The Religious Pluralism Debate: A Critique.
As the curtain draws to a close for the last year of the first decade in the third millennium, I wanted to just sit back and peruse the many edited writings and commentaries for my book “In Search of a Better Malaysia”. The indulgence was rather short-lived when it dawns on me that I have failed to provide any commentary on an equally troubling acrimonious debate that is raging dangerously in the nation. Yes, how could I miss that one?
Well, frankly I was neither excited nor felt provoked by it, when it came back on stage recently. My knee-jerk response was to evade and ignore it. I thought that the already-overloaded-and-overburdened Malaysian public could no longer stomach any more of such divisive issues. Truly, there has been an overdose of it of late.
But after thinking through and weighing the far-reaching implications, especially on the undiscerning citizenry, this writer could no longer allow it to fade into oblivion only to raise its ugly head again later.
Conscious of the fact that it could very well boomerang on me, I’m now willing to take the bull by the horn. As I embark this effort, a strange reminiscent of the discourse (read polemic) of past Muslim scholars haunted me.
Neither wanting to draw nor deserving of any intellectual parallel, I must say in all humility that I couldn’t help to be reminded of the great debate of the ‘Incoherence of the Incoherence’ (Tahaafut al-Tahaafut) of Ibn Rushd’s (Averroes) against the mighty Al-Ghazali’s Incoherence of the Philosophers (Tahaafut Al-Falaasifah). I honestly believe that this undertaking, at the expense of being crucified as ‘apostate’ is nonetheless equally noble, urgent and extremely pertinent in the bigger agenda of ‘In Search of a Better Malaysia”.
Yes if you are still wondering, I’m meaning the “The Religious Pluralism Debate”, organised by Muafakat, a Muslim NGO in the Federal Territory mosque a fortnight ago. For reasons only known to them, the forum was also supported by government agencies such as the Selangor Islamic Department (JAIS), Federal Territory Mufti Department, Federal Islamic Missionary Foundation (YADIM), Information Ministry’s Special Affairs Department (JASA) and the Institute of Islamic Understanding (IKIM).
In summary, the Muslim scholars and the newly-minted PhD holder Yusri Mohammad, an Islamic Law lecturer in the IIUM and the UKM’s Nur Fahana Abd Rahman included, asserted that Islam considers that not all religions are equal, and that the concept of ‘Religious Pluralism’ is antithetical to Islam as this belief stems from the idea that Islam is no more and no less equal to other religions ie promoting religious equality.
For the record, not only was Dato Seri Anwar Ibrhaim demonized for allegedly promoting ‘religious pluralism’ and undermining the Islamic faith, the Menteri Besar of Kelantan, Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat, who also is the Mursyidul Am of PAS, did not escape from their criticism for having previously attended an official function at a Buddhist temple in Kelantan.
In all fairness, it must also be registered that the scholars at the forum also issued reminders to other Muslim leaders, the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak included, to refrain from attending other religious celebrations, claiming that it would threaten the position of Islam as a supreme religion.
Dr Muhammad ‘Uthman El-Muhammady, another panelist and a fellow at the International Institute of Islamic Thought and Civilization (ISTAC) also echoed the others and called on Muslims to fight against those who promote religious equality as this is dangerous and a threat to the Islamic faith.
More assertively, the UKM’s Nur Fahana Abd Rahman, has asked Federal Islamic Authorities (JAKIM) to issue a guideline to prevent Muslims from celebrating other religious celebrations, calling it an element of religious pluralism.
Little wonder that the Mufti of Perak was recently reported (17-Dec, 2010, Utusan Malaysia) as saying that it (religious pluralism) needs to be rejected by all Muslims in our country as it could destroy one’s faith, and that those who believed in it are as good as being apostate.
Lest you think I’m afraid to stand my ground and categorically state my position (especially as a PAS Member of Parliament), you got me wrong again. If you have been following by writings and speeches, you know that I don’t double speak, much less to only appease electorates (especially my voters) for political support.
You now would surely want to know whether this writer would go along with the understanding of ‘religious pluralism’ as mentioned above and would this writer support the policy advocacy of the Muslim scholars.
