INTERNATIONALLY known intellectual and social activist Dr Chandra Muzaffar, who celebrated his 59th birthday recently, believes that people, especially the more erudite among the middle class, should speak up on issues currently confronting the nation. They should not leave completely to the politicians the course this nation should take. Kedah-born Chandra is still as committed to the cause of social justice as he was when as a young academician three decades ago he founded Aliran. He remained its guiding light until 1992 when left to form JUST, the International Movement for a Just World. He left the academic world when his contract as professor-cum-director at the Centre for Civilizational Dialogue, University of Malaya, was not renewed. There was a politically vocal middle class once but now it is by and large tame and timid, the former academician told ZAINON AHMAD and MARIA J. DASS.

theSun: You have been a social activist for a long time, first in Aliran for one and a half decades and since 1992 as Just president. You were an academician as well but now you are a full-time social activist. Why?

I could have taken a different path. I could have been an academic, and not involved in social issues in social issues. A lot of academics are not involved in social issues, but I don't think I would have been happy. As an academic if you have had the good fortune of acquiring a certain level of education, if you have accumulated a certain quantum of knowledge, I think you should ensure that that knowledge is used to serve society, especially if you are in the social sciences where you are trained to think about society's challenges - if you don't use that training for a larger purpose then I don't think you have fulfilled your role.

The other reason why I've always had the urge to commit myself is because of certain instances in my own past. It may have something to do with the fact that my own father was a very public-spirited person. He established the first English school in Bidong, Kedah, set up a home for the destitute and at the same time he ran the local council there. And that made an impact on me.

Now the other elements from my own background was the fact that I was stricken with polio at the age of four and it made me very sensitive to human suffering wanting to do what one could to eliminate human suffering.

Politicians did not like you very much when you were in Aliran. You openly criticised government policies. Former PM Tun Mahathir Mohamad was one of those who took exception to your criticism of him that during the 1986 general elections he said if you wanted to criticise the government then you must enter politics. But you were not intimidated and continued to speak up. Do you think that was one reason why you were arrested in Operation Lallang?

I see Operasi Lallang introspectively as a move by the government - the Mahathir leadership - to ensure that the expanding middle class would not become too independent in its thinking. Of the 180 people who were arrested under Operasi Lallang, quite a lot of them were from professional and academic backgrounds. And I would interpret Operasi Lallang, apart from its other aims, it may have been prompted by the internal politics in Umno, the Umno election of 1987 where there was team A and team B and things that were very much in the public arena then like the Chinese schools issue and so on. But you also have an increasingly vocal middle class, they are the ones who attend Aliran functions and the functions of other NGOs and the middle class was just beginning to assert their independence, think for themselves - the power to be part of politics. This is what I call citizens politics. It is different from party politics - you don't have to be a member of a political party to stand for elections. As citizens they have a right to be concerned with what's happening to the country and this is what we were doing.

So citizens politics was beginning to grow and develop and people were becoming more and more concerned about issues and speaking up, and at that moment in time Operasi Lallang was a way of stopping the growth of an independent, autonomous, thinking society.

But this autonomous middle class - does it exist now?

A: I don't think so. I think our middle class intelligensia here is still weak. In terms of numbers, we have a big middle class but a lot of people don't speak up. And the sort of activism we see in other countries and even our neighbours with middle class communities which in proportional terms are smaller than our middle class in Malaysia, but we find that they have is much greater activism in some of these societies compared to Malaysia.

Why do you think this is so? Why don't people speak up for instance or indulge in public debate on government policies.

Operasi Lallang is one of the reasons. There are other reasons which I think are more important. We are ethnically divided. It's one of the reasons why we haven't been able to crystalise that sort of middle class which has that sort of commitment to democratic values, egalitarian values and so on. It's partly because we are ethnically divided.

Maybe also because we are fairly properous?

Yes, that too. We are fairly prosperous and when you have a prosperous middle class which at the same time does not have a certain intellectual history behind it, they don't have a certain tradition of dissent, of speaking up, they don't have such values and you have all this prosperity around you ... I suppose you are lulled into complacency and that's what happened to our middle class. Our prosperity has played a role, our ethnic situation has played a role and the absence of a certain history has actually created a situation which confronts us today - a middle class which is by and large tame and timid.

Many people were quite surprised when you entered politics. Would you rather forget those years when you were in it?

