DO you remember the days when wild rumours were going around that there was some great DAP conspiracy to “Christianise” the government?

I don’t particularly want to revisit all the details of those dark days, but suffice to say, many in non-Malay circles, in particular, were especially (and understandably) offended at such accusations.

To them, these allegations were extremely racist, paranoid and incendiary – all the while contributing to worsening interreligious relations. I remember the massive outrage and anger.

I generally agree that these accusations about DAP harbouring some sort of “Christian plot/agenda” were a bunch of nonsense.

I am also a little concerned, however, that at least some of those people who took such umbrage at this accusation about DAP back then may have now fallen hook, line and sinker for the latest narrative that Malaysian Islamic grassroots organisation Ikram is some Freemason-type society that is insidiously trying to infiltrate and “Islamicise” the government. 

Of course, it’s technically possible that in one case there was/is a real plot, and in the other case there was/is no real plot. 

However, if we are only inclined to believe that the plot is real when it involves “their people”, while believing that the plot is not real when it involves “our people”, then, perhaps, it is time to reconsider our own biases and prejudices. 

In the press, the view of an Islamist plot involving Ikram was recently propagated most prominently in two articles, one by Murray Hunter writing in the Asia Sentinel and one by Azly Rahman, writing in Malaysiakini. 

In responding to these allegations, a statement issued by Ikram does not specifically contest the notion that its members have been appointed in positions of leadership by senior government leaders. 

The two articles specifically quote the Education Ministry under Maszlee Malik. 

Thus, I don’t think there is too much debate surrounding this fact.

There is some debate, however, regarding the perception of just how many of these appointments there were, what the significance of these appointments are, and whether there was any impropriety involved. 

In his article, Hunter wrote: “According to a former vice-chancellor who pointed out a list of at least 26 newly appointed vice-chancellors and deputy vice-chancellors, these appointments were not made on merit but rather on the basis of loyalty to Maszlee and Salafi preacher and Perlis mufti – Muslim legal expert – Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin.”

With regard to the question of merit, I think anyone wishing to comment on whether or not the people appointed were qualified or not should at least have access to, say, the resumes of said individuals. Without such evidence, any comments on whether they are qualified for their appointments would appear to be speculative.

Hunter also listed out the names of 26 people he alleged were “members of Ikram that Maszlee appointed to Malaysian public universities in his short time as minister”.

Dr Musa Nordin of the Muslim Professionals Forum wrote in reply: “Unlike the writer, I took the trouble to do a little bit of homework to track the affiliations of the 26 alleged members of Ikram that Maszlee appointed to Malaysian public universities.”

According to Ikram sources, only six (23%) of those appointed by Maszlee are registered members of Ikram. The rest are probably scratching their heads wondering when they filled the borang keahlian Ikram.

Some contend that this six out of 26 is already too high a number, including an anonymous source quoted in Free Malaysia Today. 

I’m sure there are those who would agree. I wonder though, if they would feel the same way if six out 26 government appointments were people from the same temple, church or Christian/Buddhist/Taoist/Hindu civil society body? Would they take that as a sign of a conspiracy?

My own view is that excessive Islamaphobia is a very real thing here in Malaysia today. Let’s try to examine whether Islamaphobia is justified or not, here in Malaysia. 

Yes, Malaysia is indeed home to some Islamic extremists and chauvinists – the kinds of people who think wishing someone Merry Christmas is a sin and so on. 

But I think any honest, objective person would see that we have extremists and chauvinists of every shape, size, and colour here in Malaysia – Christian ones, Hindu ones, Chinese ones, Malay ones, “Western-oriented” ones and so on. You name the type of extremist and there’s sure to be a few lurking around somewhere in Malaysia. 

Admittedly, this is healthy, but should be done alongside awareness of a few other things as well. 

Firstly, acknowledging their existence should be done in parallel with a clear, fact-based assessment of how big these groups are relative to the rest of society. Sometimes, we think they’re big bogeymen with legions of supporters, when in fact, they are just an extremely vocal minority. 

Secondly, admitting they exist shouldn’t fill us with fear or cynicism about Malaysia’s future. They are Malaysians, too, and entitled to their beliefs, but I truly believe we can outsell such narrowmindedness in the free marketplace of ideas. 