Firstly, my response to religious pluralism. In all conviction and intellectual honesty, I must make it categorically clear that I’m against “Religious Pluralism” as it stands to be advocated by the ‘prophets’ (read philosophers) of this theology.
Just as you are about to despair or rejoice by this answer, let me hasten to add that I’m however, totally at loggerhead with and vehemently opposed to the policy advocacy of the Muslim scholars mentioned above that are arguably the genesis of a recent rise of religious bigotry and spate of religious extremism.
Let me begin my short discourse. Let’s get back to the substantive issue of the debate.
Going by The Oxford Dictionary, “pluralism” is defined as a “a condition or system in which two or more states, groups, principles, etc co-exist”, The search for a common understanding of the word ‘pluralism’ becomes evidently more complicated because it has been extensively used (and abused) unilaterally by almost everyone – religious leaders, politicians, journalists – without fully understanding what the concept actually means and implies.
Be that as it may, the debate and contention at hand is even more difficult as “Religious Pluralism” is simply not about religious diversity as implied by its literal definition. Contrary to the lay understanding, religious pluralism is not as innocuous (harmless) and naïve as you and I would like it to believe in. It is not merely semantic though.
It far surpasses the notional concept of accepting religious diversity as the fundamental basis for the peaceful and harmonious co-existence of all persons or all faiths, with each practicing his faith with sensitivity and due respect to people of other faiths.
I implore that you bear with me as I briefly expound and paraphrase my writing in my first political book the Blindspot (Harakah, 2007).
Islam Affirms Religious Plurality but Not Religious Pluralism.
Religious pluralism, like any other ‘ism’ ie theology or ideology, are propounded by its advocates and ‘prophets’. Ardent proponents of religious pluralist theology include renowned scholars amongst the like of Ernst Troeltsch (1865-1923), William E. Hocking (Rethinking Mission, 1923), Arnold Toynbee (1889-1975), Wilfred Carnwell Smith (1916-2000) and currently Professor John harwood Hick (1922-present). Diana L. Eck, Professor at the Harvard University researches extensively on religious pluralism. John Hick is undoubtedly the current iconic thinker of the pluralist theology.
Citing from John Hick, ‘Religious Pluralism,’ (Mircea Eliade(ed.), The Encyclopedia of Religion (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1987), Vol. 12, p. 331.
…the term refers to a particular theory of the relation between these traditions (religions), with their different and competing claims. This is the theory that the great world religions constitute variant conceptions and perceptions of, and responses to, the one ultimate, mysterious divine reality…the view that the great world faiths embody different perceptions and conceptions of, and correspondingly different responses to, the Real or the Ultimate, and that within each of them independently the transformation of human existence from self-centeredness to reality-centeredness is taking place.
John Hick concludes that “the great religious traditions are to be regarded as alternative soteriological “spaces” within which, or “ways” along which, men and women can find salvation/liberation/fulfillment” ( Problems of Religious Pluralism, pp. 36-7; and ———, ‘Religious Pluralism,’ p. 331). Hence all religions are essentially the same, authentic and valid.
Without going into the extensive discourse on religious pluralism by the various proponents of this theology, it could easily be summarized as advocating that all religions are equal, simultaneously denouncing and undermining the claim to absolute truth of all religions on the world stage.
It has ‘relativised’ all truth claims and has equated all religions to be essentially and relatively the same. Hick added that “all religions are equally valid to the same truth”. To proponents of “Religious Pluralism”, all religions are relative ie is limited, partial and incomplete, one way of looking at something. Accordingly, they pledged that all religions are the same and ‘all paths lead to the summit’.
In other words, religious pluralism transcends the conflicting and relative truth claims among religions, claims a façade of democracy and world peace and is the ‘absolute messaih’ to the phenomemnon of religious diversity.
The claim of exclusivity to its beliefs and teachings in Islam, like Christianity and Judaism and indeed all other religions, Hinduism etc, would surely be on a head-on collision with religious pluralism.
Contrary to religious pluralism, Islam is all for religious plurality and accords respect for all other religions as fully others without reduction, deconstruction or relativisation. While ‘pluralism’ is unwilling to allow others to be ‘exclusively and uniquely’ others, Islam acknowledges the plurality of religion and allows the adherents of all religions the plurality of laws to govern their lives within the aegis of their religious belief and precepts.