I entered party politics - I distinguish party politics from citizens politics - largely because of the situation which confronted the nation at that time. We had an extraordinary situation in 1998. A situation a lot of us felt that the fundamental institutions of governments were under threat. By which I mean institutions such as the judiciary, the police, the media - the way in which all these institutions were harnessed to serve a particular purpose related to the sacking of the deputy prime minister, and there was a response from a segment of the general public who responded to the situation with demonstrations ... people felt that something was wrong. We've been talking all about injustices, accountability, freedom of expression and then you hear people are beginning to speak up. And if you don't respond you would not have lived up their expectation, you would have in a sense betrayed the people, so you have to respond to that situation.

So what happened to myself and a number of others was not unusual. We were just responding to that situation.

I was there for two and a half years - in party politics - and I learnt things about politics which I didn't learn in political science course in the universities (laughs). When you join a party, you learn a few things about politics while you are there in the arena - you learn a lot of things -things that you may not be aware of if you didn't join politics.

And you didn't like that?

No, I didn't like that. We've always known that in politics you are more concerned with power than anything else, but I think you have to get into the ring to see what it really means - this obsession with power. It's actually the major preoccupation of politicians, it's not the ideals which they spout from time to time ... their real obsession is power, and I thinks it is very difficult to hold down certain principals in party politics. You have to compromise all the while, you have to adjust to various situations and you have to be very, very partisan in your outlook...but sometimes by becoming overly partisan you become unjust to the realities, the truth as you see it.

You want to articulate the truth but you can't, because you got a partisan position to take. And you have to adhere to that partisan position, this I think is part of the problem where you have to be very, very partisan to a point where you sacrifice truth.

At the same time you have to compromise on your principals, you can't run away from that. All the while you have to make compromises in party politics.

If you want to survive you have to be like the others. You've have to make power your central goal.you can't be talking about idealistic principals and so on it's power.

But don't you think you need to get power first before you could implement your ideas and goals?

That's true. Unless one gets into party politics, unless you are part of that game where you acquire power, you will not be able to bring about certain changes. I suppose that is sort of a dilemma you would like someone else to grapple with.

If you were asked to write a book on Dr Mahathir maybe ten years from now, how would your evaluation of him be like?

Any evaluation of Dr Mahathir like an evaluation of any leader who has made a very big impact on society should be balanced and not for or against him. You have to take into account his strengths, his weaknesses you have to be balanced to convince people that it is a sort of evaluation which is not motivated by bias, because the reality is that there are good things he has done for the country which one cannot ignore and there are also things which have happened that one could define as negative. So it will be a balanced evaluation if I would have to do an evaluation in ten years' time.

He was big on infrastructure, wasn't he?

Yes. I would certainly acknowledge what he has done for infrastructure development of the country which has been an important contribution to people's well being. The roads, the ports the infrastructure development was remarkable.

He's also helped to bring about certain transformations to society like the expansion and the strengthening of the middle class under his tutelage. At the same time you see the growth of the Malay middle class. If you look at the situation in the 60's and 70's, it's a tremendous achievement and it has helped assimilation in the country. Because if a very big segment of the Malay community had remained poor, I don't think there would have been inter-ethnic peace or harmony in our country. That sort of transformation, I think is very important and Dr Mahathir pushed very hard for it. His foreign policy was also studious and staid in a sense that he was always very conscious of our independence and sovereignty at a time when the global situation had become less hospitable to that sort of attempt to maintain our independence and sovereignty.

Almost 10 - 12 years into his stewardship the Soviet Union collapsed, the Cold War had come to an end and we had a unipolar world and politics. Most countries have succumbed to unipolar politics, but Malaysia had succeeded in keeping its independence and voicing out its opinions on what is happening in the world - whether on Bosnia, Palestine, Iraq and that has been remarkable.

He has also the man who was partly responsible for the expansion of Asean ---- as an entity that covered the entire region. It was also quite an achievement, because despite certain weaknesses in governments like Myanmar you cannot run away from the fact that a regional entity that encompasses the whole of South East Asia, is an achievement and it has given strength and identity to the region.

What were those things he did you would define as negative?

