Rohingyan and Asean’s contradiction (2)

Conclusion

WE are quite consistent with our view the reason behind the crisis in the Muslim world as essentially due to dislocation of the ummah in the world of nation-states. She does not know where to position herself given that nation-state has been an imposition from outside, although it was expediently accepted and legitimized; yet, it is something partly dislocated since the principles of the ummah like brotherhood and unity are increasingly becoming divergent with nation-state system.

What is enraging is that Muslim countries hardly realize this. They are, like others, too jealous of their national sovereignty. They are oblivious with the fact that one-third of the ummah are stateless and minorities whose condition, as we said, is not their own making; it is a product of colonial and post-colonial history.

In this regard, the Asean and, if we may, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) should be pro-active to fill in the limits of nation-state arrangement so that the notion of Asian values and Islamic solidarity (tadamun al-Islami) will not smack in their faces and would not make them even more contradictory and hypocritical.

We thought we could only see State’s violence in Israel, Islamic State in Iraq and Syria’s (Isis) barbarity in Syria and Iraq or some tribal clashes in Africa and elsewhere. But we are talking here of Southeast Asia, home of supposed rich and diverse cultural traditions and civilizations which are strategic elements with what the Qur’an refers to as lita’arafuu (“for you to understand each other”); yet, said ideal hardly reflects reality.

We thought it is only the so-called Islamic fundamentalists honed with the Kharijite-Salafi tradition of extremism that could engage such horrible acts of violence like we witnessed in the Middle East today. But, here, we are seeing traditional community particularly the Buddhists in Myanmar supposedly honed with universal philosophy, spirituality and non-violence as perpetrators of ethnocide and violence. Our assumption is proven wrong.

Indeed, Islamic fundamentalists or extremists do not have the monopoly of violence and terrorism. Fundamentalism cuts across traditional religions and so on. As shown in Arakan, Buddhist nationalists could be as fanatical, violent and terroristic.
We thus say that rule of civility must reign. International Humanitarian Law should be made to operate fairly and proactively by major institutions like the United Nations and many regional organizations like Asean and OIC and others.

As countries in Southeast Asia are turning Rohingyans away, we could only commend individuals, families and community leaders in Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand in receiving this distressed people.

Perhaps, the Philippines was exceptional in extending humanitarian assistance to so-called boat people some years ago. When boat people from Vietnam sought asylum or as refugees who were displaced in the ’80s, the Philippines opened her door and allowed them to settle in Bataan. They were given humanitarian support as they were allowed to form small community in the area until they emigrated and worked in other countries.

Whereas Asian values not to mention the Islamic tradition are so strong on mercy and compassion, yet we don’t see the same expression particularly among Muslim leaders in the region. We commend the government of Gambia for expressing support on the Rohingyan and its willingness to receive them.

It is unfortunate that Aung San Suu Kyi, the popular opposition leader of Myanmar, suffers with deafening silence since the violence erupted in the Arakan region few years ago. Many people hoped that she would get out of her shell and embrace the true meaning of Asian values by standing on the side of justice for distressed people. With election fast approaching in Myanmar, the grip of politics limits even more Aung San Suu Kyi’s engagement. No strong and respectable words of restraints or sympathy have come from her ever since.

In this regard, we have to re-examine what today is pontificated as Asian values. We have to question the pride of Malay people with their Islamic heritage: why they could not translate it to real expression of sympathy, of mercy and compassion especially to people who were previously responsible in chiseling that heritage at certain point in history.

The problem with the Rohingyan is that, they have not taken a step to organize themselves politically. Unlike other minorities, they failed to form liberation movements. Hence, they could easily be despised and denigrated. If they had taken a posture of resistance, the Burmese government would have easily restraint fanatical Buddhist nationalists. They could have been engaged in peace process, although it does not guarantee that they would be accorded peace arrangement. We have to note that there is another minority – the Karen – in southern Burma that had been waging a struggle for self-determination for decades; but the government has been unyielding.

Indeed, every community, every part of the ummah has its own circumstances. As we say, it has its own ajal, its own fate and term.

At the very least, we say, we could not be complacent as minorities to rely on others; we could only rely on ourselves. Even extending assistance from others could not also be relied upon.

There are only a few quarters with knowledge of what selfless giving is all about. What we are quite familiar with is assistance that is usually done through humanitarian intervention and so on. The problem with this is that, it comes with string attached. Some entities would usually give us one but they take two from us – at times, ending in the control of our land, our history, and so on.

There is unique type of giving assistance that the Qur’an promotes. It is the extension of assistance done in the name of Allah (SWT); it is not done in the name of particular interest or entity; it is giving to others fii sabilillah (in the path of Allah (SWT)).
There is a verse in Suratu l-insan that says:

“And they fed, for the love of God, the indigent, the orphan and the captive – Saying, “We feed you for the sake of God alone: No reward do we desire from you, nor thanks. We only fear a Day of distressful Wrath from the side of our Lord (8-10).”
This is the highest form of extending assistance. It is an assistance done without any string attached – not in the name of particular person, of particular country, of particular organization, and so on.

This is a form of assistance, which is one of the acts or qualities of believers. If you read Suratu l-insan, you will find more such qualities. One such quality is, when people extend assistance, yet, they do it selflessly. It is done “for the love of God” (alaa hubbihi). It’s the only form of giving that is authentic, albeit becoming very rare these days.

Nonetheless it is probably the expression why some Acehnese, some Malaysians, some Thais, some Indonesians, and probably some Filipinos could not resist the temptation to help distressed people even if they do not know them.
Finally, the lessons we’d like to emphasize is that, the contradiction that Asean suffers from has to be glaringly surfaced even further; that every community should become self-sufficient as they could only rely on themselves – not on others; and that we have to realize that there are problems that we faced which in fact are opportunities into which we make ourselves consistent like making true our notion of Asian values, of Islamic solidarity, and so on.

Yet, as many Muslim countries are increasingly hostaged with constriction of nation-state system, they could not see the problem they faced as opportunity. They, like others, are hard pressed to extend humanitarian assistance much less show mercy and compassion to other people.

(Julkipli Wadi is a professor of Islamic Studies at the University of the Philippines.-Mindanews)