This is the perspective of Islam and as far as I could represent and speak for PAS, this is our stand and we uphold and advocate this position.
Islam perceives diversity and plurality (not pluralism) as a ‘Sunnahtullah’ (in accordance to the dictates of the creation of Almighty Allah). References to other religions could also be found, though indirectly as generically mentioned by the verse: And verily We have rasied in every nation a messenger, (proclaiming) ; Serve Allah and shun false gods..(16:36).indeed at the behest of His Majestic Being. Hence, a religious claim is an absolutist doctrine which must be respected as such, not simplified, reduced, relativised and much less negated.
More specifically Allah says it categorically that “Religion before Allah is Islam (submission to His Will) (Chapter Ali-Imran:19) and has decreed that ““This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you and have chosen for you Islam as your religion (Chapter Al-Maidah: 3). That is the claim of absolute truth found in the Quran.
A Muslim’s faith is firmly based and premised on the conviction that the source of his religion Islam is Allah and Muhammad is the last and final Prophet on the Earth. A true Muslim holds that Islam is not just one of the many religions, but The Religion or Way of Life (Ad-Deen), the only true religion of Allah, the religion of the created natural order (Deen-al-Fitrah).
Incidentally, YB Lim Kit Siang posting a peice from Thomas Lee ( MYSinchew.com) commenting on the debate has this to say.
“As a Christian, I can understand the IKIM position, since my faith is also an exclusive one. No Christian will dispute or challenge my contention that Christianity also claims exclusivity to be the only way of salvation for mankind, and that the Lord Jesus Christ is “the way, the truth, and the life” and “No one comes to the Father (God) except through me (Jesus)”. (John 14:6), and that “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).
Be that as it may, we now come to the most contentious aspect of the debate.
While I may hold similar conviction to those who are against Religious Pluralism, I must say that I’m extremely baffled and most appalled by the ‘narrow-mindedness’ of these Muslim scholars and the various religious authorities. The kind of ‘siege-mentality’ is so evident and regrettable while the unwillingness to ‘engage’ is a far cry from embodying the true spirit of Islam.
The paranoia is deplorable at best and a disservice to Islam at worst. Incidentally, will this writer, a Member of Parliament for Kuala Selangor who regularly visits Churches and Temples in the constituency, be seriously monitored by the authority for bordering into the practice of religious pluralism?
It must be made known to these scholars and religious authorities that the issue before us is not about anything theological or matters pertaining to belief and belief-system. Those are exclusively the right of all faiths. Having said that though, the bone of contention is about how to relate an exclusive faith to other religions in a multi-racial, multi-religious, multi-cultural, and multi-lingual demographic make-up like Malaysia. That is the challenge at hand.
It is here that we are in dire need of the engagement of Islam as an essentially a “Way of Life” (Ad-Deen) that provides for a Universal Justice for all and a “Mercy Unto Mankind” (Rahmatan LiL ‘Aalamin).
It is the vital and critical role of man as the “Vicegerent of Allah on Earth” (KhalifatulLah fil ‘Ard) that now awaits the Islamic Leadership together with the bigger constituency of the nation-state in providing the moral and intellectual leadership, in ‘The Search for a Better Malaysia’.
Muslims must engage and not disengage in all public sphere in promoting peace and harmony among the people. It is not participating in an inter-faith worship service which the nation is in dire need of but a mutually rewarding dialogue and discourse. Not in matter of faith but in the dimensions of good-governance, justice, righteousness, equality, freedom, human, civil and constitutional rights.
PAS will endorse and support any inter-faith engagement and “dialogue” as we have clearly stated in our Manifesto. The Pakatan Rakyat similarly espouses and advocates such religious discourses that are mutually rewarding in nature.
These are social policies of PAS and Pakatan that are positive for the development for the common purpose of nation-building, and are jointly dealing with many fundamental and structural issues relating to their role as citizens, hence, the need to come together to talk and discourse.