On the negative side, we should be concerned with the growth of corruption. During his tenure - corruption had become more serious. He may have been concerned of corruption but I don't think there were any sort of concrete measures he took to fight corruption. We should be concerned also with the emasculation of the judiciary and obliterating of the media the and other institutions which are important for any democratic country. Parliament was also very much under the thumb of the executive. We had overwhelming executive dominance during his stewardship, and while we were able to operate society, groups and so on these were under the sufferance of the powers that be. So I think that this was something we are not very happy about.

If you look at the economic side, yes infrastructure development was good but don't forget that the income inequities in this country is also quite serious.

Malaysia has one of the worst income inequities in the Asia Pacific region between people right at the top and those of the bottom.

Of course we have reduced absolute poverty which is good --- official figure is about 5%, maybe more --- but whatever it is, the real challenge is not absolute poverty, it's relative poverty and that's the real challenge. In other words people who can make ends meet and so on but given the situation today, you have what I like to describe as a growing gap between the have-a-lots and the have-a-little. It's not have and have-nots. This gap has grown over the last 10 to 15 years and that's serious and that's something that was not attended to.

What about ethic relations under him?

Because of a certain degree of economic success we had managed to blunt some of the sharper edges in relations between communities, but at the same time we cannot deny that we are still a very divided nation. People still operate very much within their own little ethnic cocoons whether it is politics, economics, education --- you see this everywhere.

You talked about the overwhelming executive power. Do you think there are signs that the present government is gradually dismantling this?

Well there is more openness now, we have more vocal parliament - if you look at the back- benchers they speak up much more, the media too has given some attention to investigative journalism if you look at what TV3 does, and the newspapers also attempt to expose wrong doing. I think bureaucracy too is fast to respond to some of the complaints from the general public. This is what makes the government more accountable and these are the positive changes over the last two and a half years.

Having said that I think the Malaysian public has every right to be disappointed. The pace of change has been slow, elite corruption is still a challenge and though there is a certain degree of freedom where the media is concerned, I don't think they dare to investigate certain cases --- it's something which will not happen.

I supposed there are problems even now and ethnic relations I don't have become any worse but I don't think it has improved either, there are more challenges -- polarisations, people adopting a very communal position and seeing challenges from within their own sectarian ethnic perspective. And justice is seen through the prism of a particular community and interpreted of course by the opinionated.

You are involved in civilisational dialogue than when you were at the Centre for Civilisational Dialouge --- with more passion in fact. Do you think you can make the difference?

One has to continue to dialogue, one has to continue to engage the other. One has to continue to continue to get rid of prejudices, stereotypes which colour and condition relations between civilizations, cultures and so on.

You have to continue to find common ground, you have to continue to articulate shared values. It is important because you have to realize that this is one human family, you can't run away from that. I'm talking of a human family in a global sense. A common humanity, it's a challenge which is going to last for a long, long while.

It's going to take generations to arrive at this point. To instil that this common human identity of ours is far more important than individual, or community, or militant or nationality, but this common human identity is what really counts.

That is what civilisational dialogue is all about --- an attempt to reach that point.

In view of all this talk about clashes of civilizations and what the religious zealots and extremists are doing, don't you think that is tough going?

It is. No way one is going to see it in one's lifetime, and all that what we can do is to make a small, modest contribution towards this process of building bridges.

It's going to be very, very difficult and what is made difficult and this challenge has been there for a while. You cannot have meaningful interaction between cultures, communities, civilisations if there's no respect, if you don't recognise the other as your equal. The whole concept of the other it can be cultural, can be religious, can be linguistics, can be civilisation, but you must be prepared to respect the other you must be prepared to see the other as your equal.

That is not possible in a situation where there is asymmetric power, that is so overwhelming at this point.

Please explain.

If you look at the global situation you will find that there is a small elite not confined to any particular country, that dominates and rules the world. These are the rulers of the world. So how can you have a dialogue in a situation where you have this coterie, this elite right at the helm and the rest of us (the whole of humanity) is at their mercy. You can't really have a dialogue.

It reminds me of what Tolstoy, the Russian philosopher, said: "I sit on a person's back and I want all that is good for him. I'll do everything to help him except get off his back". You can't possibly have a dialogue in that sort of situation --- when you're sitting on someone's back. You have to have a dialogue of equals.

But that doesn't mean that one should not continue to dialogue just because you have an unequal situation. You have to go on talking, persuading and showing what the situation is like. You just have to continue.

