The concept of “Bangsa Malaysia” has seen its ideology and reincarnation in various forms, ranging from Gerakan to the Chinese chauvinists DAP and even the PAP (before Singapore was separated from the Federation of Malaysia). The concept (if it can be called one) assumes that all peoples are one “race” despite the various differences in race, identity and religion. All are “equal” and none are “different”, assimilation of a so-called “Malaysian” identity at the expense of religion is a necessary evil.
“Bangsa Malaysia”, to me, is a failed concept and a nationalistic travesty. Let us come to terms with that. After 49 years of Merdeka, if one is still talking about the need for a unity of races and integrated nationalism, then I feel there is certainly something very wrong with the current system in place. Why do we keep fooling ourselves with irreligious concepts such as, for example, the atrocious “DeepaRaya”, when we cannot (or refuse) to see that our racial tendencies and secular nationalism are the root causes of The Problem? Suffice to say that those who agree to a compromise of a fundamental principle of tawheed just for the propagation of this concept are quite simply, in the words of Ismail al-Faruqi, “puppets in their masters’ hands, who agree with their bosses that Muslims must not be ruled by Shari’ah or be uplifted economically.”
Instead of a failed concept like “Bangsa Malaysia” which is a secular travesty and an offense to Muslims who realise its implications, what I will propose is an ummatism of religions, where everyone are treated equally on the basis of religion. This was first proposed by al-Faruqi who suggested the regrouping of the world on the basis of religion (see Muhammad Shafiq, Growth of Islamic Thought in North America: Focus on Isma’il Raji al Faruqi, Amana Publications: 1994). Namely, there are no longer such things as “Malay”, “Chinese” or “Indian”, etc. but there are Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, etc. who are ethnically from the list above, co-exist in harmony and treat each other with mutual respect. With the concept of ummatism, terms like the atrocious “DeepaRaya” become meaninglesss, as true harmony can now be achieved with the understanding of other religions and their beliefs.
No longer is religion classified according to racial connotations and cultural differences; in fact, one can be a non-Malay ethnically but be part of the ummah of the Muslims not only in Malaysia, but throughout the Muslim World. Likewise, one can be a Chinese ethnically and yet be a Hindu by religion celebrating Deepavali. What better Utopia can one ask for? Why limit yourself to the constraints of nationalism when you can become a part of a global ummah?
12 responses so far ↓
__earth // Nov 7, 2006 at 11:50 am
Your ummatism is just another assimilation policy. Instead of being assimilated through nationalism, yours seeks to assimilate through religion. Not quite a quantum leap for improvement, IMO.
Silver // Nov 7, 2006 at 1:22 pm
Your final paragraph seems to have something missing from it. It’s funny how you only state the “non-malay” and “chinese”.
Justin Wong // Nov 7, 2006 at 4:19 pm
If one bases our differences on religion, how is it different from differentiating each other according to race? It is still some kind of ’segregation’, right? If it is wrong to treat/judge other people based on race, skin color, sexual preference, or even profession, how is treating based on religion any better?
I know you are trying to say that not all members of a race share a common culture+attitude+belief. But it seems that ummatism has its own implications as well, in my opinion. The war between the west and middle east could be something of a related example.
I’m just wondering out loud, not shooting anyone.
kaki bangku // Nov 7, 2006 at 4:52 pm
KakiPolemik,
a very provocative piece indeed! One advantage of ummatism is it blurs national boundaries. Is that good or bad?
Earth,
I see religion as being more tolerant than racism. Well,…ehem…. not the xtians. But I’d say religion-based violence has more to do with misinterpretation for personal goals.
Justin,
The war between the West and ME is all about capitalistic gains more than anything else - which, in fact, is partly due to inherent nationalistic pursuits.
stupid // Nov 8, 2006 at 2:02 am
is this plagiarism from menj?
http://www.menj.org/2006/11/07/the-failure-of-bangsa-malaysia/
the original is WITHOUT the 1st paragraph. it seems like poster has political agenda and try to put the opposition party in bad light by playing religion card. Bangsa Malaysia has nothing to do with religion or whatsoever.