Admittedly there are numerous religious and racial fault-lines that are dangerously lurking ahead. Assuming a ‘strict and rigid position’ and seemingly ‘intolerant measures’ as advocated by the above mentioned Muslim scholars so as to safeguard the purity and sanctity of the Islamic faith will surely become fodders for more intense religious bigotry and chauvanism.
We have had enough of the incidences of cow-heads, sacrileges of places of worship, the debilitating debate of the name of Allah etc. PM Najib and his cahoots must state their position loud and clear and not talk of ‘moderation’ on world stage and become so parochial, extreme and narrow in defending both racial and religious bigots on our own shores. That is hypocrisy at its worst.
Thanks to the former and current Mufti of Perlis, Dr Juanda Jaya and Dr Mohd Asri respectively. The latter is recently is reported to have commented that the nation is going down the Taliban route if we start persecuting other Muslims because they don’t subscribe to our brand of Islam.
In them are embodiments of the moderate Muslims scholars that have invariably not failed to contextualize to the “Purpose of Syari’ah” (Maqasid as-Syariah) and to the greater public interest (Maslahah Al-Ammah) and to the agenda of nation-rebuilding.
To evade the discourses by offering lame excuses that the citizenry are not ready is an unacceptable denial of reality and a continuous assault on Reason. It is to shirk from the shared responsibility of Change and Reform.
We do so at our own peril and have only ourselves to blame!
I rest my case.
Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad, Member of the PAS Central Working Committee.
It did not sound like a debate to me. It was more like a meeting of muslims to stem out other religions.
Sala to you Dr Zul,
I am at peace with the absolute and unchallengeable TRUTH in the words of GOD, read, the Quran! The problem facing Muslim ummah is too many religionist competing wanting to outdo each other in putting words in God’s “mouth”. Islam means peace.
Call me an apostate by any human-being, be it the mullahs, whatever, no problem for me. My biggest fear is if God, the creator/guardian of the universe, of paradise and hell, condemn me as non believer of his revelations, that has been my biggest concern. So, I take His book as my primary beacon of life in this temporary world, in preparing for the afterlife of eternity.
Anything that contradicts the peaceful facade of Islam obviously is not Divine! Full stop.
Dr, if you truly believed in religious plurality , that all can exist side by side then why PAS is still insisting on implementing the Syariah laws? If religious plurality is acceptable to Muslims, then we should subscribed to one common laws that is acceptable to all faiths. Having said that , each one should be free also to convert in and out of any faith. You can defend your faith as supreme but a man is man made by God .He or she is not the faith .He/she is human and faith only comes with seeing and understanding of the teachings. So, why are the Muslims defending the race by force on a man? Apostasy is a gift from God as a free man to chose his way and live his life. Dr. and most learned Islamic scholars are silent on this? Are you people practising double standards? One for Islam and one for others? You must be consistent at all times or else your religion is a fake. For God is one and faithful to all who loves Him.
Very true indeed.Religion should come from within and not forced by the authority on a particular race like the lina joy case.In Malaysia it looks like there is a political agenda on the part of UMNO and PAS to supress other religions as it benefits the majority race.
Well done Dr. Dzul, you give me hope that there are still intelligent, articulate and sensible politicians in Malaysia. May the God of Adam, Ibrahim, Musa, Isa and Muhamad give you the strength to help Malaysia
Wow ! Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad,
I’m impressed ! If only the darn ‘main stream’ media picks up your article and publishes it as counter to the so-called ‘Muslim scholars’, we may see a better Malaysia, yet.
Just before Christmas I was pleased to entertain over much of a week, a Muslim family from a strict Islamic background, the man of the household is a business associate. We all, my family included, shared time and meals together and the bonding was just great.
We all thought this is what Malaysia should be, based on mutual care and respect.
A very Happy New Year and prosperous politics in 2011 – fight the good fight for us all Doctor.
What are Religions? My belief > Religions are rule of Laws of Humanity to Love be Loved and be Humble. Arrogant, Hypocrisy, Hatre, Gluttony and Jealousy are the Routes to Evils. No man is better than the beggars on the street. We all die. Thus the Politicians to politiking Human Right, not His EGO. Just Simple ME.