Coping with a troubled world

theSun: After the Sept 11 incident, Muslims seem to be under siege. It seems Muslims everywhere are reeling from the onslaught of this war on terror. Why do you think they are not rallying and fighting back? Is it for lack of leadership?

I think there are two questions here, one is Muslims under siege. I think it's true. It's something that's real. We're not talking of a situation where Muslims are perceived to be under siege. It is real in a sense that we are part of this global system that we talked about a while ago - which is very unequal and they see certain things happening that convince them that the whole system is against them.

You look at Palestine for instance. Palestinians had their own land taken over by someone else, they've been expelled from their land, killed and persecuted. They are under siege in that sense.

Look at Iraq - invaded, occupied so they feel under siege. Look at Afghanistan and look at the way Muslim minorities are harmed and harassed in different parts of the world and how they become the target as it were of hegemonic power that dominates the globe. Muslims feel that they are not treated well and they are marginalised.

But why don't they respond?

Now if you say that Muslims are not responding to this challenge that is not altogether true. There is a response, except it is the sort of response that we are not comfortable with.

Al Qaeda is responding, Osama is responding to this challenge. If you look at the birth of Al Qaeda, when did Al Qaeda come into being?

It came into being after the US set up bases in Saudi Arabia, this is when Al Qaeda announced to the world that it was going to fight the United States of America. This was after the US bases in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia - and you know that one of the first strikes was the Dhahran air base.

So the Al Qaeda responded, Osama's response is also through violence, because as far as they are concerned there is no other way.

It was hopeless. So if you want to liberate your land, if you want to push out the invader you just have to fight, you have to resort to violence. But we know violence is not the solution, because violence begets violence. ClichŽ maybe, but its true. It's something that should not be ignored.

Even from a strategic perspective the sort of violence that Al Qaeda is engaged in offers them hope in the short term or the long run. If you look at Sept 11, if it is Al Qaeda which is responsible for Sept 11. They decide to destroy a symbol of American global power, economic power and the symbol of global military power (the Pentagon), they killed almost 3,000 people but what have they accomplished?

They got their short thrill but it is the US which benefitted the most.

Yes. As a result of Sept 11, the US managed to topple the Taliban regime, but even more significant after toppling the Taliban regime they extended their tentacles over the entire Central Asian region - the five Central Asian republics. They've got bases in two of them today and they have agreements with all countries in that region. The US wanted an oil and gas pipe line from a Central Asian republic to a white water port. They couldn't do this when the Taliban was there but now they have succeeded in getting this done.

That's as far as Afghanistan is concerned. They accomplished this after Sept 11 and in other words expanded their military growth.

If you look at Iraq, again using the war on terror and weapons of mass destruction which is linked to terror and all that, they go to Iraq and invade and occupy Iraq - the world's second biggest oil exporter and as a result of controlling Iraq they also control another vital resource in the middle east that becomes more important in the future- water.

Iraq, one country which has the richest water resource in the entire region, they control that. It is expected that future wars will be over water. If you look at the strategic location of Iraq in Central and West Asia, it's a very strategic country.

The conservative government in Washington argue that water is very important as far as their attempt to re-do the map of the Middle East is concerned, which is what they are trying to do, which has given them an excuse to move into Iraq, re-do the map of the Middle East as a result of what you had done.

Sept 11 gave them the perfect excuse - that the US is under threat of being attacked, so we have protect ourselves from terrorists, from people who want to destroy our way of life - this is the rhetoric, this is the political propaganda they use.

They are able to use this rhetoric because of the foolish actions of people like Osama who have given them an excuse to expand their empire.

There's no doubt at all that the war on terror has become a very convenient excuse to expand their empire.

Even nearer home. Straits of Malacca, for instance. The Philippines, which once chased them out, have welcomed them back.

Yes, their war on terror has been expanded to the Straits of Malacca, except that the littoral states - two of them at least - Malaysia and Indonesia have been resistant, but they want control over the Straits of Malacca.

They returned to the Southern Philippines after Sept 11. They were forced out of Clark airbase after the fall of Marcos, but now they have returned. Again post Sept 11.

So if you look back at all the moves in various places, the war on terror has become a very, very convenient excuse for expanding the tentacles of the empire. That's why I think that in some respects Al Qaeda and the others have been very, very foolish.

