Interfaith dialogue or monologue

Recently, the Deputy Prime Minister declared that he was a Malay first but that he was also a Malaysian. That is very reassuring.

By Dr. Lim Teck Ghee

He also declared that “I have been in politics … almost 40 years. I am sure the people know what I have said and done all this while. That is more important than this political debate.”

As the Deputy Prime Minister, Muhyiddin should expect that all his actions and even his speeches will be scrutinized more carefully than ever before. Not just the excerpts put out by Bernama or posted on his website but also the speeches he makes to small groups in distant parts of the world.

This is especially true of his views on religion. Already as the country’s second highest ranking political leader, he wields tremendous clout in influencing events and developments that affect all Malaysians. Further, as the Deputy Prime Minister, he is just a heartbeat away from being the Prime Minister of the country.

As religion and religious issues increasingly move into centre stage in Malaysian politics and public life, it is important that the public is fully aware of Muhyiddin’s views on subjects such as the reasons for the rising religious tension and divisiveness in the country, the relationship between Islam and other religions, and the way forward in building religious tolerance and harmony.

These views are important to dissect and subject to close scrutiny. How intellectually sound or defensible are the positions held? How honest are they in reflecting past and present history and reality? Is there bias or prejudice in these views? Apart from the intellectual rigour and correctness of the views posited, what do they tell us about the wisdom or character of the leader articulating them?

Recently, Muhyiddin delivered a speech titled ‘Islam and critical challenges in multi-religious Malaysia’ at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies. According to the Deputy Prime Minister, he was in Britain to share Malaysia’s experience in promoting religious tolerance and treating people of other religions with “fairness and justice”.

The speech is notable for its carefully crafted ambiguities and discreet messages. While the Deputy Prime Minister is keen on telling the world that Islam recognizes diversity and enjoins unity between Muslims and non-Muslims, he is not averse to alluding to, or employing the ‘zimmis’ nomenclature when describing the latter group. ‘Zimmi’ or ‘dhimmi’ referring to the kafir implicitly presumes an unequal citizenship and power relationship under the suzerainty of Islam.

Muhyiddin then praises Islam’s historical “gold standard” in tolerating minority faiths against the West and finds the Europeans and Americans wanting. He faults the Western countries for not permitting Muslims to make the call to prayer on loudspeakers as contrasted to “church bells [that] ring freely in the Muslim world”. Surprisingly, he says little about how Islamic adherents of the religion can maintain this gold standard today.

In this regard, Muhyiddin’s assertion that there are no impediments to expressions of other faiths – “permissions granted for the non-Muslims to build places of worship or statues within their compounds” – is questionable given the reality in Malaysia of Christians resorting to pray in shoplots, Chinese temples located in terrace houses and Hindus deities situated under roadside trees.

Consider next The Herald’s use of the word ‘Allah’ in its newsletter, where he concludes that “we have to acknowledge that such an incident causes discord in a multi-religious country” and seemingly shifts the blame to the Christian side. This becomes more apparent when he subtly elaborates that “some disillusioned groups may raise competing demands in pursuit of group interests under the disguise of religious freedom”.

His argument that articulation of group interest reinforced by the controversies over conversion, divorce and child custody court cases as well as the building of cemeteries and houses of worship “if not properly managed” will have the effect of sowing “hatred and animosity among religious communities” is highly selective and implies again that it is the non-Muslim religious groups that are responsible for the present state of religious tension.

His speech ends with the advice that “followers of every religion must be able to moderate their expectations when living in such a society” and how “[m]aximizing group interests to the detriment of others is not the pathway to religious harmony”. This is good advice except that it is not clear from the way his speech is pitched whether the warning is mainly directed at adherents of the non-Muslim faiths.

By way of contrast, the views of the leader of the Opposition in Parliament, Anwar Ibrahim, are less propagandistic and more critical of the state of affairs in Islam. Speaking over CNN, and dwelling less on the romantic appeal of a distant Golden Age of the Caliphates, he acknowledges that there are broad concerns about the ability of contemporary Islamic societies to deal with issues of pluralism and diversity, including in Malaysia.

Unlike the subtle hectoring tone found in Muyhiddin’s speech, he concedes that the “handling of the Allah issue sent the wrong message to people around the world about Islam”. He asks how Malaysia could say we are any better than the allegedly xenophobic Westerners when we treat our non-Muslim citizens “with disrespect and disdain”

He cautions that the mainstream media “should present all viewpoints and not just the most extreme views supported by the government” regarding the polemics of Islam coming under threat.

On the ‘Allah’ contestation between the Home Ministry and the Catholic Church, Anwar deplored the way the authorities tacitly sanctioned the incendiary public demonstrations. He also noted that Umno, by taking a hard line to curry favour with an increasingly radical right wing, is hoping “to boost the perceived Islamic credentials of the government and portray the opposition as soft on morals and subservient to international pressure”.

At the same time, he commended PAS for coming out in support of the rights of all Malaysian citizens under the Constitution, which guarantees the freedom of conscience and religion.

Asked by his interviewer on how his party would minimize ethnic and religious conflicts if it came to power, Anwar reminded that “the religious tensions currently on display are a recent phenomenon in that they are largely the result of a political conflict rather than deep-seated religious antagonisms.”

He noted that “politicians unfortunately have found it expedient to exacerbate ethnic and religious tensions” and he condemned “the deliberate attempts to provoke religious tensions to give a pretext to clamp down on civil liberties and justify the continuation of the same old race-based policies of the past.”

Anwar ends with optimism that the antidote for this behavior is to restore credibility to the institutions of civil society. “The media should be free, politicians must be held accountable through free and fair elections and the judiciary must be able to operate without interference from politicians.”

Contrast this with Muyhiddin’s concluding remarks: “(W)hat Malaysia is doing is essentially emulating the spirit of the Constitution of Madinah which was introduced by the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. upon the opening of Madinah some 1,400 years ago. Madinah was made up of people of various tribes and faiths, such as the ‘Aus and Khazraj’ who were Muslims and the Muslim migrants from Makkah, as well as Christians and Jews. Yet, the Prophet succeeded in uniting these people as one community under the Constitution of Madinah.”

I hope Muyhiddin (and also other Malay/Muslim) leaders will elaborate more on how they view the role and position of Islam in Malaysia so that the Malaysian public is fully acquainted with these points of view and can know what to expect in their handling of this vital factor that has intruded into many spheres of public life.

In particular, many Malaysians will want to know whether the gold standard for the country in handling religious relations lies in a long gone and irrelevant Constitution of Madinah and Islamic code of conduct. And whether the gold standard is better sought for in the separation of the state and religion; and the restriction of the role of religion – whether it is emanating from the mosque, church, synagogue or temple – strictly to the private sphere of life.

Note:

For Muhyiddin’s speech, open this link.

For Anwar’s interview, go to this link.