Salam Dr Dzul,
I attended the said seminar, read all the reportings in various newspapers and of course your comments above. What you wrote about were exactly what the scholars were trying to explain during the seminar, even concerning the difference between plurality and pluralism. The scholars were discussing in similar veins as your comments. The reportings in the newspaper fell short in their explanations concerning the seminar discussions , and I did not see you at the seminar, neither Dr Asri nor the Mufti of Perlis. Thus I am surprise that you would make your comments concerning the Muslim scholars without listening to them first hand (religious bigorty?) I am of course not affiliated to any political parties, but I think it would be good for everybody to be open minded enough and listen, as it was not about condemning religious plurality and other religions, which were emphasised, but rather the fear of religious pluralism and Muslims not understanding its implications, that have caused Muslims in Indonesia especially to accept ‘cross-religious’ marriages, between Muslim females and non-Muslim males. Ibn Rushd was a great Fuqaha, as was Imam al-Ghazali. We need intellectual discourses to be able to understand what our children will be facing in this turbulent world that is based on a different philosophy than what was experienced during the time of both great Muslim scholars. During their time, the imported Greek philosophy was still based in the belief of the unseen, while the contemporary philosophy of modernity and postmodernism is based on the rejection of the unseen. Surely, we need to be constantly reminded, as religious pluralism came from the latter. Mr Lim Kit Siang was correct that he of course would belief that his faith is the right one, as what the Muslim scholars were explaining during the seminar. I emphasised again that they accepted religious plurality, and they also said the same thing as what Mr Lim Kit Siang was saying about his faith. Wallahu a’lam.
salam dr zul,
being critical to osman bakar, uthman muhammady and yusri is understandable, but what has been done by khalid and his gang from IKD is also damaging. hope you put some light on their disturbing activities.
Salam Abu Izz, I took note of your concern and shall address it at the appropriate time.
Islam cannot perceive anything. Only God, as a Being can.
So to those hypocrites who do unjust things in the name of defending their religion, they will know soon enough, in the next life, whether they are on the straight path, or otherwise.
To govern any country, the rule of law and justice must be upheld, regardless or race and religion and party membership and hierarchy. If this cannot be upheld, then there is no hope for this country.
And lastly, humans cannot issue “fatwas”. God’s law, can only be from God. And forbidding evil and doing good is such a simple law. If in doubt, please seek god for guidance. In the koran, all religion promote paganism, is some form or other. And that is why, the people of the book should refrain from any religion in order to acheive “blissfulness’.
I have always thought I am happy with my dad’s Proton. It can go 0-100km in 15 seconds. My uncles say Porches and Ferraris are no match, though they have never driven one. And they forbid me driving one.
Actually, my uncles are nuts. I found out these cars can clock under 5 seconds. But I am not telling them, they are afraid of speed.
I am also not telling them that I’ve test-drived one. Wow…. no, no, no, I can’t tell you either. And you know why.
Forbidden fruits have such mystical attraction. My uncles are not just nuts, they are ignoramus nuts incapable of seeing beyond the kampong horizon. Again I am not telling them what I think of them. I suspect there’s something they are not telling me about Proton has no equals.
Bro, your quote attributed to Lim Kit Siang should actually quote Thomas Lee from the Sin Chew article.
Dr Dzul, PAS (as articulated by your good self) does have a more winsome and intelligent position on this issue than UMNO and their think tanks. It gives me hope to see Muslim politicians who dare to take the risk of unpopularity for a matter of principle.
Thank you for speaking up bravely in a time when such courage and wisdom is required.
A correction: The quotation you cited is not from Lim Kit Siang but a Christian writer named Thomas Lee. Hope you could make that minor correction.
As a Christian, I’m no fan of pluralism as an ideology either. So I’d like to introduce the word ‘Plurality’ which means that we should allow different faiths to co-exist. We wud also suggest
the word ‘tolerance’- which is somewhat patronising – should be replaced by the word ‘respect’. This means that we respect other belief-systems even if we do not agree with them. In fact, we are compelled to respect everyone because as those made in the image of God, human beings are free even to believe wrongly.
Yes Dave and John, noted and corrected. how could i make such mistake..to err is human to forgive divine.. TQ.