What about the inability of other Muslims to respond?

I think this is very important, in a situation where you have one type of response - a response presented by Osama; other Muslims who are not happy with this should turn to their governments and say what is your response. Are you standing up? Are you speaking up? Are you getting together? Mobilising your resources and strengths? Are you saying that we won't allow certain things? That's not happening.

That's because I think a number of Muslim governments are very close to the empire builders and they are a part of the empire. This is what a lot of Muslims don' t realise - that they also helped to facilitate the expansion of the empire.

Let's ask ourselves very simple questions, would the invasion of Iraq have taken place without the support of some of Iraq's neighbours. They allow their airbases and territories to be used.

You know that they have these elites in the Gulf region and elsewhere - they have colluded with the empire builders.

So for a lot of Muslims this is something which has caused a great amount of disillusionment with their leaders, that their leaders don't stand out, in fact they help to oppress the masses of this world, through their collusion with the empire builders. This is why some of the militant groups are not only targeting Washington, London or Tel Aviv, they are also targeting their own governments and they make no bones about it.

So this is part of the problem. If you are looking for leadership from other segments of the ummah - I don't see any leadership. The absence of the leadership I think has contributed to the situation that we are in. It has exacerbated the crisis. The absence of leadership that can use democratic channels, to be able to negotiate and use diplomacy to bring about some changes.

Now I'm not saying that if there were these approaches, changes would take place. In fact there will be people that argue that if you look at what the international institutions have become, even if you use these channels there is no hope of change taking place.

If you look at the United Nations (UN) after 60 years, attempts to reform the UN didn't work.

We have talked about reforms when the UN was 50 years old, 60 years old we talked about reforms - nothing had happened.

Basic power structure remains the same - security council, veto, dominance of the powerful, the 10% veto being ineffective.

Look at other institutions related to the UN - the World Bank. Since the 1998 financial crisis in the region people have been talking about financial architecture - not a single reform has taken place after 1998.

World Bank's fundamental role is to eradicate global poverty but the World bank has not been successful in this. In fact it has contributed to poverty in some instances.

Nothing has happened. Look at the WTO (World Trade Organisation), look at the difficulties of negotiating a global trade agreement, the Doha rounds - it's still going on. You look at all the international institutions, look at attempts to curb nuclear weapons - total failure, no progress, nothing.

Every institution that we look at the situation is not hopeful. Which is what makes one very, very pessimistic about the future because if these institutions don't work, then you are just strengthening the militants because they assume nothing works at the global level.

We should not allow this sort of situation to develop, because what is going to happen is that you have these militants on one hand and you have others that also use violence and terror - meaning the global hegemonic powers will also use violence and terror as in the case of Iraq. So you have two forces pitted against each other. Both believe that violence is the only way. You conquer and then you respond to that conquest also with violence. This will only lead the world to its destruction.

The situation in Iran, which is standing up to the Americans. Could it also end up like Iraq?

The situation in Iraq is very, very bad. The situation is very, very difficult in Iraq. This I think will dissuade the US from trying anything in Iran. Don't forget that 60% of the Muslims in Iran are Shi'ite. Now if you move against Iran, it will inflame passions in Iraq and the Shi'ite population - because of their supreme spiritual leader Ayatollah Sistani. He has been able to hold them back up to this point. In fact they have cooperated with the US. As far as the occupation is concerned it is the Sunnis that have been resisting the occupation. But if the US invades Iran then I think the Shi'ite population in Iraq will respond.

There are many other factors, because Iran is different from Iraq - in terms of nuclear facilities and camouflage, I think they are much better than Iraq. In 1981 Israel destroyed the nuclear reactor in Iraq in a unilateral strike.

Nonetheless if you believe in world domination, if you are the type that has been miscalculating all the while, you can miscalculate again and go to war in Iran - it can happen.

This is also where the Iranian leadership can be more strategic in its response, meaning they should look at the situation carefully and see what is possible, what it can do, what its long-term gains would be.

Iran in some ways has done fairly well in strengthening its position in the region and if you look at what has happened in Iraq, what has happened in Lebanon, what has happened in Afghanistan, in all these countries you will find that the Shi'ite segment of society which was oppressed and suppressed in one way or the other, they have re-emerged. Iraq is one example as a result of the fall of Saddam. In the case of Lebanon you will find that the Shi'ites have become a very, very important factor now, because it was the Shi'ites under the Hezbollah that succeeded in defeating the Israeli army in certain parts of Lebanon and they have become politically very important.

