The above ‘letter to the editor’ was e-mailed to me by a dear friend. I did not receive it directly from Dr Syed Alwi. However, knowing the way he writes and knowing his views on the subject, this is clearly Dr Syed Alwi’s ‘trademark’.
I remember, about ten years or so ago, back in 1999 soon after Parti Keadilan Nasional (PKN) was launched, I suggested that the party invite the media representatives to tea at its headquarters for a meet-the-leaders session. Since I suggested the idea I was asked to compile a list of those to invite. The secretariat would make the other arrangements like food and so on.
That was the first time I met another dear friend face-to-face, the late Mr. MGG Pillai. Although I ‘knew’ him from reading his postings in Sang Kancil, his chat group, I had yet been able to sit down to talk to him ‘in the flesh’.
Mr. Pillai made a very valid observation. All the food we had prepared is ‘non-halal’, he said. Well, non-halal from the Hindu or vegetarian point of view. Everything had beef in it, even the vegetables. Since PKN is supposed to be a multi-racial party, why did it not cater for the non-meat eaters as well? Maybe some vegetarian food, or better still, a vegetarian table, so that Hindus or vegetarians could enjoy their food. None of the food being served is suitable for Hindus or vegetarians.
It suddenly dawned on me that Mr. Pillai was right. We invited people of various ethnicities and religious persuasions to our function. Yet we are not sensitive to their dietary requirements. When DAP organises a lunch or dinner, they always make sure that at least a couple of tables would be laid out with halal food. Not only the food was halal, but the caterers were also Muslims to offer that additional comfort to their Muslim guests that the food is absolutely kosher in all ways.
I apologised to Mr. Pillai and agreed that he is absolutely right. I then offered to make arrangements for one of the staff to quickly run down the road to look for a Hindu restaurant and buy some food. We could probably get a ‘halal’ section set up within 30 minutes or so.
Mr. Pillai said that that was not necessary. He was not complaining that he is not able to eat the ‘non-halal’ food that we had laid out for our guests from the media community. He was just bringing to my attention the principle of the whole thing -- in that as a multi-racial party we should be sensitive to and conscious of the needs of all communities.
Mr. Pillai then attacked the buffet table and filled his plate with chicken. So clearly he had no problems with the ‘non-halal’ food and clearly he was not upset about the matter, as I had first imagined, but was speaking merely on point of principle.
The following day, I brought this matter to the attention of the secretariat staff -- invariably who were all Malays and therefore Muslims. I suggested that next time we follow the example of DAP and make sure that we cater at least one table for Hindus and vegetarians -- like DAP normally does for its Muslim guests. Maybe the next time when we send invitations out we should ask the guests to indicate if they need a special diet arrangement so that we know the numbers we need to cater for.
The reply I received was that the food is halal as far as Muslims are concerned and that is all that matters.
Maybe so, I responded, but what is halal for Muslims may not be halal for Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, vegetarians and whatnot. So we need to consider their needs and sensitivities as well.
This is a Muslim country, came back the reply, so they will have to learn how to live with it.
I was stunned and did not know how to respond further. I realised it was futile to prolong this conversation with people who could not look beyond their very narrow selfish minds.
Malays whack the non-Malays for not being ‘sensitive’ to the feelings of Muslims. But does not being sensitive work both ways? Non-Malays are expected to be sensitive to the feeling of the Muslims. But Malays need not be sensitive to the feelings of non-Malays because this is a Muslim country. That is the ‘logic’ put forward.
And what is more frightening is that this is not the view of the minority. Many Malays think like this. But how do we impress upon the Malays that others will be sensitive to your feelings only when you are sensitive to theirs?
And this is why we have people like the Member of Parliament for Kulim, Zul Nordin, acting the way he does. This is because he only thinks of himself and the needs of the Muslims. He does not care a damn about the non-Muslims. To people like Zul Nordin, only Muslims count. Non-Muslims do not matter. Muslims can say what they like about the other religions -- even whack them to kingdom come. But if the people of the other faiths ‘slander’ or ‘insult’ Islam (and ‘slandering’ and ‘insulting’ would be according to how the Muslims perceive it in their minds; even if it is not true), then expect retaliation.
Malays would say, as Muslims, and since Islam is a religion of peace, they would tolerate other religions to co-exist, but only as long as the non-Muslims do not ‘trespass’ into Islam.
This may sound very accommodating to the Muslim mind. This demonstrates tolerance. But why, in the first place, do Muslims even imagine that they have to ‘tolerate’ other religions? Do Muslims not realise that by uttering a statement saying that you tolerate other religions that is already an insult?
Why tolerate? Would not tolerating something means you consider that particular issue as something bothersome? If your neighbour owns a dog and that dog strays into your garden to shit, but since it is your neighbour and you do not wish to make an issue out of it, you tolerate it.
So you tolerate the shit your neighbour’s dog left in your garden for the sake of maintaining a cordial relationship with that neighbour. But to also tolerate your neighbour’s non-Islamic religion means you equate his religion to dog shit.
But Malays will continuously say that Islam tolerates other religions without realising that the very use of the word ‘tolerate’ demonstrates what is in your very narrow and selfish mind.
Zul Nordin has made a police report against the PAS Member of Parliament for Shah Alam, Khalid Samad. But Khalid is not alone is his views. Khalid’s views are shared by many other top PAS leaders, Tok Guru Nik Aziz included. Will Zul now also make a police report against Tok Guru?
Tok Guru has invited about 200 religious leaders of all faiths for a meal and to sit down for what can be considered an inter-faith get-together. I know Zul is against inter-faith dialogues. He led the demonstration outside the Malaysian Bar Council office to oppose inter-faith dialogues. In fact, he gatecrashed the gathering and uttered very threatening and seditious remarks.
Well, Tok Guru has taken steps to improve inter-faith understanding, something Zul is opposed to. Should not Zul now make another police report and organise a demonstration in front of Tok Guru’s venue and gatecrash the event and shout and scream threats at Tok Guru?
Tok Guru is the man Umno labels an extremist, outdated, ‘Taliban’, and whatnot. But Tok Guru has demonstrated more maturity than Zul could ever do in 100 years.
Malays need to reflect on all this. In fact, they need to do a huge load of reflecting. Most times Malays make statements without even thinking. But these statements they make are ‘sincere’, in that this is really the way they think and they are just being ‘honest’ about what is in their mind.
What would the Malays do if we ban the use of the word ‘tolerate’? What if you are no longer permitted to say that ‘Islam tolerates other religions’? How would you now rephrase that statement minus the word ‘tolerate’?
Yes, and with that I will leave you and allow you to ponder on this ‘problem’.
Translated into Chinese at:
http://ccliew.blogspot.com/2010/01/blog-post_25.html
http://malaysia-today.net/index.php...-malay&catid=20:no-holds-barred&Itemid=100087
