1. Compass Diewct News (http://compassdirect.org)
MALAYSIA: BIBLES CONFISCATED AT AIRPORT, 5 February 2008
Customs officer claims Bibles must be cleared with Internal Security Ministry.
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, February 5 (Compass Direct News) – A customs officer on January 28 confiscated two boxes containing 32 Bibles at a low-cost carrier terminal from a citizen returning from a trip to the Philippines, further troubling Malaysian Christians beset by government curbs on press and religious freedoms.
Online news agency Malaysiakini reported yesterday that upon arrival at the airport, Juliana Nichols was asked to open the boxes and declare their contents. Despite producing a letter from her parish priest stating that the English Bibles were meant for use in her church, the officer told Nichols the texts needed to be cleared with the Internal Security Ministry’s Control Division of Publications and Al-Quran Texts.
When Nichols asked when the Bibles would be returned to her, the customs officer reportedly said, “It would depend on those people at the division.”
The Rev. Dr. Hermen Shastri, general secretary of the Council of Churches of Malaysia, said in a press statement that “the Bible is Holy Scripture for Christians” and “no authority on earth should deny Christians the right to possess, read and travel with their Bibles.” He called for the immediate release of the Bibles and an official apology from the Royal Malaysian Customs Department.
Shastri called for Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi, who is also Internal Security Minister, to make “a clear and unequivocal statement to assure Christians in the country that they will not be subject to such harassment and that their holy books will not be subject to the scrutiny of the Control Division of Publications and Al-Quran Texts of the Internal Security Ministry.”
In another strongly-worded statement issued by the chairman of the Christian Federation of Malaysia, Bishop Paul Tan Chee Ing asked, “Since when have English Bibles become a ‘security issue’ in our country?”
The federation expressed appreciation for Deputy Internal Security Minister Fu Ah Kiow taking steps to ensure that the Bibles were returned to Nichols and for stating publicly that the customs officer had no authority to seize them. The minister reportedly told the Star that instructions had been given to return the texts to Nichols.
Nevertheless, in view of the fact that this was not an isolated case, Bishop Tan called on the minister to come up with “a directive restraining all government agencies from future harassment, especially by the internal security enforcement officers.”
Other Seizures
The incident is the latest in a series of seizures of Christian publications by officers from government agencies. Earlier this year, officers from the Control Division of Publications and Al-Quran Texts seized Christian publications for children from bookstores in several states across the country because they contained illustrations of prophets deemed offensive to Muslims.
Islam shares some prophets in common with Christianity but disallows the portrayal of prophets in any form.
Following protests from the Christian community that the books were not meant for Muslims, the books have since been returned to bookstores.
Late last year, the Evangelical Church of Borneo (Sidang Injil Borneo, or SIB) filed a lawsuit against the government for disallowing it from importing six titles of Christian educational materials for children which contained the Arabic term for God, “Allah.” The consignment of books was confiscated upon arrival at the low-cost carrier terminal on August 15, 2007.
The government contended that the term “Allah” can only be used in the context of Islam lest it cause confusion among Muslims.
SIB argued that the term “Allah” predates Islam and that Malay-speaking native churches in the country have always, continuously and consistently used the term.
Counsel for the government has applied for a postponement of the court case from January 29 to sometime in May or June to allow it to prepare its response to SIB’s written submission.
Local sources indicate that the confiscated books have been returned to SIB.
Nevertheless, the church is proceeding with the case, challenging the government’s stance and maintaining that the term “Allah” can be used in all Christian religious publications.
2. Malaysiakini.com (http://www.malaysiakini.com)
(1) 'Islamic' terms censored on TV, 28 January 2008
by Slipperyhead
I refer to the letter 'Allah' term unique, exclusive.
I was just flipping through the TV channels last Friday, when I came across something that I could only classify as ‘interesting’ in light of the whole ‘Allah’ controversy that has been happening in Malaysia recently. I happened to have flipped to this show called ‘JAG’ that was being shown on Star World (through Astro, of course). In a particular scene, the lead heroine of the show Sarah 'Mac' Mackenzie happened to pass by this (apparently) Arabic diplomat (played by an actor I recognized as Erick Avari, a Hindu I believe).
This diplomat (or he might have been a minister) greeted Sarah with ‘Assalamualaikum’. But the interesting part is that when Sarah greeted him back with ‘Walaikumsalam,’ her part was censored out! Really!
It seemed to me that the only reason this would be done was because she is American, and, presumably, a non-Muslim. Isn't that interesting? Our local Astro channels have already begun censoring such ‘Islamic’ terms if, and only if, they are spoken by characters who are non-Muslim.
