A Balance Approach To The Issue Of “Merry Christmas” Greeting By Muslims | Pergas Blog

wasat

merry-christmas-greetings

A Balance Approach To The Issue Of “Merry Christmas” Greeting By Muslims

01 February 2019 2:45 am // Written by Muhammad Haniff Hassan, Dr. Mustazah Bin Bahari

A year ago during the festive period of Christmas, a controversy was sparked by the issue of Muslims offering “Merry Christmas” greeting to Christians which led to the banning of a popular Muslim scholar known as Mufti Menk, a Zimbabwean national, from entering Singapore, because of his view that such act is forbidden in Islam. To him, the “Merry Christmas” greeting by a Muslim is tantamount to the recognition of Christianity’s Trinitarian faith which contradicts Islam’s monotheist belief in God.[1]

From the Singapore government’s point of view, the view subscribed and propagated by Menk, whose online teachings are followed and shared by many Singaporeans will not contribute to the harmonious coexistence of Muslims and Christian in Singapore’s multi-cultural society which the government seeks to cultivate and protect jealously.[2]

The controversy does not arise solely from the banning of the popular scholar, but also from the government’s stance on “Merry Christmas” greetings by Muslims.

To some Muslims, the stance is tantamount to interfering in matters related to Islamic theology. This has resulted in disgruntlement; in particular, the imposition of a theological view upon Muslim by a secular state and the disagreement with the government’s claim that Menk’s view would have a negative effect on social harmony. This was especially since Menk’s view was subscribed to by some Singaporean Muslims long before Menk’s presence.

We were called to comment on the controversy and wrote a commentary in Malay which was published online.[3]

We are of the view that the commentary may still be relevant and beneficial to Muslims in view of the continuous discussion on the theological issue arising from the recurring annual festive season. Thus, the commentary is translated to English and republished below for the sake of a wider audience.

Main commentary

We are called to comment on the reason [behind the ban on Mufti Menk from entering and delivering talks in Singapore] after observing the polemics that arose out of it in social media and in real social life among the Muslim public and the asatizahs. Few observations can be made on the justification of the ban from statement made by representatives of the government when announcing the ban and responding to the polemics:

  1. The view that “Merry Christmas” greeting by Muslim to Christians as forbidden (haram) could contribute to social disharmony in Singapore. Thus, such view must be prohibited and replaced by an opposite one.
  2. Those who subscribe to the view is deemed as unhealthy elements in the context of Singapore’s multicultural society. Thus, Singapore Muslim community must be shielded from them.
  3. Asatizah who subscribe to such theological views and teach it to the Muslim community in Singapore is deemed to be problematic and, thus, action could be taken against them.
  4. Such view is indicative of a person’s subscription to certain unwanted theological orientation and therefore such orientations must be prevented from taking root within the Singapore Muslim community.
  5. Such view represents religious extremism and could cause the spread of extremism amongst the Singapore Muslim community and thus must be prevented.

We are also called to comment because of the following concerns;

  1. The ban order will be a precedent and guide for officers in public service who are responsible for executing government’s policies and this may lead to mistakes in making decisions such as simplifying one to be of a threatening religious orientation when he chooses to take a more conservative understanding and approach when dealing with similar issues and situations.
  2. The ban could cause misunderstanding among non-Muslim Singaporeans in differentiating between conservative and radical religious viewpoints.
  3. The ban risk being manipulated for a sectarian purpose when it is used to discredit a certain religious orientation claiming that such a view is held by all who belong to the orientation. This then leads to the argument that the orientation must be banned too or Singapore Muslim community must be inoculated from it which necessitates the extension of the ban to all foreign Muslim scholars known to belong to it. Not only is this argument not supported by facts and is sectarian in nature, but if not addressed responsibly would invite reaction from followers of the effected orientation and consequent in intra-faith disharmony among Singapore Muslim community.

As researchers of religious extremism issues, the purpose of this commentary is to provide inputs with regard to the above points.

We understand that the government may have other grounds that cannot be announced to the public for valid reasons when issuing the ban against Menk. However, we are of the view that it would be better that these grounds be made known to public in the near future for the sake of transparency.

Despite our respect and understanding for the government’s prerogative not to announce all grounds for its decision, this should not stop us from providing input and feedback in a civil manner for the public to have a more informed perspective. If the assumption that the government might have other valid grounds that cannot be announced to public is a reason for not giving inputs and feedback to government policies and decisions, there would be no need for citizens to be actively involved in public matters because any input and feedback could be dismissed with reasons such as “the government may have its own reasons that the citizens do not need to know”. This, as a result, would weaken the check and balance pillar in governance and contradict the very idea of active citizenry that the government seeks to encourage.