Of the two authors, I understand Hunter was formerly part of the staff at UniMAP in Perlis, while, according to his Linkedin Page (in which – and I apologise for my impertinence in pointing this out –  there is a spelling error: “Over the course of my 35 years as an educator in Malaysian and the United States”), Azly Rahman has spent most of the last 20 years in New York City earning a dazzlingly impressive array of degrees while based at the prestigious Ivy League Columbia University. 

I think there are a few indicators that the two authors above are a little bit off the mark regarding realities on the ground, and are perhaps the slightest bit overzealous in their desire to “uncover” Islamist plots and conspiracies. 

The first is, of course, the liberal use of the words “Wahhabi” and “Salafi”. 

Hunter uses the word Salafi four times in his article, and both the caption of the photo used and the standfirst of his article reads “Salafi cabal seeks to dominate universities”. 

My goodness me, a cabal no less. This has gone beyond Freemason levels, and is a few steps away from imagining covens of witches. 

If my count is accurate, Azly Rahman mentions the word Wahhabi some 11 times, and Salafi about 15 times. 

I think this already demonstrates a lack of understanding and appreciation of the nuances between Islamist movements in Malaysia and abroad. 

I’m fairly certain there are indeed Saudi Arabia-oriented Wahhabis/Salafis in Malaysia – Muslims who hold to extremely conservative interpretations of Islam.

Anyone with the slightest familiarity of Islamist dynamics in Malaysia, however, would I imagine, very much hesitate to associate Ikram with Wahhabism. 

In fact, in the wider ecosystem of Islamist movements, the international elements that external observers might more reasonably connect Ikram to are elements that have often been in direct and heated conflict with Saudi Arabia-backed Wahhabist or Salafist movements.

Wahhabis do not have a reputation for being very good at interreligious relations. Ikram, on the other hand, has very consistently made an effort to build bridges across religious and ethnic divides in Malaysia. 

I think anyone who has been in Malaysian civil society long enough can attest to this. 

Ikram’s leaders have taken up key leadership roles in civil society coalitions, such as Bersih and Gabungan Bertindak Malaysia – both multiracial, multireligious movements with a strong focus on working together as a united nation for the betterment of Malaysia (as it happens, the latter has also recently published a similar defence of Ikram).

It’s extremely unlikely that any Wahhabi or Salafi would be elected by the mostly progressive, left leaning civil society bodies in these coalitions to positions of leadership. 

Ikram is indeed conservative on several fronts, such as on matters regarding LGBTQ. But I have also organised and attended meetings (many years ago) between some Ikram members and members of LGBTQ groups in the spirit of trying to understand each other better and find common ground. 

In this regard, I think Hunter is especially off the mark with his quoting of according to several (unnamed) “sources in the country’s public higher education system, the ministry became insular in its outlook to education and dedicated to implementing an agenda that would hinder any diverse outlook from educational perspectives”.

In fact, alongside the Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia (Abim), I believe Ikram is among the Islamist movements in Malaysia that is most open by far to embracing diversity – and by a wide margin at that. 

Indeed, if the goal is to combat extremism, polarisation and chauvinism, my view is that the wise Malaysian would look to Ikram and Abim as allies, rather than enemies. 

I can, of course, understand the point of view of Malaysians who are extremely fearful and nervous about what they believe to be trends of Islamisation in Malaysia. 

I believe that having Islamic principles that are in line with moderate universal values informing governance is not a bad thing. Indeed, it may go a long way in correcting problems, such as corruption.

In any case, all Malaysians obviously have a right to express their views about the degree to which religion can and should play a role in the state. 

Discussion and discourse over this issue is, after all, healthy as a part of nation-building. Of course, that discourse will be most helpful and productive when informed by facts and actual face-to-face interaction with people that sometimes seem from afar like strange and dangerous bogeymen. 

My own interactions with such people within these Islamist movements have been an overwhelmingly positive experience – one I highly recommend others try for themselves, prior to making sweeping conclusions. As the Malay saying goes, tak kenal maka, tak cinta. – January 23, 2020.

* Nathaniel Tan is a strategic communications consultant. He can be reached at [email protected]. 

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.