An article in Swedish newspaper DN reports about the attacks on Christian churches. It is thought that these attacks are in part a response to a court ruling stating that Christians may use the word "Allah" for "God" as well, and the subsequent use of "Allah" in Catholic Malay newspaper The Herald. The article further talks about the recently growing tension between religious groups in the country, as well as the Malaysian government's efforts to keep these tensions low. The article is probably one of the more balanced ones on Islam that I've read in DN, but there's one important dimension that I feel is missing.
While the delicate balance between different ethnic groups is mentioned, as well as the fear among some groups of what is perceived as an "Islamisation" of Malaysia, I believe the article fails to address the tangled relation between ethnicity and religion, and with it relations of political and financial power and influence.
Ever since Malaysia was a British colony, and in particular after the British withdrawal and the Malaysian independence some 60 years ago, there has been an underlying ethnic tension. It has been suggested that the British intentionally played ethnic groups against each other - making sure the Chinese held most of the financial power and the Malays held the political power. Regardless of the cause, this has been and to some extent continues to be the case. It is also, I believe, an important piece in understanding the religious tensions.
In Malaysia, and decreed in the constitution, being Muslim is a requirement for being considered "Malay" (or Bumi Putra, although the Bumi Putra also include aboriginal peoples who don't necessarily follow Islam). Given the economic imbalance between Malays and Chinese, there is affirmative action towards Malays, granting them among other things priority for positions at state-run universities, government jobs as well as other economic benefits. There is a definite connection between ethnicity, religion and influence (be it political or economic).
This question of identity is highly complicated, and has been addressed in several government-initiated policies and programs, all trying to create a common Malaysian identity, most recently in the 1Malaysia campaign. The same has been done by many different NGO's and non-government initiatives, such as the proposed IFC (or "Inter-Faith Commission", which I actually partly based my Masters' thesis on) that was supposed to create a platform where different religious groups could meet and initiate dialogue. The IFC failed, sadly, and to a large extent I think this was because of a fear that such open dialogue and inter-faith exchange would somehow erode differences between religions, thus making them lose part of their ability to serve as foundations for identity. In a way, not too dissimilar to the critique from some Muslim groups against the Christian use of the word "Allah" for "God".
I think this shows both a strength and a weakness in religion itself. Religions do have the ability to serve as a foundation for identity, there's no doubt there. In fact, I think that along with providing some explanation of the world itself, this is the main use for religion - creating a sense of purpose and giving meaning to one's own life, thus creating and shaping one's identity. But identity can, at a fundamental level, be shaped in two ways. Put simply, it can be monistic or it can be dualistic.
The monistic view is the one often taken by mystics. It imparts a sense of participation, a sense of being part of creation itself. In its most inclusive form, this view teaches us that we are all One, and that while there may still be differences we are all connected. It is often (but by no means only) harmonious and tolerant, and borrowing from Riane Eisler (as I often do) I would say this view orients closely to the partnership ideal.
The other view is the dualistic one. This is the one most common in Christianity, Islam and Judaism. It divides the world in the good, the faithful - those of the True Faith - and the evil, the heretical - the Unbelievers. There may of course be "different degrees in Hell", some Unbelievers are perhaps not quite as bad as others, but there is still a distinction between "us" and "them". This distinction is an important part in the formation of identity in the dualistic view - it is a case of "uniting against an outside threat", so to speak. Again borrowing from Riane Eisler, this view orients closely to the dominator ideal.
Naturally there are degrees between the monistic and the dualistic views, but I think it might be a useful model nonetheless. It gives nuance, showing that religion, on its own, isn't inherently dividing or unifying, and it also shows that being unifying isn't necessarily always a good thing either. If you create identity, be it self- or group-identity, based on a dualistic view - if you build your identity as a response to a perceived outside threat - chances are you might create a threat where there wasn't one before.
I think that in today's world, we are in dire need of some sort of unification, some sense of both belonging and connection to each other. But I believe that the quickest route, that of uniting against a common enemy, is simply reinforcing the dualistic and dominator ideal. Because what happens once the common, outer enemy is gone? Will we not simply create a new enemy and start turning on each other, forming new groups and new identities in opposition to a perceived threat - real or otherwise?
Update: The New York Times writes about this as well. They do a better job at pointing out the tangled relation between ethnicity and religion than the article in Swedish DN which I originally referred to, and they point to the 1969 riots as a root cause of the current ethnic policies. A lot of Malaysian politics since then has revolved around coming to terms with ethnic and religious tensions, and the affirmative action towards Malays is to a great extent a response and way of dealing with this complex problem (whether or not it is a successful or viable policy is doubtful, but as they say - "it is what it is").
Another thing I feel should be commented on is how both the DN and NYT articles point to recent applications of Sharia law and the fear of Islamisation. I think the lack of in-depth analysis, background and problematisation around this is a problem in itself, and only serves to increase a fear of Islamisation. This is something that fundamentalists on both sides, Muslim and Christian, gain from - but few others, as it serves to further polarise the discussion.
No comments:
Post a Comment