Religion and Society in Asia. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2021. 304 pp. US$128.00, cloth. ISBN 9789463724012.
There are many contemporary studies on Muslim activism in Muslim-majority countries in Southeast Asia, especially Indonesia and Malaysia. Yet, very few studies investigate the dynamic of Muslim activism in Muslim-minority countries in the region. Walid Jumblatt Abdullah’s book Islam in a Secular State fills in the gap and provides insights into how and under what conditions different Muslim activists operate in Singapore. The book is theoretically engaged, empirically rich, and analytically persuasive, examining the nexus of state-society relations and how such relations have shaped Muslim activism. Thus, it is relevant not only to researchers in the studies of Muslim societies and political Islam but also to those interested in comparative politics, social movement theories, and state-society relations.
Abdullah divides his book into seven chapters. The first three chapters provide readers with broader theoretical debates on political opportunities and Muslim strategies, as well as a detailed background on Muslim activism in Singapore. In the next three chapters, he discusses how three groups of Muslim activists—the ulama (Islamic religious scholars), liberals, and conservatives—engage with the Singapore state and respond to various socio-religious issues ranging from LGBT rights, the wearing of headscarves, and inter-faith dialogue to religious pluralism. He examined the roles played by these actors and the challenges they faced providing several case studies that postulate the political opportunities available to different actors. In the concluding chapter, Abdullah suggests that while political opportunities are limited for non-state actors in Singapore, various Muslim groups can still exercise their agency. Indeed, the book substantially describes how various Muslim activists meticulously navigate the realities in order to maximize their influence in the political system, as well as their limitations.
While I agree that “the management of Islam can be described as interventionist, paternalistic, and intrusive, consistent with the state’s overall approach toward governance” (24) and “Muslim activism is simply a mirror image of civil society activism in general in the city-state” (173), perhaps it is also worthwhile to think about Muslim activism beyond the state-centric perspective. First would be to explore the transnational dynamic of various iterations of Muslim activism, especially those with backgrounds linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, Jamaat Tabligh, and different Salafi groups. While these Muslim activists have little space to expand their political influence, their transnational linkage and online presence might enable them to exercise certain socio-religious influence among Muslims in Singapore. This leads to my second suggestion: to examine the relationship between Muslim activists and ordinary Muslims in Singapore. In other words, despite having limited political opportunities, these Muslim activists might be able to shape the practices and opinions of ordinary Muslims.
Muslim activism is not monolithic; there are different theological leanings and political ideologies, even within the three groups outlined by Abdullah. As he admits, all categorizations are contentious, politically charged, and have limitations. The author continually reminds readers that these categories are not homogenous, and suggests that the categories should be further refined in future studies. Notwithstanding, the author’s choice of categorization (the ulama, liberals, and conservatives) has its rationale and usefulness in the analysis of Muslim activism in Singapore. The book has convincingly argued that the ulama promote a quietist position, and most of them are politically acquiescent. Abdullah then contends that liberals have largely been astute in manoeuvering within the system and have made small gains politically. In contrast, conservative activists have made little progress in the public sphere, with much of conservative activism relegated to online spaces.
Without discrediting Abdullah’s categorizations, perhaps other ways of looking into the divergence and differences of Muslim activism would be to juxtapose the ulama vis-à-vis non-ulama, liberals vis-à-vis Islamists, and conservatives vis-à-vis progressives. The first comparison would allow us to explore the role of non-ulama religious figures such as Muslim professionals, activists, and popular preachers in shaping Muslim discourses in Singapore. The second would examine the divergence of opinions among Muslim activists who think there should be a clear separation between the state and religion and those who think Islam is an ideology that should govern every aspect of Muslim life. The third would explore the attitudes of Muslim activists on various political, social, and religious issues. Moreover, instead of liberal-conservative categorization, it might be more useful to discuss various Muslim organizations and preachers in Singapore, their socio-religious and political orientations, as well as how they exercise their political and religious influences.
To be sure, Abdullah’s focus is on the state management and the political opportunities of Muslim activists. He has persuasively argued that different groups of Muslim activists engage with the state and exercise their political influence, albeit within certain constraints. His book opens up more questions for further inquiry, prompting the need for more comparative studies and transnational research on various Muslim activism in Southeast Asia and beyond.
Hew Wai Weng
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Selangor