Trolled over views on animism, imagine if IIUM’s Prof Solehah is tasked with curating mandatory History syllabus

 

HISTORY is written by the victors.

The proverb suggests that those who prevail in conflict or hold power define the historical narrative, often marginalising, silencing or demonizing the perspectives of the defeated.

But in the case of Prof Solehah Yaacob, it would appear that history is being re-written by the deluded.

That seems to be the prevailing view on the International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM) linguistic expert whose “thesis” and “academic findings” have courted controversy of sorts.

Ranging from claims of ancient Malay supermen who taught the Chinese how to stay airborne to Malay shipbuilders sharing their expertise with the Romans, the learned academic has insisted that her views are based on thorough research of ancient texts.

That hasn’t stopped the good professor from being relentlessly trolled for views that are quite apparent in promoting the KMI a.k.a. Ketuanan Melayu Islam agenda (borrowing a seemingly favourite catchphrase of renowned political commentator and fellow academician Prof James Chin).

The latest pronouncements by the author popular with a rightist fan base equates animism with Hanif.

In a blistering riposte on the SEA Heritage and History Facebook page, it was contended that “the claim that animism is actually Hanif is not supported by theology, archaeology or historical methodology”.

In Islamic theology, Hanif refers specifically to pure monotheism, the rejection of idols and the exclusive worship of one God as exemplified by Prophet Abraham.

Gross misinterpretation to suit ideology

“Animism, however, is an anthropological term describing belief systems cantered on spirits, ancestral forces, sacred objects and nature entities,” rebutted the social media site which focuses on Southeast Asian historical research.

“Archaeological evidence from Southeast Asia clearly shows ritual offerings, spirit worship, sacred landscapes, megalithic cults and ancestor veneration, practices that cannot be classified as monotheism.”

Henceforth, re-branding animism as Hanif is not academic correction but is tantamount to “theological re-interpretation imposed onto historical data”.

“Respecting indigenous beliefs means understanding them as they truly were, not re-shaping them to fit modern religious narratives. History must be guided by evidence, not ideology,” jibed the Jakarta-based SEA Heritage and History.

The post has generated 1.3K likes, 1.1K comments and 134 shares, highlighting that the outspoken academic does seem to know how to attract attention and have a spotlight trained on her for the better or worse

But to many commenters, the spotlight reveals nothing but a sham academic who is intent on imposing her world views on history sans empirical evidence.

Hence, her analysis is often ridiculed by online commenters while inviting criticism from fellow academics.

One alarmed commenter wondered what if Prof Solehah is tasked with curating the syllabus for the now mandatory History SPM exam. Scary thought, isn’t it?

Quite a few mocked the academic for her ultra-Malay perspective which seems to colour her every utterance, lending less credence to her pronouncements among the non-Malays.

Some commenters had nothing but pity for her students at IIUM as she seems to base history on self-created stories.

Some commenters took a more reasoned tone in trying to debunk Prof Solehah’s claims, citing historical facts.

Regardless of the trolling, Prof Solehah remains popular as her packed seminars attest. Make no mistake, she has her ardent followers who believe in her every utterance as exemplified by these comments.

Of course, history buffs are free to decide what represents the truth. Prof Solehah’s views may be controversial and invite ridicule but at the very least, it nevertheless promotes debate and differing perspectives.

Better than let it fester and hide in the dark corners of the web, wouldn’t it be better to expose such views to the harsh light of academic criticism, media scrutiny and, yes, even social media ridicule?

If those views hold water, they should be able to withstand the pressure of incessant trolling. –  Focus Malaysia