Last week I attended an Islamic conference featuring scholars in the modern Muslim world sharing what amazed them about the Quran. Amongst the speakers is a popular speaker by the name of Mufti Ismail Menk of Zimbabwe who was supposed to be a guest speaker at the event. However it turns out that he has been banned from public lectures in Singapore. Now this comes as a shock to most Muslims in Singapore. Why the sudden clampdown on an otherwise well meaning preacher who has always spoken about the need for inclusion and to never resort to violence?
No one understood and when we found out why - most were dumbfounded. Within days a certain individual claimed the ban for his own glory.
The individual then posted on his own personal Facebook to comment as such.
Typically, I’m all about free speech and speaking your mind. However I believe that in at least with respect with Mufti Ismail Menk - I wholeheartedly disagree with what was said.
Let’s break it down here for a moment. In Singapore, Muslim affairs are overseen by Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS). Here the individual has spoken AGAINST MUIS. Let it be known that in Singapore there are many branches of Islam and all of them have coexisted in absolute peace - even the sects that are clearly deviant from mainstream Islam. But here steps in an individual who is himself not an accredited scholar, as no such information can be found, but is spouting hatred towards a specific school of thought. He is mostly right that Wahhabism represents some of the most extreme manifestations in Islam. However he is also VERY WRONG in asserting that someone (specifically Mufti Menk) is a Wahhabi. You can only believe what one person has claimed he is and in this respect Mufti Ismail Menk has never claimed himself to be a Wahabi.
So this individual has taken it upon himself - again with no accreditation of scholarship - to denounce others. This is actually very frowned upon in Islam. None has the right to call someone else a Kufr. But the individual has written in to MHA with the support of like minded individuals to get some speakers banned. That’s lobbying and I’m fine with that. He veils it to supposedly be vigilant for Singapore’s national security and that he has true Islam in his mind when doing so.
I will explain below why not only are his thoughts not coherent with his beliefs but they are ultimately dangerous.
1. The individual is NOT a recognised scholar of Islam in Singapore. Therefore his opinions are his and his alone and do not represent all Muslims.
2. He claims that Wahhabism is dangerous and whilst he might be right, instead of engaging the said personalities that he has successfully banned to a debate which Muslims prefer - he has gone the route of lobbying the MHA to get them banned. This is not in any sense warranted or valid. There is no proving the individual’s point except that he himself has presented his case and no verification by peer review has been carried out.
3. The individual is clearly undermining the authority of MUIS by denouncing it - again he has no power to do so - and yet the individual has raised the ire of most Muslims in his actions thus demonstrating that MUIS was probably in the right to ignore his summons as they are themselves an anti-thesis to the spirit of discussion and democratic vote that is Islam. The individual is suggesting that the authority of Islam in Singapore is not valid and that individual Muslims act on their beliefs. This is not only divisive but ultimately ruinous as it replaces a culture of understanding with one of overzealous action.
Because of the above the Individual has effectively slandered against Mufti Menk as the Mufti has repeatedly preached for understanding, inclusion and understanding.
I gladly take the risk in assuming that the individual is not concerned with Singaporean safety at all but instead is afraid that more and more Muslims are listening to modern scholars whose speech and thoughts resonate with their own and are however counter to what the individual believes and the only way he can justify writing in to MHA is to label Mufti Menk as a radical.
This represents a worrisome trend in MHA to listen to individuals instead of the majority. We can safely assume that they sought MUIS’s stand on the matter (they really should have) and can lead us to the outcome that MHA, under the advice of MUIS banned Mufti Menk from public lectures. I wrote in to my representative MP Baey Yam Keng and MUIS and MHA have received no feedback on the matter. Did the authorities enact the ban without first seeking what the public truly thought and instead relied on a few individuals misguided ideals? I would like to add that at this point we know NOTHING about how many people petitioned for the ban so I prefer to seek answers directly and below was my request.
Mufti Menk has since asked for Singaporeans to provide feedback on what they think of his ideology in a poll he released after the events enfolded a few days after the conference. This is what I would think is a very scientific way of determining what the public really thinks. Don’t you? This was done through a Google Survey. Below are the results.
As you can see, an overwhelming number of Muslims’ point of view runs contrary to what the individual was saying. Which leads us to conclude that the Individual was TOTALLY WRONG.
Now I would like to know exactly what methodology did MHA, MUIS and the individual base their opinions and actions on. Until they respond my emails I’m afraid we’ll have to assume that a loud minority is deciding what a majority wants to hear.