(2) Book ban: the two faces of Islam Hadhari, 11 February 2008
by Ismail Che Yahaya
On Jan 29, the Malaysian government banned 11 books, one of them The Two Faces of Islam: Saudi Fundamentalism and Its Role in Terrorism authored by Stephen Schwartz, a Muslim convert.
Schwartz suggested that ‘Saudi-Wahhabi agents’ in Malaysia had become alarmed by the publication of the book in Bahasa Indonesia, Dua Wajah Islam.
In a protest statement against the Malaysian ban, Schwartz commented: ‘It’s contemptible and, frankly, reveals the backward-looking attitudes of authorities in Malaysia, a country which prides itself on its alleged modernisation as an economic tiger.
‘In reality, books cannot be banned today. They are smuggled, pirated – especially in Southeast Asia – downloaded, and, in the case of my book, can easily be imported from Indonesia and read by Malaysians who do not know English’.
Regardless of Schwartz’s wild guess, book banning in Malaysia of late has gone beyond ‘Saudi- Wahhabi agents’.
Before The Two Faces of Islam, the Internal Security Ministry banned four titles on religious fundamentalism over two years. They are:
Islamic Fundamentalism since 1945 (banned 07 June 2007),
Feminism and Islamic Fundamentalism: The Limits of Postmodern Analysis (26 April 2007),
The Battle for God: Fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity and Islam (8 June 2006) and,
A Fundamental Fear: Eurocentrism and The Emergence of Islamism (8 June 2006).
See the ministry's full list of banned books here.
Islamic fundamentalism is a broad phenomenon, not solely engineered or funded by the Saudi regime. In fact, fundamentalism is no longer a Christian or Muslim political landscape. It has gained currency and inflicted other religions too.
Karen Armstrong, in her banned book, describes religious fundamentalism of the 20th century as a response to modern, liberal, materialist globalised civilization. She writes: ‘The West has developed an entirely unprecedented and wholly different type of civilisation, so the religious response to it has been unique’.
Religious fundamentalists, she elaborates, ‘have absorbed the pragmatic rationalism of modernity, and, under the guidance of their charismatic leaders, they refine these ‘fundamentals’ so as to create an ideology that provides the faithful with a plan of action’.
Therefore, it is of no surprise that even Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism and Confucianism have developed fundamentalist factions.
That is why I find the banning is so overwhelming in that it shows the ‘two faces’ of Islam Hadhari as formulated by our present prime minister. On one hand, he tries to promote more tolerant, progressive and moderate Islam but on the other hand, his government has time and again banned such scholarly books on fundamentalism.
Does it mean our government is protecting and nurturing a fundamentalist mindset among Muslims? Has his Islam Hadhari project been infiltrated by fundamentalist elements in his bureaucracy?
(3) Book ban: who are we to question gov't?, 13 February 2008
by S Abdullah
I am refer to the letter Book ban: the two faces of Islam Hadhari.
I believe the Internal Security Ministry banned all the books the writer mentioned in good faith because the ministry, as I understand it, has religious experts to evaluate all the books.
Furthermore, they can refer material to Islamic Development Department (Jakim), a division under the Prime Minister’s Department, or state religious departments and muftis.
In fact, as I was told, a well-known mufti Harussani Zakaria chairs the Jakim's censorship committee. He is also the chairperson of the National Fatwa Committee and the Perak mufti.
This committee then recommends to the Internal Security Ministry to ban any book deemed detrimental to Islamic beliefs and values. The ministry does not ban any book because of political pressure or political reasons as suggested by the writer or the author Stephen Schwartz.
The writer’s claims that ‘our government is protecting and nurturing a fundamentalist mindset among Muslims’ and that ‘his Islam Hadhari project has been infiltrated by fundamentalist elements’ are a far-fetched insinuations.
One of the books recently banned is the locally published Islam dan Pluralisme edited by Al-Mustaqeem Mahmod Radhi and Khairul Anam Che Menteri. The book tried to project the idea that Islam can tolerate or accept any truth, even those from other religions. This is a fatally dangerous notion propagated by liberal Muslims worldwide.
The banned book tried to sell the idea that Islam and other religions are ‘the same’ because any religion will lead its followers to the Truth and heaven. See, for instance, Chapter Three of Islam dan Pluralisme as written by Asghar Ali Engineer. The whole section argues that other religions are as true as Islam!
