The Muslims today are suffering from a crisis of identity. Ignorance and disunity persist. The Prime Minister has said, that by virtue of the fact that Islam makes it compulsory for Muslims to embrace knowledge, the Malay society must be a society that embraces knowledge. But how are the Malays supposed to embrace knowledge if those entrusted to transmit that knowledge are themselves not qualified, or who are themselves guilty of abusing that trust? Efforts are concentrated on trying to impose a shariah system which is itself reliant upon a thorough understanding of history and philosophy, instead of focusing on justice itself. The tendency to hide behind a presumed authority and quote governmental leaders exists. We say “presumed authority” because it would appear that there has been confusion with regard to how the meaning of the definition of the term “authority” has been understood. In the English language, the meaning of the term “authority” is often synonymous with the term “power”. However, there is an apparent distinction in the Malay language where the two aforementioned terms are not synonymous. The word alim is employed to designate one who is an authority on matters pertaining to knowledge. Power, is designated by the term kuasa. The latter term, whose origin derives from Sanskrit, implies authority not in terms of a mastery of knowledge, but rather in terms of control by a force deemed intensely superior, or kuat. Therefore, it is not the prerogative of the powers that hold sway to assume the cloak of authority simply by virtue of the fact that they are in control, because this will undoubtedly lead to a corruption of knowledge and to an inevitable loss of identity. Are the Muslims now suffering from a crisis of identity as a result of their lack of correct knowledge, incapability to construct definitions and inability to accept constructive criticism? A primary example is with the current fervor related to the government’s proposed free distribution of condoms and needles to victims of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV).
As soon as the governments intentions were announced, some official expounders of Islamic law immediately decreed that the distribution of condoms in that manner would promote adultery. How did they arrive at such a conclusion? One may argue that if indeed that statement were true, then the absence of condoms would dissuade adultery. In addition, it is as though the condom has become the instrument upon which man’s will depends. Their declaration argues that if one were to be given a condom, one becomes powerless to avoid the sin of adultery. So if one were to argue that if one were to give condoms to some official expounders of Islamic law, they would be compelled to commit adultery. This is absurd. Perhaps the aforementioned may wish to clarify their remarks, arguing that what they meant was that if the government proceeded with such a plan without first clearly defining its purpose, the perception may be that the government is not concerned with the legal aspect of sexual intercourse. If this were the case, then perhaps the aforementioned should have been more discerning in choosing their remarks. In terms of the governments plan to distribute condoms, the legal aspect of sexual intercourse is a separate issue altogether. The emphasis is directed towards efforts taken to prevent the spread of the disease itself, and not on adultery. Is the apparent confusion with regard to this issue a result of an ignorance towards the disease? Or does the current fervour betray a more sinister reason? In other words, has the reaction to this issue only succeeded in advertising the fact that the ignorance and backwardness suffered by the modern Muslim may be attributable to the wanton creation of false authorities?
There are many verses in the Holy Qur’an pointing to the fact that the provision of sustenance, be it in the form of mental capacity, material wealth, power, opportunity, influence and so on, is decided by God alone in accordance with His knowledge, but the ignorant do not have the ability to understand this. Therefore, it would be a contradiction of God’s supreme omniscience were He to give beneficial knowledge to the ignorant because the latter would not know what to do with it. Consequently, this knowledge is given to those receptive of it, meaning those with a certain degree of preparedness.
If references to the verses from the Holy Qur’an are made with the purpose of clarifying or supporting one’s arguments, an erudite comprehension of the meanings of those versus and their correct application becomes compulsory. If the interpretation of those versus leads to more conflict rather than resolve, the onus of accountability cannot be attributed to the Holy Qur’an, rather the onus of accountability rests with the individual claiming to have authoritative knowledge. If the interpretation is incorrect, as is frequently the case, a condition of ignorance perpetrated by this false authority becomes prevalent.
A recent example concerns a report affecting the opinion of Islam with regard to euthanasia. The respondent to the question correctly stated that Islam forbids euthanasia. However, in an attempt to clarify the prohibition, the Quranic verse he employs, “If any one slew a person it would be as if he slew the whole people (mankind)”, is both incomplete, nor does it refer to euthanasia. On the contrary, the verse refers specifically to the Israelites. They were guilty of murdering prophets whose message was universal. By virtue of the fact that their message was universal, their murder would be a loss for the whole of mankind. A perusal of the complete verse reads, “We ordained for the children of Israel that if any one slew a person – unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew the whole people (mankind)” (5/Al-Ma’idah, 32).
A preliminary attempt at promoting a “mental revolution” was undertaken by the UMNO Youth in the 1970’s. Their recommendations were made public with the publication of Revolusi Mental. The admonitions and remarks contained in the aforementioned book were hailed as a new beginning seeking to mold a new Malay, one who would cast aside pagan tradition in favour of the true path, one who was discerning of his surroundings, and one who was economically independent. Indeed, on these points alone one may conclude that the aforementioned book is praiseworthy. However, although the advice offered is positive in general, the analysis and conclusions drawn from certain sources and employed as proof in support of their arguments fall short of reason. One in particular concerns the interpretation of verse 13 from the holy Qur’an, “Verily never will Allah change the condition of a people until they change it themselves (with their own souls)”. Certainly, in demanding this change, the writers meant a change for the better. It is our contention however, that the aforementioned Quranic verse employed for this purpose, was misinterpreted and consequently misunderstood. The “change” referred to in the verse implies a change for the worse. The reason being that the term used to designate this “change” is derived from the verb ghara, which holds a negative connotation. Therefore, the “change” referred to in the holy Qur’an points to a corrupt alteration or modification suffered at the hands of man who, by his own ignorance, arrogance and capitulation to his bestial nature, has transformed and corrupted what was once created perfect.
Since the Muslim civilisation depends on an erudite understanding of the fundamental elements derived from the tenets of the religion of Islam, it is clear that the burden of responsibility is not directed at religion itself, but rather at its correct interpretation. This correct interpretation is not biased in favour of partisan loyalty, nor is it a handmaiden to the political arena at the mercy of favour or fancy. On the contrary, partisan loyalty within the political arena should be dependant upon the adoption of correct interpretation.