Religious authorities in Malaysia have recommended a ban on two books by US-based scholar Ahmet T Kuru.
PETALING JAYA: The recommendation by religious officials to ban two books by US-based scholar Ahmet T Kuru only reinforces the point about authoritarianism made in one of them, says publisher Lestari Hikmah.
In a statement today, the publisher said the move by the muzakarah committee of the National Council for Islamic Religious Affairs “reinforces the central thesis of the book in question”.
The company said the book is a critical examination of religious administrative bodies “that wield their institutional authority to censor and suppress views that fall outside the frameworks they have defined – even in matters long recognised as legitimate differences among scholars”.
“Such rigid approaches have contributed to a form of authoritarianism that undermines individual rights and the diversity of perspectives within the Islamic intellectual tradition,” said the publisher.
Lestari Hikmah criticised the council’s justifications for the ban as being generic and lacking any specific evidence from the text itself to substantiate the claim that it is “contrary to the aqidah of Ahl Sunnah Wal Jamaah, Islamic law, or that it misleads the Muslim public”.
“We maintain that no such content exists in the publication,” said the publisher.
Ahmet T Kuru’s works, The Ulama-State Alliance: A Cause of Authoritarianism and Underdevelopment in the Muslim World (2022) and Islam, Authoritarianism, and Underdevelopment (2024) are among 12 books endorsed for a prohibition order issued by the home ministry.
Lestari Hikmah said it is “not an exaggeration to assert that the recommendation for a blanket ban on these books reflects an authoritarian impulse”.
It said that key stakeholders, including the publisher, translator and Ahmet himself, were not invited for dialogue or allowed to respond to the allegations before the recommendation was made.
“This approach is inconsistent with Islamic principles which stress the importance of fair and thorough inquiry before passing judgment on others,” the company said.
The publisher also argued that the action contravenes Article 10 of the Federal Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of expression.
Source link
