It was another Sunday morning. It had been raining the night before and was still raining the following morning. The sky was still overcast; the sun had not been seen for days. Not exactly the kind of ‘welcome’ to the day; certainly not the kind of day which could put one in a bright cheerful mood. So already my temperament, much like the weather, was indecisive. It would not take much of an impetus to decide the mood my temperance would follow. I decided, perhaps due to a spell of fleeting boredom, to read the newspaper, and that’s when it happened. I went from being willfully undecided to being angry and insulted. But what could have caused this sudden swing in temperance you may ask? Quite simply, had I not perused through the pages of the November 11th edition of the New Sunday Times, perhaps my article today would have revolved around a different topic.
That which caused me to become angry and insulted refers to the article “Proton to work on ‘Islamic’ car concept”. Reporting from Tehran, Bernama gave an account that “Malaysia, together with Iran and Turkey plans to produce ‘Islamic’ cars for the global market.” This of course was according to Proton Holdings Bhd managing director Datuk Syed Zainal Abidin Syed Mohamed Tahir. The aforementioned however, did not claim the proposal was his own idea, rather, according to the report the idea was mooted by Iran. The cars are apparently “expected to have Islamic features such as compass, kiblat reading and compartments for keeping the al-Quran and scarves.” The managing director of Proton Holdings Bhd goes on to say “the Islamic car proposal will be a good opportunity for all those involved”, presumably referring to car manufacturers in Iran, businessmen in Turkey, and Proton itself, not to mention the political entities in each of those countries. A complete perusal of the article betrays the fact that the focus was not on making a car ‘Islamic’, the notion of which I intend to critically address below, but rather on using the term ‘Islamic’ as an advertising tool purely for economic gain.
Once again the Muslims are exhibiting themselves to be not only grossly ignorant but extremely arrogant in thinking that profit driven materialistic businesses led by equally ambitious political entities may assume authority, and by authority I mean erudite intellectual authority, to propose concepts dealing in a subject matter in which their capacity to understand those concepts is not only not apparent, but completely absent. Once again, according to the article the managing director of Proton Holdings Bhd was reported to have said “the car will have all the Islamic features”, a statement which assumes he knows what the term ‘Islamic’ means and what are those features that make a car Islamic. Is he correct? Does he indeed know what the term ‘Islamic’ conveys?
The term ‘Islamic’ contrary to popular modernist belief, is not something indicative of ritual appearance. In truth, the term ‘Islamic’ betrays an activity (amalan), one which is derived from the fundamental elements of the worldview of Islam. As such it necessarily requires an actor (pengamal). As far as the aforementioned article is concerned, the term ‘Islamic’ refers primarily to the features associated with an inanimate object, one which by definition is devoid of an actor (pengamal) and by virtue of which cannot act (mengamal). Why is this so? Clearly by virtue of the fact that we have said earlier that the term ‘Islamic’ refers to an activity or action and by necessity an actor, logically then there must be a system of laws governing that action, namely the shari’ah. Yet, how can one assume that the possibility of conceptualizing a car said to be ‘Islamic’ exists when we have pointed out that such a notion is connected to an activity and therefore a system of laws, the shari’ah in this case, a system interpreted not only in accordance with erudite scholarship but defined by the fundamental elements of the worldview of Islam? If those businesses and political entities wish to argue this point with me and claim that such an absurd possibility exists, then I will ask what is that element that defines the structure, description, foundations, pillars and apparatus of that system which, by virtue of that system itself, is special and distinct, fundamentally different from all the existing automotive systems in the world? Clearly, in this case they have taken the meaning of the term ‘Islamic’ merely to refer to a ritual cloak, an outer manifestation, and even then their description of such a manifestation is absurd to say the least. How does having a “compass, kiblat reading, and compartments for keeping the al-Quran and scarves” make the proposed so called ‘Islamic’ car fundamentally distinct from all other cars? Mitsubishi, in their manufacture of four wheel drive Pajero vehicles have included a compass as part of their design; German automotive designers now include a GPS system capable of pinpointing the Kiblah for many of their higher end vehicles; as far as compartment space is concerned most if not all car manufacturers boast numerous compartments for the storage of items, scarves included. These car manufacturers do not specify what items may be or should be stored in these compartments, that decision is left to the consumer. Do these automobile manufacturers advertise their vehicles as ‘Islamic’ simply because they include the aforementioned features? If the answer is no, then why do the Muslims feel the need to do so?
So now another important question arises, is the car a proper justifiable place for one to keep the Qur’an? Any good Muslim understands that there is a right place for everything. Once again this ‘right’ place is defined by the worldview of Islam and its related fundamental elements. As such, once a thing is afforded its rightful place in accordance with that worldview, what results is justice. Since we affirm that there is such a thing as a ‘right’ place which may be demonstrated, then logically there must be such a thing referred to as a ‘wrong’ place. Such a place will most certainly not be in accordance with the worldview of Islam and its related fundamental elements by virtue of the fact that what results is injustice, a condition which may also be equally demonstrated. The Qur’an is unlike any book one may purchase from a bookstore. As the Word of God, it is supposed to be accorded the proper respect it deserves. As such, a car is not the right place for the Qur’an, neither is a car’s rear widshield the right place to display verses from the Qur’an. Hence, the very idea of constructing a car having “compartments for keeping the al-Quran”, is in fact unjust and subsequently antithetical to the worldview of Islam and its related fundamental elements. Therefore, far from being ‘Islamic’, the act of keeping the Qur’an in a car, is in fact un-Islamic.
One should not misinterpret nor misrepresent what I have said as a personal attack waged against the 40 member delegation of government officials and representatives from those private companies mentioned in the New Sunday Times report, nor should one be concerned about whether or not Syed Ali, the individual, has been harsh or unjust in his criticism; the concern here should be that Islam and all its associated elements, namely ‘Islamic’ ‘Islamization’ and so on are being corrupted by those who know not and know not they know not (la yadri wa la yadri annahu la yadri). Islam is not a religion for the feeble minded, nor is it the handmaiden of politics or the advertising cliché (cogankata) for business and economics. The fact that the Muslim world today suffers politically, economically and intellectually is due in large part to the Muslims and not Islam. In my opinion, far from ennobling the Muslims and the Muslim world, such proposals like the ‘Islamic car’ bring shame and invite unnecessary ridicule.