[Malaysia] IFC's Argument still Flawed

IFC's Argument still Flawed

Abu Omar abuomar_asia@yahoo.com

In Malik Imtiaz Sarwar’s statement in Aliran Monthly’s latest issue Vol 25 (6), he tries to respond to all the criticisms hurled at the IFC, the Interfaith Commission’s Initiative. He argues that they are still committed to dialogue and that the opposers to the IFC, basically he mentions the allied Muslim NGO’s and PAS, have got it wrong. He does not even mention the views of the religious Muslim establishments.

The IFC is argued to be advisory, consultative and conciliatory. But it is still legislative and has powers to interfere and order inquiries. Interference is when any other party new to the ways and means, subjects Islamic religious authorities, procedures, due process or any other matters pertaining to the affairs of Muslims object to a legal body representing other religions. This is gross interference and can never be regarded as open minded dialogue. Malik Imtiaz admits that there is bound to be friction when beliefs and cultures come into conflict. Just imagine the impact of a multi racial commission interfering in one’s religion, one’s faith, one’s practice.

As a proposed federal commission, obviously the commission comes into the jurisdiction of the state religious authorities, comments on shariah matters, refers to civil courts for judgement and ultimately knowing the tendencies of the IFC’s backers will challenge the teachings of Islam. For instance, the questioning of morality laws and defending personal vice by members of the IFC and its ardent supporters.

He argues and uses the term ‘hidden’ meaning that there is no hidden agenda behind the IFC. But the term is ‘implicit’ or what primary BM schoolers call ‘makna tersirat’, the underlying cause of the IFC is implicitly for religious pluralism or implying that every faith can be put to same the liberal yardstick.

This is fundamentally flawed in Islam and ultra vires to the tenets in the constitution concerning Islam as the religion of the federation and the freedom of all the other main religions. It disregards the social contract and understanding in the successful establishment of the federation and the historic formula for unity in diversity.

He then goes on to say and this is quite cavalier of him, arguing that many Muslims support the IFC. Unfortunately for him and fortunately for the foundation of the country, the Muslims are aghast and those Muslims supporting the IFC are still regarded with deep suspicion as they have always been on the other side of any religious issue.

Finally, he argues that it is just a draft Bill saying that it is something for parliament and government to decide. He certainly needs to learn that Muslims do have civil societies and that the people have the right to express their opposition through such civil societies. We do indeed know how to work in a democracy.

Why does he not do what he has committed to do and that is dialogue? He says dialogue has its limitations but has he really tried? It is a vital first step and it is a process and discourse where we can agree without risks and by not being bound by fixed and entrenched positions. Certainly we shall not start our dialogue with what we vehemently disagree on and that is the IFC!