Dr M and Zakir Naik: Who is supporting who?

On July 7, Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed publicly declared that the Malaysian government would not deport controversial preacher Zakir Naik back to India as he had been granted permanent residency in Malaysia and had not created any problems in the country.

Not surprisingly, Dr Naik has called Dr Mahathir “fearless” and expressed appreciation for his “unbiased position”.

Yet, more than compassionate sentiments, providing safe haven to Islamists has been a key strategy of the government to appease the Malay-Muslim electorate.

Indeed, Rais Hussin, a strategist within Dr Mahathir’s Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia (PPBM), highlighted that extraditing Dr Naik would be akin to deporting Uighur Muslims.

Dr Naik came under severe scrutiny in 2016 when it was revealed that one of the terrorists involved in the attack on the Holey Artisan Bakery in Dhaka, Bangladesh, was a follower of the televangelist.

In October 2017, India’s National Investigation Agency charged Dr Naik with incitement of terrorist activities and with hate speeches.

But Interpol refused to issue a Red Notice against Dr Naik, citing the lack of  evidence, and Dr Naik himself has always denied any wrongdoing.

The televangelist remains popular around the world despite his controversial remarks, such as recommending the death penalty for homosexuals and for people who abandon Islam.

He is also well-known for his contentious endorsement of Osama bin Laden.

Dr Naik has been denied a visa in United Kingdom and Canada. His sermons are also banned in Singapore, where government leaders have warned about the negative impact his exclusivist teachings would have on the country’s social harmony.

Yet Dr Naik has managed to find refuge in Malaysia because of the important role of political Islam in the country.

Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin, the highly-respected Mufti of Perlis, was one of many prominent Malaysian figures who have defended Dr Naik, pointing out in 2016 that his sermons do not advocate terrorism.

In fact, in 2013, Zakir Naik was awarded the Tokoh Ma’al Hijrah Distinguished Personality International Award by the Malaysian king himself.

In light of the Indian government’s extradition demands, the Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS), the main Islamist opposition in Malaysia, urged the government to ignore Delhi.

PAS added that the charges against Dr Naik in India “block his influence and efforts to spread religious awareness among the international community”.

Yet, Dr Mahathir’s decision to resist the Indian government’s extradition speaks more about the current domestic setting of Malaysia.

First, Dr Mahathir’s strong support for Dr Naik emerges at a critical juncture for the newly formed Pakatan Harapan government.

Ever since the unexpected electoral victory of the coalition, critics have accused the government of not protecting Malay-Muslim rights and the rule of Islam in the country.

Such concerns were further heightened by the naming of an ethnic Chinese, Mr Lim Guan Eng, as Finance Minister for the first time since 1974 and the appointment of a Catholic Indian, Mr Tommy Thomas, as the Attorney-General.

Pro-Malay groups linked to the United Malays National Organisation claimed that the naming of Mr Lim signals a deal struck between the Chinese-dominated Democratic Action Party and PPBM to buttress Chinese political and economic domination.

The race and religion card was likewise deployed in reminding Malays Mr Thomas’ article in support of the Catholic Church during its legal battle with the government regarding the reference of “Allah” as God in Malay-language bibles.

One episode which further raises questions about the newly formed government’s commitment to safeguard the rights of the Malay-Muslims was its decision to reform the Department of Islamic Development Malaysia (Jakim).

Jakim is the main institution in the country which oversees the regulation of Islam.

Its responsibilities include the training of madrasah teachers, the preparation of the weekly Friday sermons, streamlining Islamic family laws in 13 states and three federal territories, and overseeing the implementation of halal certificates.

The importance of Jakim is underscored by the RM1.03 billion budget that former Prime Minister Najib Razak assigned it in 2018.

Many conservative Muslims expressed concerns at a potentially minimised role of Jakim, while Utusan Malaysia, the main Umno-owned newspaper, claimed that a potential shut down of Jakim would be akin to disregarding the interests of the Muslim community.

However, beyond the critics’ uproar, there is little evidence to suggest that Dr Mahathir’s government would fail to safeguard the supremacy of Malay-Muslims and Islam.

Pakatan Harapan made references to the privileged position of the Bumiputera and the supremacy of Islam in Malaysia in its election manifesto, wherein race-centric policies were disguised under a discourse of multiculturalism.

Indeed, Dr Mahathir emphasised in early June that Islam is the official religion of the country embodied into the Federal Constitution and that his administration would administer the country in accordance to Islam.

As it stands, the Pakatan government faces a strong 97-seat Malay-Muslim opposition.

PAS retained Kelantan, regained Terengganu and made unprecedented inroads into Pahang and Kedah, while Umno still maintains its stronghold in the largely rural, Malay-majority states.

Dr Mahathir has issued a statement denying that his administration’s decision to reform Jakim will diminish the role of Islam.

Instead, it would be reformed so as to discard any potentially “cruel, harsh and unreasonable” aspects of Islam upheld by the institution.

Such a reform does not imply a diminishing role for Islam, but rather a strategic repositioning to define the “right” kind of Islam.

This way, by wresting the control of the regulation of Islam, Dr Mahathir would ensure Malay-Muslims see the Pakatan Harapan government as the key protector of their rights.

While Dr Mahathir expressed his support for Dr Naik purportedly because of his belief in justice, closer scrutiny suggests otherwise.

Throughout his campaigning as the leader of the then-opposition Pakatan Harapan and following his unexpected victory in the general elections on  May 9, conservative Muslims have expressed their concern that Dr Mahathir’s seemingly multiracial agenda might disempower the Malays and disregard the supremacy of Islam.

Yet, an astute politician par excellence, Dr Mahathir has couched race and religion-centric policies under the discourse of inclusivity.

By employing soft power strategies, such as his ostensible support for Dr Naik, he essentially reasserted the supremacy of Islam in Malaysia.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Aida Arosoaie is a senior analyst within the Malaysia Programme at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University.