Before we proceed with our inputs, we would like to clarify the following notes so as to provide a correct perspective to the commentary.

Firstly, we know the government has also issued a ban order against another foreign Muslim preacher, Haslin Baharim, a Malaysian national along with the publication and circulation of three books. Our inputs here, will not concern these bans because it is not relevant to the issue that we are focussing on which is on the impermissibility of “Merry Christmas” greeting by Muslims as a basis for banning a Muslim scholar or preacher from entering and giving talks in Singapore. Surely, there are issues pertaining to these other bans that could be commented. However, we leave it to others or to other opportunities to do so.

Secondly, we are giving inputs as Muslims who hold the view that “Merry Christmas” greeting by Muslims is permissible in Islam. Thus, the basis of our input is not to defend the view that prohibits such act from Muslims. In fact, we hope Singapore Muslims would be more open to accept exchange of festive greetings and practice it (refer to the seventh input below to understand our stand).

For the purpose of providing these inputs, we have made a list of, a) Muslim scholars who share the same view of Menk on “Merry Christmas” greetings, and b) Muslim scholars that view the permissibility of the greeting (see the Appendix), for comparison and from which we will present our views below.

Firstly, the view that forbids the greeting is held by scholars of various mazhab (jurisprudence school) and orientations, not belong to certain (perceived) problematic orientations only.

Secondly, among those who forbid the greeting are scholars of mainstream mazhab in this region (Sunni/Shafi`iite) and established religious institutions such as that of particular states’ mufti, and department of Islamic affairs and Muslim organisations where the view represents a collective stand such as Majelis Ulama Indonesia (Indonesian Ulama Council). Thus, the view that forbids is not an accurate indicator of a certain problematic religious orientation.

Thirdly, the view that forbids is not only held by radical individuals or groups like the Indonesian Fron Pembela Islam (Islamic Defenders Front). Thus, it is not correct to make it as an indicator of extremist and radical leanings.

Fourthly, as students of a local madrasah who studied religious knowledge from many local asatizah and as asatizah ourselves upon graduating from university, we have the opportunity to interact with and get to know many local asatizah. Some of them are our teachers and some others are fellow asatizah. From the interaction, we are confident to say that the view that forbids the greeting is a view held personally by many asatizah since the 1980s till date. Through our knowledge also, although they hold to such views, they are not radicals, extremist or unhealthy elements for social harmony in Singapore. This is because they also hold on to many other viewpoints that embody harmonious multicultural society in Singapore. Not only that, they are also active contributors to the enhancement of religious life of the Muslim community in Singapore without causing social disharmony between communities. This could be supported by the fact that there was almost no incident related to racial conflict that could be attributed to them since the past few decades. Although some are still holding to the view, some others changed their stand to the opposite for various reasons. A few from both camps mentioned above are active contributors in the fight against extremism and radicalism which have gained praises and recognition by national leaders.

This fact supports the conclusion that holding to the view that forbids the greeting is not sufficient to indicate whether a person is a radical or not or positive or a negative element for social harmony here. It becomes more problematic, if the view is used as criteria to distinguish an “ok” or “not ok” ustaz for the Muslim community to seek religious knowledge from.

Fifthly, a more accurate description for the view that forbids the greeting is that it is a conservative stand and it falls within an accepted scholarly contentious theological viewpoint (khilaf mu`tabar) within Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) field. However, it cannot be used as an absolute indicator that the person who holds to the view is a conservative, “old school”, not progressive in religious understanding and a negative element for social harmony of Singapore because the same person may hold to many other religious views that are progressive and suits the contemporary context, the latter in a whole is more than the former.

Sixthly, the list of those who permit the greeting highlights that the view is also held by scholars of various mazhab and orientations. Those who are associated with conservative leaning and Salafism are in the list, just like the Traditionalist and Sufis could be found in the list of those who forbid. Again, this supports the point that an individual standpoint on this issue is not enough to determine whether a person comes from an orientation that should be frowned or ideas that must be censored.

