^{By Haikal Adzmir. He was a research assistant at the Ibn Ashur Centre in Glasgow.}

 

In April 2026, the Ministry of Home Affairs banned two additional books about local histories allegedly linked to communist ideologies, including Memoir Shamsiah Fakeh: Dari Awas ke Rejimen Ke-10 and Komrad ASI (Rejimen 10): Dalam Denyut Nihilisme Sejarah.

This is not an isolated move. Following its 96th Islamic Media Advisory Committee (JPMBI) meeting from 24–26 September 2024, the National Council for Islamic Religious Affairs recommended a prohibition order against 12 books deemed harmful to Muslims in Malaysia.

As of January 2025, three of these titles have been officially banned by the Home Affairs Ministry for being “likely to be prejudicial to public interest.” They are peer-reviewed academic works by internationally respected scholars. These are not fringe texts but rigorous contributions published within credible academic circles:

1. Asma Asfaruddin’s The First Muslims History and Legacy (2018) — challenges modern Islamist claims of an “Islamic state,” emphasising that such terminology and concepts are absent from pre-modern Islamic sources.

2. Ahmet T. Kuru’s Islam’s Authoritarianism, and Underdevelopment (2022) — explores the historical alliance between political rulers and the ulama, tracing how this relationship contributed to the decline of intellectual and economic dynamism in Muslim societies.

3. Ahmet T. Kuru’s Ulama–State Alliance: A Source of Underdevelopment in the Muslim World (2024) — expands this argument, analysing how religious–state alliances reinforce authoritarianism and create intellectual stagnation, offering a critique highly relevant to Malaysia’s own political evolution.

This writing argues that the ban reflects the state’s intent not simply to protect Islam in the public interest, but to enforce its own curated version of the religion by silencing critical discourse under the guise of national security. In doing so, it undermines legitimate intellectual contributions on Islam’s role in governance and democracy, while reinforcing a monolithic narrative that shapes policy, institutions, and public norms.

 

How the State Controls Religion 

The banning of scholarly works reflects a broader reluctance by the state to engage with the complex historical relationship between religion and politics. This control extends beyond censorship through book bans. For instance, the RUU Mufti seeks to formalise Ashʿarism and Maturidism as the official creeds, designate the Shafiʿi school as the sole recognised mazhab, and expand the powers of state muftis. Together, these developments indicate a systematic effort to monopolise religious interpretation and narrow the boundaries of acceptable discourse.

In a system like Malaysia’s, where religion and governance are deeply intertwined, such moves elevate one authorised framework of Islam while delegitimising all others. Over time, this framework becomes normalised—eventually accepted as the only authentic version of the religion.

This normalisation is already visible. Terengganu’s law imposing fines on those who skip Friday prayers violates fundamental religious freedoms, yet some locals celebrate it as part of building the “ideal Islamic state.”  Similarly, SIS Forum Malaysia, a women’s rights organisation, was pressured by many actors to rebrand over accusations of deviancy and misleading the Muslim community. These cases illustrate how political authority and religious legitimacy are increasingly fused.

Scholars like Asma Afsaruddin challenge this conflation. She argues that modern Islamist terms like al-Dawla al-Islamiyya (Islamic State) or al-Hukuma al-Islamiyya (Islamic Government) do not appear in pre-modern Islamic texts. Instead, the Document of Medina portrays umma as a pluralistic political community that included not only Muslims, but also Christians and Jews.

 

Impacts of the Banning

The banning of scholarly works has two major implications.

First,  political theorist John Schwarzmantel describes this as the decontestation of political concepts– where one interpretation is enforced as the only legitimate truth. By banning scholarship that historicises Islamic governance, the Malaysian government seeks to decontest Islam itself, erasing space for alternative interpretations. This becomes dangerous when fundamentalist or extremist views gain traction; once codified into law, they become mainstream and legitimate. This “cognitive capture”—a gradual internalisation of a singular religious narrative—is already visible. Popular preachers such as Ustaz Azhar Idrus openly advocate for replacing civil law, which he labels “undang-undang jahiliyah’ (laws of ignorance).

Second, as documented by religion and culture researcher Patricia Martinez, the state has long engaged in a systematic effort to monopolise religious interpretation. The combination of narrowed public discourse and limited public literacy on religion and governance enables such bans to function not as protection of Islam, but as a cover for the political repackaging of religious obligations. Even when citizens sense this manipulation, questioning it risks being perceived as questioning Islam itself.

By defining legitimate debate so narrowly, the state creates a political gravity well—pulling all public discourse towards a predetermined centre. During elections, voters increasingly evaluate policies through the lens of “Is this Islamic?” rather than “Is this effective?”.  This dynamic fuels situations where political parties seek support or attempt to demobilize opposition not through policy innovation but through religious outbidding.  Citizens who would never support violent extremism nonetheless support the erosion of minority rights, judicial independence, and constitutional freedoms—believing these sacrifices necessary to achieve an “ideal Islamic state.”

 

Recommendations

If Malaysia is to remain democratic, it must resist the temptation to restrict public intellectualism and democratise the space for ideas and debate.

First, prohibition orders issued under the Printing Presses and Publications Act (PPPA) must include clear and specific justifications for any ban, rather than relying on vague references to the “public interest.” Transparency is essential to prevent arbitrary censorship.

Second, censorship decisions should not rest solely with religious authorities. An independent review body—comprising scholars, civil society representatives, and legal experts—should be established to provide transparent oversight and prevent the abuse of censorship powers.

Third, national security strategies must shift away from silencing dissenting scholarship. Instead, the focus should be on cultivating an open intellectual ecosystem where diverse interpretations of religion and governance can coexist, and extremist narratives can be meaningfully challenged. The PPPA must not be abused to obstruct constructive and critical discourse.

Ultimately, the most effective safeguard against extremism is not silence, but pluralism in thought and debate. Islam—like Malaysia itself—draws its strength from diversity. Protecting that diversity is essential to securing the country’s democratic future.