Wanna know the truth? read wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangsa_Malaysia
The Bangsa Malaysia (Malay: Malaysian race) policy was introduced by Mahathir Mohamad, then Prime Minister of Malaysia to create an inclusive national identity for all inhabitants of Malaysia, thus abandoning the National Culture Policy that asserted a Malay ethnic national identity. Mahathir Mohamad said it means “people being able to identify themselves with the country, speak Bahasa Malaysia (the Malay language) and accept the Constitution.”[1]
PAP and DAP push for the idea “Malaysian Malaysia”, which also has nothing whatsoever related to religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysian_Malaysia
everyone, PLEASE get the facts right. not everything posted in blog is right. u never know if someone is twisting the fact for their own agenda.
ummi // Nov 8, 2006 at 4:20 am
haiyya…….
Apa cerita ni???
__earth // Nov 8, 2006 at 8:49 am
Nationalism is not racism. Two different concepts with two different meanings. I think you misunderstood the term of nationalism.
mrq // Nov 8, 2006 at 11:25 am
wahahaha, ape citer??? is it another flattering immitation or kaki polemik is actually menj?(i don’t know but i doubt it, the menj guy is a pro blogger). waiting for answer……
stupid // Nov 8, 2006 at 4:08 pm
i’ve commented on menj side regrading this. however, the comment was removed. well, it is not comfirmed whether kaki polemik = menj or who is the original author or which is the original version.
however, from what we can see in this post, someone is trying twisted the fact by playing religion card for their own political agenda.
stupid // Nov 8, 2006 at 4:27 pm
hmm, my mistake. it seems like my comment has not yet been approved.
kakiblog.com » Islam and the Concept of the Nation-State // Nov 10, 2006 at 1:42 pm
[...] We must first of all note that the concept of the nation-state is pretty much absent in Islam, during the establishment of the first Islamic State in the world (Madinah) and throughout the political history of the Caliphate era. This is in the spirit of the following hadith, where it is reported in Muslim that `Abdullah ibn `Amr ibn al-’As narrated that he heard the Prophet Muhammad (P) say, “He who gave the bai’ah (oath of fealty) to a leader, giving him the clasp of his hand and the fruit of his heart has to obey him as long as he can. If another comes to dispute with him (his authority) strike the neck of that person.” Thus from the very beginning of Islam, there can only be one ruler and one Ummah under the ruler, hence the idea of ummatism, which in an Islamic state is not an assimilation of religious values at the expense of nationalism but independent, autonomous communities swearing fealty to the ruler. The idea of nation-states and thus nationalism only emerged out of 18th-century Europe which was rife with factionalism and racism, squabbling amongst themselves. After the dismantlement of the Ottoman Empire, artificial nation-states such as Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon and Syria were created as a result of colonialism and colonial powers. [...]
Enma Ai // Nov 13, 2006 at 3:51 pm
While I agree that the best way to organise the global community is under one single ideology - that of Islam, your suggestion for a new world order on the basis of religion seems a bit too idealistic, for two reasons.
First, apart from Islam, most other religions are not political in nature. They are strictly religions and their domains are strictly spiritual and ethical/moral. Contemporary events suggest a greater religious/cultural consciousness, I agree. However the call for more political direction of religion has been most prominently advanced by Muslims because most others are content with the idea of secularism. It was Maududi who suggests that people belonging to religion other than Islam are quite happy with being Marxists, liberals, feminists, etc, while Muslims, in particular those within the tradition of Ahl as-Sunnah wal Jamaah maintain that Islam cannot be associated with any other ideologies because it is self-sufficient and self-contained. Thus any political arrangement based on religion - other than Islam - is a far-cry from the present state of affairs, be it in theory or in practice.
Second, according to Islamic eschatology, a time will come in history where the “Romans†would constitute the majority of the human population. This is not to suggest that the Italians would suddenly induldge themselves in some sort of fertility spree. Rather I understand this to mean that most part of the world would fall under the banner of Western ideology, whatever religions they belong to.
I also have a problem with your denunciation of ethnicity or specifically, Malayness. How do you reconcile this with the Quranic verse: “O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other†(Al-Hujarat 49:13)? This verse specifically shows that races and tribes are Allah’s deliberate creation, so why must we renounce it? In this respect, I agree with Husam Musa’s claim that race is a “gift†from Allah. Moreover, Prophet Muhammad himself (peace and blessings be upon him) made several remarks concerning his own race: “To love the Arabs is faith; to hate them is unbelief. Who loves the Arabs loves me; who hates the Arabs hates meâ€. This is evidence that even the Prophet himself takes pride in his own ethnicity, not to suggest any superiority or sectarianism but simply that race, like one’s country or culture, is merely the platform upon which we can advance our duty as His vicegerent on earth.
Leave a Comment