Malaysian Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim speaks in front of his supporters, during a gathering in Petaling Jaya, near Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, late 27 October 2014.   EPA/AZHAR RAHIM

Today, in response to an article in Quadrant by Australian anthropologist Prof. Clive Kessler, I published an op-ed onThe Conversation in which I argue against a textual approach to understanding “Muslim” politics. The full text is below.

Malaysia reaches a critical crossroad over state Islamisation

Fuelled by the rise of Islamic State (IS) in Iraq and Syria, debate about Islam and violence has flared again in Australia. In a predictable cycle of provocation and reaction, governments launch a wide-ranging security response while denying claims that Muslims are scapegoats. At the same time, they must reassure non-Muslims that the suburbs are safe.

The result is government statements that aim to placate everyone: Muslims are not targets and non-Muslims should stay calm because, as they argue, Islam is foremost a “religion of peace”.

Interpreting texts is problematic

In recent weeks, Australian Attorney-General George Brandis has utteredprecisely these words. A battery of spokespeople for the Muslim community has chimed in. This is not rocket science: this gesture of reassurance is aimed at maintaining relationships, calming the angry and managing constituencies. Read more