See also the next chapter ‘Macam-macam Jalan ke Syurga’ authored by an Iranian by the name Reza Shah-Kazemi, and his subsequent chapter ‘Kristian di Masjid Nabawi: Renungan ke dalam Sunnah’ and ‘Pluralisme Keagamaan dan Islam’ written by John Hick.
Very unfortunately, however, Muslims cannot swallow such liberal, pragmatist ideas. If the writer may refer to the Quran, it says ‘the only religion recognised by Allah is Islam’. Religious experts and our muftis, including Harussani Zakaria, have criticised such ideas and warned Muslims against the danger of being influenced by them.
"If left unchecked, liberalism and pluralism will be difficult to control," said Harussani Zakaria when speaking at the Ulamak 2006 Convention.
I wonder why the writer only highlighted only one book, The Two Faces of Islam: Saudi Fundamentalism and Its Role in Terrorism and did not refer to the other 10 banned books.
Is he trying to accuse the present prime minister with dissemination of Wahhabism, allegedly funded by the Saudi Arabian government as insinuated by Stephen Schwartz’s term ‘Saudi- Wahhabi agents in Malaysia’?
Is he also saying the Malaysian government now is under ‘fundamentalist’s hands’?
The writer’s analysis not only provides an incomplete picture of the censorship policy of the ministry, but also distorts the truth and puts the Malaysian government in bad light. By portraying the wrong picture, he accused Islam Hadhari of having ‘two faces’ or double standard.
If the writer is willing to see the truth, he may refer to Jakim’s website or call the ministry’s office. This before writing a letter with such a bend.
(4) Our religious and civil liberties, 12 February 2008
by KJ John
I was shocked and dismayed, while in the US, to read that "32 English bibles have been seized by the customs department." Although they have now been released, this "new habit of the heart" raises some very key and important questions about how ordinary government officials see their role in public life.
Is it the duty of the Customs Department to "police morality" in this country? Or, have they now become the "new customs and traditions department;" thereby evolving a duty and responsibility to police the morality of who reads "bibles?" To do so they have to seize 32 copies of English Bibles, with a clear evidence of a letter from a Parish Priest about the purpose for them being brought into the country. And, it had everything to do with customs and traditions of Christians who see the bible as a sacred book; the contents and not the physical book alone.
Or, maybe the Customs Department feels they have to do it on behalf of the Ministry of Internal Security’s book division? What is the legal basis for a customs officer to do that? Was it because taxes were not paid? Was it because it is a banned item? My real question revolves around the ‘locus standi’ for the public agent to do what he or she did? Or, is it simply "a new habit of the heart or soft despotism?"
To quote from Wikipedia: Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by self-interest might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people. In a soft despotism, people may have the illusion that they are in a democracy, when in fact they have no influence in the government. Alexis de Tocqueville observed that this trend was avoided in America only by the "habits of the heart" of its 19th-century populace. {quote from Alexis de Tocqueville's book Democracy in America }
To me, a retired government officer, I find this astounding that a junior officer of the public services can "simply create ‘new laws and rules’ outside the jurisdiction of the customs department" and raise anger, confusion and mischief amongst our multi-racial population with a total disregard for the Rukunegara principle of the rule of law and guarantees of the Federal Constitution. Is it therefore the clear objective of government to allow their agents to "administer whims and fancies" as the rule of law? Or, are we really tended towards a "new habits of the heart" of one group of people and aimed at frustrating the freedom faith and practice of the religious liberty already enshrined in the Constitution?
‘Righteous anger’
Frankly, I was therefore not surprised but somewhat concerned to read the tone of the Council of Churches Malaysia’s (CCM) statement regarding the matter. The general secretary of the CCM issued a statement which among others said the following: "We want to state categorically that the Bible is Holy Scripture for Christians. No authority on earth should deny Christians the right to possess, read and travel with their Bibles." This particular issue was not related to a personal bible but a box of 32 bibles being brought into the country. Nonetheless, obviously, in Christian terms, this response can be considered almost like "righteous anger."
Christians, who make up about 2.6 million Malaysians, have a right to take umbrage on this matter, because this comes closely after the recent efforts to "ban the use of the pre-Islamic word for God, "Allah" in the Bahasa Malaysia bibles. The CCM represents all mainstream protestant churches including all Methodist, Anglican and Lutheran churches. My guess is that they make up about 30-40% of all Christians in Malaysia. So, when the general secretary speaks, he speaks on behalf of this community of Christians. It will do the government good to listen and hear their frustration and not ignore it.
