief and voluntary work in disaster zones like the 2004 tsunami in Acheh. It now has both local and international chapters. The advent of Tahalluf Siasi (Consociational politics) PAS’ strength derived mainly from the Malay Muslims and in the context of Malaysia, this would mean that it would remain on the sidelines and be unable to come to power without the support of the non-Malays and non-Muslims. Its strength would be confined to the Malay belt comprising Kelantan, Terengganu, Kedah and Perlis – four northern states with a Muslim majority. The most that PAS would be able to win would be the states of Kelantan and Terengganu (90% Malay Muslim) as witnessed in 1999. In fact, only the state of Kelantan can be considered very safe for PAS to win at an election. Therefore the PAS leadership revisited the concept of cooperation with others not committed to the ideals or ideology of PAS. As the leaders of PAS were both political and religious leaders they found that working with others to achieve a common aim so long as did not run contrary to Islam was permitted. This then saw the emergence of consociational politics (politics of cooperation amongst several parties) beginning in 1986. Despite some opposition from among segments within the party that working with non-Muslim parties was against the ideals of PAS, however, the leadership held sway and the concept of working together became the method that would be employed in the future. In Malaysia, there are many parties reflecting the multi-ethnic nature of Malaysian society. On the ruling party’s side there are Umno (the Malay party), MCA (Chinese), MIC (Indians) and some other parties representing different minor ethnicities. On the Opposition side there are PAS (Muslims), PKR (multi ethnic with a Malay majority)and the DAP (Chinese). If PAS wanted to defeat the Barisan Nasional (the ruling coalition), it would have to work with the other Opposition parties. However in the beginning, PAS was reluctant to work with the DAP which was seen as having something to do with communism or even “anti-Islam”. The advent of the PKR – a multi ethnic party led by Anwar Ibrahim- and the support that it gained from the younger generation made PAS rethink cooperation with DAP and with Anwar’s acumen, accepted to be in the Opposition alliance working with the DAP. The result was the success of the Opposition alliance – called Pakatan Rakyat (Peoples Coalition) – at the 2008 general elections. It won 48% of the popular vote besides winning 4 more provinces (states) in addition to the one already in its hands. A similar situation can be seen in the context of Lebanese politics. Hizbullah, the Islamic movement in Lebanon and which I admire for its resilience and success in facing invaders, after its period of military struggle had to return to the political scene and contest in elections. This it did successfully by forging alliances with non-Muslim parties, in fact even with the Christian factions, to gain power or at least have significant representation in Lebanon’s parliament. Such an experience further prove to us in PAS that working with other parties under tahalluf siasi was necessary. The welfare and voluntary nature of the Hizbullah made the Christian community see Hizbullah as a meaningful partner not an enemy. Hizbullah’s commitment to the defence and unity of Lebanon is of great significance and is important. I do not favour the struggle launched by al Qaeda, or the Taliban, unlike that of the Hizbullah. Hizbullah is committed to peaceful coexistence and is welfare-oriented. A careful examination of the movement will show that Hizbullah’s approach is relevant too in the context of multi-ethnic Malaysia. The creation of Israel in the Middle East was the result of the “guilt” feeling of the Europeans over the deaths of Jews in the Holocaust. Jews were held in concentration camps in Germany, Austria and other nations and this prompted Europeans to agree to the establishment of a state for the Jews in the midst of Muslim Palestine by driving out the original inhabitants, the Palestinians. Israel continues to be supported by the Europeans and in particular the US. When the intifadah (uprising) was launched by the Palestinians in 1989, it attracted the attention of the world particularly NGOs, and the European countries. Under the slogan of the right to return to their homeland, the Palestinians began to receive attention especially from the NGOs in Europe. These organizations have started to demand the Western nations to reconsider their support for Israel. If the Jews faced a holocaust during World War 1, they are now inflicting a holocaust upon the hapless Palestinians. The NGOs are not following the line taken by western governments like the claim that Hamas and Hizbullah are terror organizations. They are beginning to question the labeling of these movements as such. I believe that the Palestinian struggle to liberate their homeland will succeed and the refugees be able to return after 62 years in diaspora. The role of Islamic movements Hamas and Hizbullah is increasingly being accepted by organizations in the West. Surely, these NGOs will be able to exert pressure on their governments to re-examine their support for the regime. They will have to put an end to the racist, apartheid nature of the regime called Israel. I also believe that the success of the struggle will not be coming from the Arab nations because they are all under the thumb of the Americans. Most of the leaders of these countries have either been installed by the US/Britain, or have the blessings of these superpowers. It is wonder how the Americans can tolerate and accept these regimes which are not democracies and stifle dissent amongst its people. Furthermore, religion as “opium” of the people is being peddled more feverishly in order to secure the position of the rulers of these regimes. Conclusion Events that have taken place over the last 2 years in Malaysia point to the fact PAS’ acceptance of change to accommodate cooperation with other parties in the Pakatan gives a new hope for a new Malaysia. The growing strength of the Pakatan can cause the downfall of the incumbent BN regime. PAS will be responsible partner and will use the opportunity to infuse Islamic elements acceptable to all in the administration in the event of a win at the elections. The new politics in Malaysia has dawned. The racial politics still practiced by the present regime is no more relevant. The new generation are the most ardent aspirants of the new politics in Malaysia. Presenter : Mohamad Sabu 22 Jun 2010 Organized by:  Research Group  "Contemporary Discourses on State and Society  in the Islamic World" Goethe University Frankfurt Senckenberganlage 31 60325 Frankfurt Germany