In Afghanistan with the fall of the Taliban - the Taliban oppressed the Shi'ites - you find the Shi'ites have a role in Afghan politics. So the Shi'ite factor has re-emerged and this favours Iran. So Iran has to think about all of this rather than gauge the situation where there is a war and Iran is pulverised, even if you are no pulverised you pay the price in one way or another if there is a war. So I think Iran should avoid a military confrontation.

That's where I think wisdom and strategy become more important than just sort of a reactive approach.

In the case of the caricatures of Prophet Muhammad published by the Danish newspapers. Do you think Muslims over-reacted?

One should not be surprised that Muslims reacted because of their love for the Prophet which is deep and profound as far as Muslims are concerned. This is something Muslims - doesn't matter what their school of thought or community is - their love is profound.

But the reaction in some parts of the Muslim world to my mind merely helped to reinforce the stereotypes about Muslims. Why do I say this? Because they reacted in a violent manner. If the purpose of the cartoons was to depict Islam as a violent religion - because way the Prophet was depicted - but by reacting in a violent manner, you are just reinforcing the stereotypes. I think it was very foolish to react in that manner. I remember telling people at a meeting in Doha, right in the midst of this cartoon crisis a few weeks ago that maybe when the Danish imams first responded to the cartoons at the end of 2005. What they should have done is to say, hey look these cartoons ... you talk of freedom of expression ... we demand media space to respond to what you have done.

Write to this newspaper, other Danish newspapers and maybe other papers in Europe, explaining why Muslims feel this way about the Prophet and why this depiction of the Prophet as the head of a violent religion is a travesty of justice. We should explain why this is a travesty of justice. It's so easy to explain. Look at the whole history of Islam. Look at the history and life of the Prophet himself - how he responded to taunts, insults and attacks - physical attacks upon his person.

Outside Mecca once he was taunted and assaulted, but he refused to react. This was the mark of a human being and this is something people should understand. You want to defend the honour of the Prophet but you are not prepared to emulate the Prophet. This is so wrong. The way some of them reacted was wrong. There are other ways to respond to insults of this sort. Why does one have to be so violent, at least some of them. I want to emphasise that a lot of Muslims also reacted in a very rational way but there were also Muslims who reacted in a very irrational manner.

There seems to be a lot of signs of ethnic tensions in our country. Why do you think this is happening?

Tensions I suppose one could classify into two categories, one is tensions which are the product of specific instances, like what we see now, tensions of that sort. Number two is what we should be more concerned about - tensions which are manifestations of deep-seated problems between communities.

Now some of the incidents, episodes over the last few weeks and months related to the way in which Islam is perceived by certain circles, Muslims and non-Muslims looking at Islam in a certain way. I think this has contributed to it. Which I think really underscores the importance of developing a better understanding of each other's religion and culture. Indepth understanding of one another - this has not happened at all in our country. We have remained - this is a cliche that I have used for a very long time - a nation of strangers.

We know a few things about each other's culture, religion but in-depth understanding is not there and this I think has to be developed. For instance Syariah law, because this has been at the centre of some of the incidents of late. Let's look at the non-Muslim reaction to Syariah. We're not talking about masses. We're talking about lawyers, professionals, academics and others - there is a knee jerk reaction against the Syariah among non-Muslims in this country. When you mention Syariah - oh! it's wrong! it's bad! cannot have the Syariah! and so on. I think one needs to be a little more balanced in one's approach. One needs to say let's find out what this is all about. A lot of non-Muslim lawyers in this country for instance know nothing about the Syariah and yet they tend to react all the while to the Syariah without understanding.

This is to my mind a good example of legal illiteracy as far as a system of law is concerned. The Syariah has got a very long history behind it and it is something that has evolved over time. There are some wonderful principles in the Syariah if you look at it in-depth - almost every area of life.

So among the educated we don't have such a balanced view. With civil law there may be some differences or similarities - let's try to understand. Now that's one side.

On the Muslim side, you find a lot of Muslim professionals and their response to Syariah is that it is divine law. You must not forget that 90% of Syariah is a product of historic evolution. It is made by human beings over a period of time, by great jurists who in their historical context looked at certain principles and tried to understand. Because I find that the laws they made and edicts they came out with, the rules that they produced was their attempt to apply their minds to their setting - over a long period of time.