The very next day, the Chairman of the Christian Federation of Malaysia (CFM), Bishop Paul Tan issued an even stronger statement. The central thesis was that on the matter of "their faith and practice" the Christians in Malaysia are answerable only to God. His concluding statement was very telling. "In the run-up to the national elections, it is important for the churches to be convinced that the policy of the Barisan Nasional guarantees religious freedom and would not tolerate any actions that undermine the religious rights of all citizens of Malaysia."
The CFM is the federation of all Christian Churches in Malaysia; making up the three component expressions, namely the Catholics, Protestants and Evangelical Christians. All these make up the 2.6 million Christians in Malaysia. I believe there are at least 2,000-6,000 congregations of Christians throughout Malaysia. To understand the significance of the numbers, in case it is lost to some, even Umno only has 3,000 delegates at their general assembly from about three million members. But I do not think that even Umno has as many branches on the ground. In short, this army of Christian peace-makers is always ready to march once the command is received from their Lord and God for the sake of standing up for justice in this world. Their priests, pastors and elders are merely representative stewards of both this faith and grace of God already expressed in their Lord Jesus Christ.
Therefore, I would think it is important that the government does not take this matter lightly. In fact, although theologically the Christians cannot start a ChristRAF (in the spirit of Hindraf), it would be important for the government to talk and listen to the views of the two Christian ministers in cabinet before this matter gets really out of control, and every "zealotry public agent" thinks that they have a religious duty for policing morality.
God-given freedom
While I am fully aware that Christians in Malaysia will never probably from a political party, I hope and pray that the government will not take this fact also lightly when it comes to issues related to Christian rights, duties, responsibilities and responsible action. Individual Christians are called to be responsible citizens and to respect every government in power. But that does not mean that Christians will tolerate abuse of their rights, and especially related to the freedom of faith and worship. They believe this is a God-given freedom of conscience and no human can deny that freedom to worship their one true God. Therefore Bishop Paul Tan’s warning is relevant.
Maybe a timely reminder for all concerned is the actions and statements of Cardinal Sin in the Philippines which directly led to the fall of the former President Marcos. Two million six hundred thousand Christians do translate to about 800,000-1,000,000 votes in this coming general election, assuming all are registered to vote. On the average, this may be about 10-15 percent in most urban constituencies or even up to 30 percent in all the constituencies of Sabah and Sarawak. That size is bigger than even the MIC. Unless the Barisan government does not really care about Christian votes, it would be prudent of someone at the very high level to clarify this issue before the general election. Failing which, I will not be surprised if the pulpits throughout the country begin to address this issue as a matter of administrative injustice, much like in the Lina Joy case. Christians believe that final justice always belongs to God, and they will always pray towards the realisation of this end but are allowed and encouraged to stand up of issues of conscience, against any unjust authority.
This issue of what values constitute public space civility, was also the substance of a presentation I attended at the Trinity University Conference in Los Angeles on "God and Governing." Leading and well known sociologist Dr Os Guinness argued a full blown thesis of "the case for civility for even a country like America" which already practices clear separation of the church and state, at least in forms! Although his entire argument was for the American case, this British gentleman made an excellent and brilliant argument for the same globally. He compared the three experimental histories of good governance by the French, the British and the Americans.
And his conclusion was that diversity requires a public space democracy which is founded on religious and civil liberties which are already enshrined in the American 1st Amendment, most fully described in the Williamsburg Charter of 1988. And, to support his case, he quotes from President John F Kennedy’s commencement address at the American University in June 1963:
"So, let us not be blind to our differences - but let it also direct our attention to our common interests and to means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal."
In the final analysis, our challenge in Malaysia too is whether we can make "our world safe for diversity?" We started on the successful management of our diversities with a clear and unequivocal agenda for national unity 50 years ago through our Merdeka Constitution as our primary social contract. But, in the recent past, our country seems no more a safe place for diversity. All religious minorities are being marginalised by unbecoming actions of religious zealots in public service, without a constitutional mandate for them to do so.
To me, this general election is only about this one single issue, "Will there be a continued tolerance for a freedom of conscience in Malaysia?" Increasingly, and to our dismay, very frequently, many religious zealots are making "administrative rules and laws based on the habits of their hearts, without any regard for the Federal Constitution."
For this reason alone, as I have said before, I will elect to vote against the government of the day unless they come out with a clear and unequivocal statement that Malaysia is not an Islamic state in the ideological sense of the concept but rather a state run alongside good and universal religious principles which form and inform all our public space civil values. Currently, I sadly note that even Deputy Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak, has gone against his father’s statement that we are a secular state. I find this unacceptable. May God have mercy on Malaysia!
(End)
