Why is there such strong (and often illogical) resistance to, among other things, suggestions for a medical review on FGC?
Related post: On the Hijab, FGC, and the problem with some Muslim men
I’m sure there are a few reasons, though I cannot help but focus on the ideologues because they’ve been some of the most vociferous opponents. It feels like they’re driven by a desire to monopolise the muslim mind.
How do they do it?
Tactic 1: Label people as unIslamic or misguided.
This is a tactic to sideline voices by tapping onto old fears – the whispers of the devil led to the fall of men. They claim that the call for a medical review is an indirect attempt to stop Islamic practices. So everyone beware of the misguided.
Ah… but the call was not for a ban, was it? It was about getting the medical facts right to make an informed decision.
Tactic 2: This will dilute our Islam
The argument: “Any attempt to reconsider or review is the start of a slippery slope to religious and moral bankruptcy.”
In other words, don’t even start to think about it or you’ll be setting the community on the road to hell.
But then you wonder; this is an important issue, so how do I talk about it with others?
Ah, that’s where the next counter-argument comes in.
Tactic 3: “Only the religiously trained can talk about it.”
In tactics 1 and 2, they’ve shut down any attempt at critical thinking as well as the ability of an individual to sit with a problem to understand it. Then using tactic 3, they propose the “one true way” that is the only religiously sound one with the “right guidance” as “dictated by God”.
Don’t get me wrong. Asatizah (religious teachers) play a critical role. They are indispensable. But beware what kind of teacher you support.
The true Ustaz or Ustazah will note the range of credible opinions on the matter and then argue why he or she has decided to take a specific stand. None of those that i’ve seen arguing online have done this. They don’t present credible dissenting opinions before making their own case on the issue.
But then again, a proper religious teacher would never have made use of the arguments in tactics 1 and 2 to start with. There’s more to say here but for now this will suffice.
So I wonder, whose interests does tactic 3 serve? The community’s? God’s?
Tactics 1 to 3 are a cycle that happens repeatedly until our collective minds are monopolised and it becomes the obvious and true way to do things. It’s an attempt to buttress the myth of a monolithic “one true Islam”.
Related post: The dangerous myth of a monolithic Islam
Finally, to seal the deal, they use the ideological version of a trade barrier, which brings us to the final tactic.
Tactic 4: “This does not apply to Singaporean Muslims”
Any dissenting ideas or critiques, no matter how credible, are dismissed on this basis.
The phrase “Singaporean Muslim” is interesting here. First, it excludes non-Muslim critics on their basis as outsiders. Second, it discredits internal Muslim critics by labelling their arguments as either foreign or outright deviant – tactic 1.
Consciously or not, this subtly “ring-fences” the Muslim community here, a discursive strategy designed to isolate and then dominate the discursive space. To be sure, ring-fencing as a concept was proposed by veteran interfaith activist Mohamed Imran Mohamed Taib in an unrelated issue but I think it can be used here.
As a result of the four tactics used repeatedly, our collective minds are monopolised, critical thinking straitjacketed, and any who dare raise a question is outcasted by a righteous mob whipped into a frenzy by ideologues.
Resist this ideological monopoly.
Related posts On the Hijab, FGC, and the problem with some Muslim men The dangerous myth of a monolithic Islam
Pingback: Bigotry in the Muslim backyard - MD SUHAILE