I have been thinking about the question of influential people in Islam and who has the right to speak on behalf of Islam. This led me to an article in the American Muslim today. There is a legal battle in Malaysia where authorities are attempting to silence some self-proclaimed cleric:
The Sharia authorities in the Malaysian state of Selangor have charged the former Mufti of Perlis, Dr. Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin, of preaching Islam without a permit to do so. For Malaysian-watchers worldwide, this case will be seen as a litmus test for Malaysia, the Najib administration, the government and Sharia authorities of Selangor (now under the control of the Pakatan Rakyat), and the state of Islamic praxis in Malaysia in general. The outcome of the case will tell us where Islam is heading in a country that has for some time now been seen and cast as an exemplary model of normative Islam at work. But is it really?
Former Mufti Asri’s ‘crime’, if one could even call it that, was to preach Islam without an official permit. But in the course of the past few weeks the man himself has been vilified by his critics and accused of being – among other things – a Wahabi Muslim as well.
It is an interesting debate. I can see how some who are drawn to anarchy would also be drawn to Islam. It has a very decentralized nature with only a Transcendent God and an anti-iconic Holy Prophet to hold it together. Islam is ….whatever they say it is. Politics. Activism. Terrorism. Mysticism. Etc.
Critics and Islamophobes of course also find this situation very appealing as they can quote any self-proclaimed leader as an example and hold them up as proof of what they contend. Forbes has been particularly horrible lately with “Commentary” from a series of neocon sockpuppetry like the following, about the Spliter in Islam’s Side from a former Army Ranger and Harvard Grad student today:
He talks about what he is not talking about:
This article has not touched on the practice of honor killings within the Islamic community nor has it discussed the women in Afghanistan who light themselves on fire to escape forced marriages in which they are treated like chattel. It has not discussed the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who was killed after releasing a movie that purportedly mocked Islam. It has not explored the 9/11 attacks nor the 3/11 attacks in Madrid.
and then he goes on a little history trip:
In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams sat down with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Tripolitan ambassador to Britain, to discuss the unprovoked attacks of the Barbary pirates on American ships. Jefferson and Adams were understandably confused as to the motivation for the pirates to attack American ships when the Americans had no quarrel with them. They recorded Ambassador Adja’s response to their inquiries; in a letter to Congress, Jefferson and Adams noted “that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.” The justification contained in this passage never mentions economic goods like oil or political issues like Israel, most notably because the first was not relevant at the time and the second did not exist. The central driver of the war was the religious duty of Muslims to subjugate the infidels.
Basically, the author contends that pirates have the authority to explain and portray Islam correctly. Why not? They are not the first nor the last pirates to do so.
All of this makes me wonder whether it is a good thing or a bad thing that Muslims do not rigorously impose standards on religious leaders. I see issues both ways. Most religions of course have some element of unsanctioned leadership. Numbers of followers alone give these leaders authority to speak and represent the level of their “influence.”
Something to consider.