Assalamualaikum warahmarullahi wabarokatuh,
I agree with you in that that there is huge difference between religious pluralism and religious plurality. Religious pluralism is a politico-philosophical ideology and based on what had been understood and been thought in various academic disciplines, it is antithetical to what Islam stands for and agree to the idea, notion and the institution of religious plurality. Every Muslim know that religious plurality is part of sunnat ul Llah/ natural order, universal order of living together. Qur’an and Sunnah provide ample doctrinal and pragmatic policy advocacy on how to better deal with this issues of religious and cultural plurality.
If one is keen to advocate religious pluralism other than that had been defined, understood and accepted – for example the idea of the relativism of all religions and well incapsulated in the transcental unity of religions-then he or she who advocate this particular advocacy angularity should redefine the term religious pluralism so that it provides conceptual and policy clarity to others. This clarity deems necessary simply because based on this redefined term religious pluralism, it enable policy community and any socio-political activists to pay attention and engage the issues of diversity and differences in a very objective way, in very technical sense and in very pragmatic approach. Once redefined, the issue now is the technicalization of the issues of diversity and differences and reduceable in the form of policy and administrative frameworks within the context of policy resolution and conflict resolution.
The Pluralism Project at Harvard University provides this redefined term of religious pluralism. For further reference please check at http://pluralism.org/pages/pluralism/what_is_pluralism and http://pluralism.org/pluralism/essays/from_diversity_to_pluralism.php .
This redefined religious pluralism is totally different from what is advocated by Jaringan Islam Liberal and other Muslim pluralists worldwide.
The practical policy prioritization application of the redefined religious pluralism as advocated by Diana E Eck of the PP at HU can seen in its fourth definition of pluralism, and I quote “The vigorous encounter of a pluralistic society is not premised on achieving agreement on matters of conscience and faith, but achieving a vigorous context of discussion and relationship.” This statement is not much different from the “context of discussion and relations” underwriting interfaith or interreligious dialogue advocated by the late Prof. Dr. Ismail Ragi Al Faruqi. Al Faruqi already understood the futility of engaging in interfaith or interreligious dialogue on the premise of “theological” questions. Thus to better equipped the policy framework in facilitating this engagement and in the “context of discussion and relations”, Prof. Al Faruqi stated and I quote “[C]onsidering today’s circumstances, ‘ethical’ questions are in priority to ‘theological’ questions”.
This policy technicalization in advocating ‘ethical’ priority in interfaith or interreligious discussion between various religious communities has been extensively written by him. The excerpt below is quoted from http://www.ijbssnet.com/journals/9.pdf.
“Al-Faruqi stressed that dialogue should begin with issues of commonalities. For him the common issue among all religions is ethics. Due to it, he proposed three ethical themes to be subject of dialogue;
i)The modern Muslim and Christian regard themselves as standing in the state of innocence.
ii)The modern Muslim and Christian are acutely aware of the necessity and importance of
recognizing God’s will, of recognizing His command.
iii)The modern Muslim and Christian recognize that the moral vocation or mission of man in this world has yet to be fulfilled thereof is the sole measure of his ethical worth; that in respect to this mission or vocation all men start out in this world with a cate blanche on which nothing is entered except what each individual earns with his own doing or not-doing.
Based on the three themes, Al-Faruqi indirectly, as logical consequence, rejected a few concepts in Jews and Christianity like the concept of ‘elect’ and ‘salvation without works’. For him these two concepts should be rejected because could not be proven by moral and rational laws. “
I personally have difficulty to situate this already redefined terminology religious pluralism. But since the redefined pluralism provided by PP at HU is meant in the context of “active engagement with that diversity”, “it requires some knowledge of our differences”, ‘is not simply relativism”, “The vigorous encounter of a pluralistic society is not premised on achieving agreement on matters of conscience and faith, but achieving a vigorous context of discussion and relationship” and lastly “requires the nurturing of constructive dialogue, revealing both common understandings and real differences”, and all these characteristics of this PPHU redefined religious pluralism is pointed in purely policy advocacy and engagement and within the context of policy framework of peace and conflict resolution, then I have to agree this usage of the term religious pluralism.