Seventhly, while searching for scholars that fall under the abovementioned categories, we found public pronouncement congratulating global Christians for the arrival of 2007 Christmas and 2008 new year signed by 146 Muslim scholars from all over the world and from various orientations (Sunni, Shiite, Salafi, Susi etc.). This highlights the scholars’ agreement on the permissibility of “Merry Christmas” greeting by other Muslims too. This pronouncement is listed in the list of those who permit the greeting (no. 22) as reference. This agreement is useful in determining that the issue is an accepted contentious theological matter and those who offer the greeting cannot be ruled to have deviated definitively from the shari`ah as claimed by some of those who hold to the opposite view because it is illogical for such a number of reputable scholars from different orientations to come together in an agreement if the issue is definitively forbidden in Islam. This agreement and pronouncement also tilted the weight for the permissibility of the greeting in favour of Singapore’s context. We are of the view that educating the public with such an argument is more effective than the use of legal enforcement or censorship against the opposite view.

Post-script

The Fatwa Committee of the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore chaired by Sheikh Syed Isa Semait, the Mufti then, issued a fatwa in response to query from a member of public directed to the Mufti about whether it is permissible for Muslims to participate in Chingay procession in the form of Hadrah performance (a group of Muslims playing Malay traditional small drum which often is accompanied with praises for Allah and the Prophet).

The response from the Fatwa Committee was that such performances are not permissible because Chingay is a non-Islamic religious festival and thus, the Hadrah contains Islamic rituals should not be performed in such event. Technically, the ruling in this fatwa stands till today because, till date, there is neither formal retraction of it from the Fatwa Committee nor a new fatwa that nullifies it.[4]

While it is not clear whether the main underlying reason is due to Chingay being a non-Islamic religious festival or Hadrah being a performance containing Islamic rituals or both, hypothetically looking at the fatwa against the background of the statements made by representatives of the current government, could make the fatwa problematic because it appears to be digressive with its discouragement of Muslim participation in Chingay which is now regarded as a national event and a national platform for bringing together  people from various communities through a cultural event that would widen common space and enhance the existing social harmony.

What is interesting is, when the fatwa was issued, it did not face negative response from any government leaders unlike the response to Menk’s view on “Merry Christmas” greeting in 2017. Neither the Fatwa Committee nor the Mufti was disbanded or reprimanded.

Despite the fatwa also, the Mufti continued to serve his post until his retirement in January 2011. Throughout his service and upon retirement, he was praised and always known for his significant positive contribution to social harmony in Singapore. For his service and commitment to Singapore well-being, he was awarded with various national awards by the government. The latest was Pingat Jasa Gemilang (Meritorious Service Medal) in 2011.

Note: The publication copyright of this article belongs to Pergas. No part of this article may be reproduced or stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or otherwise without the permission of Pergas. Permission is only given for sharing this article via its original URL.

Opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not represent Pergas’ official stand unless if Pergas explicitly says so.


Rujukan:

[1] Faris Mokhtar (2017), “Two foreign preachers barred from entering S’pore to preach on religious-themed cruise”, Today, 30 October, available at https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/two-foreign-preachers-barred-entering-spore-preach-religious-themed-cruise (7 January 2019)

[2] “Singapore must guard against divisive religious teachings: Shanmugam” (2017), Today, 4 October, available at https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/singapore-must-guard-against-divisive-religious-teachings-shanmugam (7 January 2019); Faris Mokhtar (2018), “Giving platform to radical foreign preachers not in Singapore’s national interest: Shanmugam”, Today, 5 January, available at https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/giving-platform-radical-foreign-preachers-not-singapores-national-interest-shanmugam (7 January 2019); K. Shanmugam (2018), “Securing a Safer Singapore, Together”, Speech by Mr K Shanmugam Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law Committee of Supply Debate 2018, 2 Mar, Ministry of Communications and Information, available at https://www.gov.sg/microsites/budget2018/press-room/news/content/speech-by-mr-k-shanmugam-minister-for-home-affairs-committee-of-supply-debate-2018 (7 January 2019).

[3] See Muhammad Haniff Hassan dan Mustazah Bahari (2017), “Komentar Berkaitan Ucapan “Merry Christmas” dan Larangan Ke Atas Mufti Menk”, haniff.sg, 23 November, available at http://haniff.sg/pautan/komentar-berkaitan-ucapan-merry-christmas-dan-larangan-ke-atas-mufti-menk/ (7 January 2019).

[4] Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (1987), Kumpulan Fatwa 1, Singapura: Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura, p. 40.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


The reCAPTCHA verification period has expired. Please reload the page.

related articles