What we call Fiqh (jurisprudence) in Islam is a product of evolution. It is the roots of the Syariah that are in the Quran which one would regard as divine. Certain underlying principles and values in the Quran pertaining to human conduct which one would regard as divine, but not all the rules and regulations that were developed over a long period of time.

So I think Muslims must also approach the Syariah in a more evaluative manner and look at it in terms of its strengths. Syariah as it applies to the 21st century - what is it that you can apply today, what is it that you can't apply today - there should be that sort of attitude that one doesn't see amongst the Muslims in this country. You have sort of a blind, unthinking approach on one side, and you have a knee jerk reaction on the other and this doesn't help ethnic relations.

It's not the episodes from time to time that concerns me - these are merely part of the symptoms. I think what really concerns me is that as religion impacts more and more upon daily life - and it's going to happen. Way back in the early 80's when I wrote a book about the signs of Islamic resurgence in Malaysia, I said in that book that religion was going to become a major new divider in our society in the future. This is why it is going to happen. As religion becomes more and more important people are going to coalesce on religion. If you don't have an enlightened approach towards religion then imagine what the consequences will be in a society like ours and I think this is what is happening. That religion is becoming more and more important not just in this country but also all around the world.

In Malaysia we know why it has become a more important identity marker because if you look at the Malay community, in 60's it was language but as the 70's and 80's unfolded religion had become a more important identity marker. Why? Because the Malay language had become more of a common language.

So religion has become an identity marker and this is why you find more and more issues related to religion. When we talk to ethnic polarisation - people not mixing with one another, Muslim kids not going to non-Muslim homes, non-Muslim kids not going to Muslim homes, ethic relations and so on.

Many of these issues are related to what I regard as a superficial understanding of religion. The problem is not with religion as such but the way you understand religion. That Islam does not prohibit people from interacting with one another. It does not prohibit people from establishing close bonds with people who are from a different religion.

All the more reason why we should have interfaith dialogues. Doesn't Islam encourage this?

Of course it does. In fact if you look at the history, this is the first religion in history to have encouraged interfaith dialogue.

The first major work on interfaith dialogue was was written by a Muslim by the name of Al-Biruni who died in 1051. Very famous thinker who wrote this classic work called kitab Al-Hindh which was on Hinduism. One of the things he said in that book was that you must put yourself in the shoes of the other person to understand about his religion É, which is a profound statement and he made out various principles of interfaith interaction. If you look at the first encyclopaedia of religions, it is also an encyclopaedia produced by a Muslim known as As-Shahrastani who lived in the 12th century. He was one of the first persons to write an encyclopaedia on religions. It also discussed the Buddha and Buddhism with a great deal of understanding and objectivity. He probed the five precepts - the Panchasila and the 10 precepts the Dashasila.

Look at the openness, but today you find that Muslims are afraid of dialogue, they are afraid of interactions, which is the Islamic heritage. In terms of dialogue, interaction, understanding and so on things have changed greatly, which is a pity. In our society it's because we are a stature and identity based society - a society that is so preoccupied with ethnic identity. It is something that permeates our entire society. This is the problem. You can only transcend that if you begin to see the other as also a human being like you and if you begin to understand this common bond which is the sort of understanding they had at that time.

What of our efforts at interfaith dialogue?

I think that the people who pushed for the idea also bungled. I think that it is an idea which is important. This country of all countries should be at the forefront of interfaith dialogue and interaction. In fact, if I may mention - Muslims that really know Islam are not afraid of interfaith dialogue. The former president of Iran Mohammed Khatami had set up an international institute for the dialogue of cultures and civilisations after he finished his term as president. It had a centre in Tehran before and now he decided to set up an international centre for the dialogue of culture and civilisations and he has asked me to be member of the governing council. This will be based in Tehran.

I feel that our society, multiracial and multireligious, should take the lead in these kinds of things, but we have failed. And others like Iran which is 98% Muslim, you have a president who is actually a distinguished scholar and philosopher, who sees the importance of this sort of dialogue and understanding. It is not just getting to know one another, it is understanding humanity and feeling that there is a common human bond and that is what dialogue is all about.