There's a breakdown in logic in the outbursts against a Hindu temple in Putrajaya and a gurdwara in Bukit Beruntung.
FMT
In recent years, we have been witness to increasing flexing of the muscles by various NGOs and religious fundamentalists, and no occasion makes them peacock their might faster than when another religion tries to build a place for worshippers to congregate.
In the last few days, there have been outbursts against a Hindu temple in Putrajaya and the attempt by the Sikhs of Bukit Beruntung to build a gurdwara on their property.
The accusations made against the Sri Lalithambikai Alayam temple in Putrajaya are specious at best. Putrajaya, being the administrative capital of Malaysia and built on Federal land, can be considered the property of all Malaysians who pay taxes, regardless of creed or class, as a nation’s capital can only be considered so when it belongs to the people. Hence, representation of one of our country’s major religions in the capital should not be an issue here, but not according to Perkasa’s Irwan Fahmi.
Irwan’s premise is that as Putrajaya is a Malay-majority area, the temple gate should face Banting to make it easier for Hindus to reach it. Banting, it seems, has a more sizeable Hindu population than Putrajaya, where only “600 to 700” Hindus reside. He must be given some credit for attempting to frame his argument as a suggestion for the convenience of the worshippers, but the logic fails to impress and bringing up population statistics for Putrajaya only betrays the thinking behind such failed logic.
Indeed, this same kind of thinking can be found in the protest against a gurdwara in Bukit Beruntung. In this case, a banner was put up by those with “sensitivities”, claiming that the site of the gurdwara lies in the kiblat of a mosque, and thus could not be built there. (For the benefit of the uninitiated, the kiblat is the direction in which Muslims face when performing their canonical prayers.) Of course, if the logic of the “sensitive” folk were universally applicable, buildings would have to be razed for miles in Kuala Lumpur alone so that nothing stands in the kiblat of the various mosques in the city.
There is, of course, a reason why the logic in these cases doesn’t quite make sense to a logical mind.
These protests and assertions have nothing to do with religion except for a thin façade. This is nothing more, and nothing less, than an assertion of political and societal superiority to shore up the insecurity and weak-minded thinking of some parties. This thinking is an attack on the guarantees made in the Federal Constitution for the freedom of religion in Article 11, Section 3, which states:
“Every religious group has the right (a) to manage its own religious affairs; (b) to establish and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes; and (c) to acquire and own property and hold and administer it in accordance with the law.”
That spirit of muhibbah on which this country was founded is being eroded by this need to assert social superiority over other religions. There needs to be a re-affirmation of mutual respect among the different faiths in Malaysia, in the example of the Prophet (peace be upon him), who once invited Christians from Najran to pray in his mosque before engaging in a dialogue with them. Not only did this gesture of respect show the measure of a great man, but is example of what made the foundations of Islam so strong.
We understand that pluralism is not acceptable to Islam, or rather to some Muslims. But that is no excuse for the blatant disrespect shown to the other faiths by some elements of our society, and a multi-racial, multi-cultural country like Malaysia cannot continue peacefully if our different faiths tread upon each other. We are one people, and we should start acting like it for once.
In recent years, we have been witness to increasing flexing of the muscles by various NGOs and religious fundamentalists, and no occasion makes them peacock their might faster than when another religion tries to build a place for worshippers to congregate.
In the last few days, there have been outbursts against a Hindu temple in Putrajaya and the attempt by the Sikhs of Bukit Beruntung to build a gurdwara on their property.
The accusations made against the Sri Lalithambikai Alayam temple in Putrajaya are specious at best. Putrajaya, being the administrative capital of Malaysia and built on Federal land, can be considered the property of all Malaysians who pay taxes, regardless of creed or class, as a nation’s capital can only be considered so when it belongs to the people. Hence, representation of one of our country’s major religions in the capital should not be an issue here, but not according to Perkasa’s Irwan Fahmi.
Irwan’s premise is that as Putrajaya is a Malay-majority area, the temple gate should face Banting to make it easier for Hindus to reach it. Banting, it seems, has a more sizeable Hindu population than Putrajaya, where only “600 to 700” Hindus reside. He must be given some credit for attempting to frame his argument as a suggestion for the convenience of the worshippers, but the logic fails to impress and bringing up population statistics for Putrajaya only betrays the thinking behind such failed logic.
Indeed, this same kind of thinking can be found in the protest against a gurdwara in Bukit Beruntung. In this case, a banner was put up by those with “sensitivities”, claiming that the site of the gurdwara lies in the kiblat of a mosque, and thus could not be built there. (For the benefit of the uninitiated, the kiblat is the direction in which Muslims face when performing their canonical prayers.) Of course, if the logic of the “sensitive” folk were universally applicable, buildings would have to be razed for miles in Kuala Lumpur alone so that nothing stands in the kiblat of the various mosques in the city.
There is, of course, a reason why the logic in these cases doesn’t quite make sense to a logical mind.
These protests and assertions have nothing to do with religion except for a thin façade. This is nothing more, and nothing less, than an assertion of political and societal superiority to shore up the insecurity and weak-minded thinking of some parties. This thinking is an attack on the guarantees made in the Federal Constitution for the freedom of religion in Article 11, Section 3, which states:
“Every religious group has the right (a) to manage its own religious affairs; (b) to establish and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes; and (c) to acquire and own property and hold and administer it in accordance with the law.”
That spirit of muhibbah on which this country was founded is being eroded by this need to assert social superiority over other religions. There needs to be a re-affirmation of mutual respect among the different faiths in Malaysia, in the example of the Prophet (peace be upon him), who once invited Christians from Najran to pray in his mosque before engaging in a dialogue with them. Not only did this gesture of respect show the measure of a great man, but is example of what made the foundations of Islam so strong.
We understand that pluralism is not acceptable to Islam, or rather to some Muslims. But that is no excuse for the blatant disrespect shown to the other faiths by some elements of our society, and a multi-racial, multi-cultural country like Malaysia cannot continue peacefully if our different faiths tread upon each other. We are one people, and we should start acting like it for once.
No comments:
Post a Comment