To me Malaysia should and must engage in interfaith, interreligious and civilizational dialogue. The very nature of “salad bowl” or the multicultural Malaysian crucible makes it a must for us to engage in replicating the spirit of Andalusian Conviviencia experimentation in Islamic Spain. Of course we can imitate but in the approach of Manhaj Malazy. To me the greatness of Malaysia future is not in the nation state of Malaysia. Greatness/Malaysia Gemilang in the making will be not in the entrapped nation state system of Malaysia.
What is important in Malaysia is the need for the Malaysian government to govern according to Islamic precepts and practices which are fair and just to all, especially in caring for the poor and the oppressed. Practices of corruption and injustice must be weeded out.
Everyone believes that his religion is the ultimate truth. There is no point in arguing who is right or wrong. Instead we must focus on making this world a better place to live in for our fellow man. This is advocated by all religions.
YB,
(1) Terima kasih atas penjelasan YB tentang perbezaan makna antara perkataan “pluralisme” & “plurality” (kemajmukan). Sungguh menarik!
(2) YB memerhatikan: “Yusri Mohammad, an Islamic Law lecturer in the IIUM and the UKM’s Nur Fahana Abd Rahman included, asserted that Islam considers that not all religions are equal”. Sebenarnya, YB, untuk maklumat anda, tidak ada agama yang terima bahawa agama lain setanding dengannya. Jadi janganlah begitu keras pada Islam (dan Muslimin) dalam hal ini. Terang-terangan, sebagai seorang Kristian (khususnya Roman Katholik) saya tidak percaya ada mana2 agama yang setanding dengan agama saya, lebih-lebih lagi Islam dengan bagasi sejarah dan semasa (percayalah, saya tidak biadap dalam perkara ini). Jadi konsep “persamaan agama” sungguh asing kepada semua agama. YB LKS sudah pun bergema perkara ini dengan secukupnya. Hakikatnya malahan dalam mazhab agama Kristian pun tidak terima konsep “persamaan agama”. Jadi biar sahaja perkara ini. Sebenarnya, hanya orang ateis atau kufur yang beranggap semua orang sama rata.
(3) Tentang perkara tidak mahu menghadiri upacara agama lain, sebenarnya itu lebih berkaitan dengan kuasa. Di Malaysia, orang Islam mempunyai kuasa (yang di perolehi dari laras senapang, tetapi itu cerita yang lain) jadi mereka hendak mengunakan kuasa untuk mengatahkan perkara2 bebal macam oh Muslimin tak boleh menghadir upacara agama lain dsbnya. Tetapi dimana orang Muslim tidak ada kuasa, mereka berdiam-bisu dan hadir, Misalnya di UK, Australia & Singapura mereka tutup mulut dan hadir hingga bercium-ciuman. Adakah mereka kurang Islam? Sudah tentu Allah tidak menanggap begitu. Upacara antara agama turut dihadir oleh mereka di luar negeri termasuk ulama2 berwarna UMNO. Tetapi bila pulang kembali ke Tanah Air memang hebat retorik bidas kelakuan orang Islam yang suka berdialog dengan orang bukan Islam. Begitu menakjubkan hipocrasi dan kemunafikan mereka. Mengapa? Kerana mereka ada kuasa! Akan tetapi, ada kelompok Kristian asasi (fundamental) yang tidak sudi masuk tempat sembahyang agama lain termasuk gereja2 Katholik. Jadi Islam asasi ada jodol dan teman sejiwa dengan Kristian asasi.
(4) Secara samping, izin saya menimbulkan suatu perkara yang bukan begitu relevan dalam perbincangan ini. YB berkata: “A Muslim’s faith is firmly based and premised on the conviction that the source of his religion Islam is Allah and Muhammad is the last and final Prophet on the Earth.” Jadi YB tentu bersetuju bahawa seorang yang betul2 Kristian tidak boleh menjadi Muslim kerana penganut agama Kristian mempercayai bahawa Alamak (Jesus Christ) adalah Al-Masih (Messiah). Justeru macam mana Muhammed boleh jadi Nabi? Apakah yang diramalkan (prophesise) oleh Baginda bila Alamak sedia adalah Al-Masih? Sebenarnya, Muhammed sebagai seorang nabi (terakhir atau bukan) lebih menarik dari aspek Judaisme yang juga menolak Alamak ialah Al-Masih!
