MARINA Mahathir’s statement last week on the divisive effect of Islamisation drew strong responses from various quarters.

She is said to have used an incident where a man in Penang supposedly slapped a woman for not wearing the hijab. This, in her view, shows how divisive Islamisation has become.

I respect Marina’s social activism and intellect. I believe that she probably said more than what was reported. But, it is the juiciest statements that attract attention.

Nevertheless, it is unfair to infer about the impact of Islamisation based on one incident. Subsequent reports show that the perpetrator is mentally unstable. It is problematic to argue that his actions followed the dictates of “Islamisation”.

If we were to accept that one violent incident can divide the country, then we should consider football as divisive for the country. There have been many more incidences of violence perpetrated by football fans.

For Malaysia, we can see that some aspects of Islamisation have been well received even by non-Muslims. This is especially the case for Islamic banking. Non-Muslim are the majority of customers for Islamic banking products. And, many institutions owned by non-Muslims have introduced Islamic banking and takaful services. Can we consider this a unifying effect?

The truth is, religion, race, nationalism and even liberal ideals have all been used to justify violence and divide nations. The conflict in Northern Ireland, the genocide against the Rohingya and the ethnic cleansing campaign in Bosnia were motivated by nationalistic and religious sentiments. The colonial powers used their military might to subjugate distant lands under the guise of spreading civilisation and Western values.

The division in Malaysia is more complex than just about a slapping incident or “Islamisation” (whatever that means). It warrants a more in-depth discourse on the role of Islam and the character of Malaysian society.

Marina’s statement deserves attention because it brings to the fore this issue. However, it will require more effort to find the answers to this predicament.

One of the difficulties when talking about Islam and Islamisation is that there are so many views and almost as many groups talking about it. The views on Islam in Malaysia is a spectrum. We have the official Islam as defined by the various state and national apparatuses. There is also Islam as represented by various dakwah groups. There are also political expressions of Islam.

Even this is problematic to understand because the stance taken by the champions of political Islam can sway at different points in time. And lately, there is the cocktail of race-based Islam that treats the two as intertwined.

Likewise, those who espouse a more liberal view of Malaysia also exist in a broad spectrum. Many focus on niche areas, such as human rights, electoral reform, social justice, gender equality and other issues. As such, contrary to stereotypes, the pursuit of liberal ideals is not a homogenous agenda.

Ironically enough, some of the proponents of both the “Islamisation” agenda and some of the proponents of liberal ideals are like the mirror image of one another. For instance, both tend to be selective in the issues that they raise.

The proponents of “Islamisation” were critical of hotels banning the wearing of the hijab among their female front-line personnel. However, they were less vocal over the slapping incident mentioned earlier.

The proponents of a liberal Malaysia were upset about the slapping incident, but were silent on the issue of the banning of the hijab for the hotel industry’s female front-line personnel.

Likewise, both proponents are paranoid about foreign cultures. The former is fearful of the encroachment of Western culture. The latter has been complaining about what they consider to be the Arabisation brought about by Islamisation (Arabic food is exempted from this fear!). Both claim to be open, but only to those who are like them.

Unfortunately, this polarisation does not help us move forward as a society. And, this polarisation is accentuated by the inability of both sides to engage in discourse. Instead, each side tends to engage mainly with those who are like-minded. Those who are seen as espousing a different set of ideas are seen as foes, and are often stigmatised with less-than-complementary labels.

This contest of ideas has become dichotomised into an “us versus them” structure. For some, one cannot be an Islamist and be liberal. Being liberal is considered synonymous with supporting homosexuality. And, one cannot believe in human rights because it is supposedly a liberal idea and is, therefore, un-Islamic.

This fear of liberal ideas has become so central to the thinking of some Islamists that the supplication during the Friday prayers sermon in some states includes asking God to protect Muslims from liberalism. This is ironic, given that the Rukunegara envisions the creation of a society based on a liberal outlook.

Further complicating this situation is the venomous cocktail of race-based Islam. The proponents of this view use Islam to justify the domination of one ethnic group over others. This worldview is eerily similar to Zionism, and the views held by the various permutations of white supremacy groups.

When the proponents of this view continue to refer to minority groups as “kaum pendatang”, but exempt immigrants from Indonesia from such categorisation, one is reminded of Donald Trump’s s***hole remark and his preference for Norwegian immigrants. If only the proponents of race-based Islam look at themselves in the mirror, they would see how much they resemble Trump.

It is also important that proponents of liberal ideals see that being liberal is not about a fixed set of stands on certain issues. Take the understanding on the separation between state and religion. This principle is interpreted very differently in France, the US and the Republic of Ireland. Even France, supposedly the most secular state, uses religious symbolism is some of its medals of honour.

Neither is being liberal about being Westernised. One can dress like an Arab and still be liberal, and dress in a skirt or jacket and tie and be a bigot. One can dress in an Arabic jubah and headgear, have a beard, allow women to drive and open cinemas, and yet, rule oppressively and suppress human rights and freedom of speech.

Contrary to what the media says, such a leader is not a reformist nor a liberal, and definitely not Islamic.

The West does not have a monopoly on ideas, such as human rights, social justice, freedom of expression, etc. And, liberal ideals do not exist in the minds of thinkers and philosophers only. Liberal ideals are interpreted and defined through the democratic process and discourse among citizens. That is why freedom of speech and citizens’ participation are fundamental in liberal societies.

It is time that we bridge this ideological chasm. Can there be a synthesis of the two ideals?

This will require good faith and the willingness to listen to the various perspectives. Unfortunately, such a discourse has not taken place. Unfortunately, the leaders on both sides of the ideological divide are more content with being a part of the problem than being the drivers of the solution.

Ideally, the government should take the lead in creating a national discourse on the future of Malaysian society. However, this is unlikely to happen because it will open to debate the current paradigm and interpretation of history and race relations. This will most likely undermine the legitimacy of some political parties.

Academicians should be able to serve this role, given their tradition of scientific enquiry and seeking the truth. Unfortunately, except for a few, Malaysian academicians prefer to steer clear of anything controversial. They are either too engrossed with publishing and seeking promotion, or too intimidated to cross the grey line of what is acceptable to the ruling establishment. Most prefer to talk about sterile issues, such as statistical significance, correlation coefficients, and the goodness of fit of their abstract and quite often inconsequential models.

So, quo vadis, Malaysia? Perhaps, Marina can rise above the ideological divide and bridge the gap. This would be more meaningful and would probably be the biggest contribution of her life. Otherwise, we can only hope that the next general election will bring in a wise leader who will be a leader to all Malaysians and bring us together. – January 23, 2018.

*Rozhan Othman reads The Malaysian Insight.

* 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.