Salam,
LJ
Actually pluralism is not alien to all religions. It is the default position of particular worldviews like Hinduism. Some Buddhists I know would also consider religions as valid but different pathways to Enlightenment
Btw I dun think LJ is a Katolik cos Katoliks do not call Nabi Isa as “Alamak”
Brader Dave Chang,
You are very quick (well maybe not so quick after all, given the time lapse) to note that “Katoliks (sic) do not call Nabi Isa as “Alamak”!
In my defence may I say that Roman Catholics (properly spelled), actually, do not refer to Jesus Christ (JC) as Nabi (i.e., Prophet) at all. This is because, to Christians, JC is/was never a prophet. He was/is the Messiah. So whosoever refers to JC as “Nabi Isa” has to be Muslim.
In trying to write as best as I can in Bahasa Malaysia (which I love), I looked up the dictionary and it said JC equals “Alamak”, hence my use of the phrase.
Please try to find conspiracy where it does not exist, brader Dave!
Salam
LJ
Bro, then u need a better dictionary. People say “Alamak!” in Msia when they are surprised or shocked
To clarify Christians call Jesus Christ either as Isa Al-Masih or Yesus Kristus. And we also confess Him to be our King, Prophet and High Priest so the prophetic ministry of revealing God’s will is certainly His, though He is more than just a prophet.
I think you have made a disservice to the mentioned Muslim scholars as if they are a bunch of bigots. They are in total agreement with you with regard to the rejection of religious pluralism and the the acceptance of religious plurality. It is a pity you are not there to listen and discourse which is the pillars of your philosophy. You are even cynical about the agencies and the reasons they participated including that of Jais which come from the state that is governed by your coalition party.
All they are doing is to explain the two concepts which many Muslims and non Muslims do not appreciate what more understand. Not many people read about religious philosophy.
Along the discourse they are just cautioning in our day to day life there are actions, code of conduct and behaviour that is questionable that may injure our belief of our religion, create wrong perceptions of our religion and hence create more confusion in the understanding of Islam. In life prevention is better than cure.
Perhaps some overzealous comments and actions by certain Muslim may transcend this fine boundary of religious plurality that all most Malaysians do subscribe. The same also applies to the other side of the divide. Acidic remarks like Talibanising Islam uttered reflect also narrow mindedness of the so call learned liberals. To some the Talibanism is just a political struggle against against foreign colonialism.
But in the overrall process as usual the subject has been politicised, which side it goes depend where ones political divide is. Sometime in that process we may bend our arguments too much to essentially gain political capital. That is what will happen when politicians play or try to score points using religion as a premise.
YB,
Berkenaan komen sdr A Karim, bukan kah JAIS – walaupun suatu pertubuhan dalam negeri Selangor – dipengaruhi oleh kerajaan pusat dan istana Selangor dan pengaruh kerajaan negeri atas pertubuhan it memang terbatas? Jika keadaan ini benar, boleh kah YB menjelaskan mengapa keadaan sebegini?
Salam,
LJ
Brader Hedonese, it is: Yesus Kristus then
Ta,
Bruv
Dr. Zul, do you notice that all these politicians, scholars, rent-a-lynch-mob all shout, scream and froth at the mouth at a moments notice on the subject of “Islam at threat” and “protecting Allah”.
The truth of the matter is neither Allah nor Islam needs protecting if what these people preach ( ie Islam is supreme) is true. So we need to ask them – which is it are you protecting ? Your self serving need or Islam ?
Islam preceded us and Islam will succeed us. People come to Islam because they love Islam and people will leave Islam. We as mere mortals have no say in it. Only Allah does.
This is why I have little respect for our voluminous “jabatan jabatan agama” who are more pencil pushers and bureaucrats than Islamic scholars.
Islam may be a perfect religion but unfortunately the men wanting to use it in politics aren’t perfect. If we seek to blame Allah for our misgivings – then we have no right to include religion in politics. We simply lack the maturity to comprehend where religion ends and good governance begins.