1. Union of Catholic Asian News (http://www.ucanews.com)
(1) ‘Allah’ crisis holds hope for new dialogue, 14 January 2010
BANGKOK (UCAN) — The storm which erupted after a High Court ruled that the national Catholic weekly “Herald” was allowed to use the word “Allah” saw eight churches and one Christian institution in the country attacked.
A Sikh temple and a mosque were also targeted. Such attacks are unprecedented in Malaysian history and it has left the country in crisis.
There are nevertheless signs of hope with a tremendous outpouring of sympathy by Muslims and others after the incidents.
But let’s first look at the “Herald” itself and its influence in the country.
The first thing to note is that it is extremely difficult for a Muslim to get hold of a copy of the “Herald” due to the government’s strict publishing laws. The paper is only sold at Catholic churches and has a circulation of just 13,000-14,000 among the country’s 900,000 Catholics.
The country’s laws against proselytizing Muslims strongly discourage any Catholic from giving a copy of the “Herald” to his or her Muslim friend or neighbor.
Second, English is the main language used in the publication. There are small sections in Malay, Chinese and Tamil. The “Herald” wants to be able to resume using the word “Allah” only in its Malay section.
Use of ‘Allah’
This leads to another pertinent question: Who are the Christians who use the word “Allah?”
Christians who worship in English, Chinese or Tamil would never use “Allah” for God — only Malay-speaking Christians use this term. They are mainly the indigenous peoples of the eastern states of Sabah and Sarawak on Borneo island, although many work or study in western or peninsular Malaysia, and many Catholic churches there conduct Malay-language Masses to serve them.
The heated debate following the court ruling has generally missed these points.
Even some Christians have called for their fellow Christians to drop using the word “Allah” for the sake of national peace and harmony, not being aware that East Malaysian Christians have been using this word for more than 100 years.
Politically orchestrated?
The Jan. 6 stay order on the execution of the Dec. 31 High Court decision.
Some Muslims have always had a strong suspicion that Christians are out to convert them and that this whole “Allah” issue is just one attempt to confuse them. They are unaware that East Malaysian Christians are at home with the word.
Many Malaysians, however, see the whole issue as being politically orchestrated and a way of using Muslims’ sensitivities to gain votes.
This alleged politicization, ironically, has led to new efforts by both sides to reach out to one another.
More than 100 civil society groups representing a spectrum of Malaysian society have come forward to condemn the church attacks. Church leaders have called on all Christians not to react but to respond with love, forgiveness and prayer, while Muslims have volunteered to help patrol churches.
Individual Muslims have also shown solidarity with Christians through Facebook.
Possible outcome
But the most positive outcome may be the creation of a new culture of interreligious dialogue in the country, something that has generally been considered “too sensitive.”
Many Muslim groups including the opposition Islamic party have expressed readiness to meet and talk with Christian leaders, and also called for interfaith councils to discuss and resolve interreligious issues.
A public interreligious forum in Kuala Lumpur on Jan. 11 entitled “Allah: Whose is it?” attracted 1,000 people of various religions. Most of the speakers were Muslim scholars. Media reported the discussion was calm despite divergent viewpoints.
A Muslim scholar who spoke at the forum told me that dialogue must continue even though we often have to “agree to disagree.”
Such dialogue cannot come at a better time, when such a huge failure in communication is apparent.
Finally, another outcome is that the indigenous Christians of East Malaysia are beginning to assert their right to worship in the way they have always done. Media reported them stating that though both they and their Muslim neighbors use “Allah,” there has never been a problem.
The East Malaysian Christians who are bumiputra (sons of the soil), like Malay-Muslims, may be the determining factor in how this issue turns out in the end.
Francis Chan has been involved in UCA News since 1999. He now serves as chief of its Malaysia-Thailand-Cambodia-Laos Desk.
(MS08533.1584 January 14, 2010 75 EM-lines (700 words))
(2) Malaysia tries to bridge the religious divide, 7 April 2010
Malaysia has set up an interfaith committee to help resolve religious disputes
KUALA LUMPUR (UCAN) — The Malaysian Cabinet on April 6 agreed to form an interfaith committee to promote greater understanding between Muslims and non-Muslims, a move hailed by many.
“The formation of this committee is a good start,” said Reverend Thomas Philips, president of the Malaysian Consultative Council for Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST). “Here we can address issues and overcome our differences. Through this process we can move forward.”
He told UCA News his council had for some time been in discussion with the government over the formation of such a committee but had met with fierce opposition.
“The reality is that we need to sit and talk. There are lots of issues of common interests and differences. We have to recognize this and see how we can breach the differences and move forward.”
Relations between Muslims and non-Muslims have taken a dive since late December, when a High Court ruled that the national Catholic daily Herald could use the word “Allah” for God in its Malay-language section. The decision resulted in demonstrations and attacks on places of worship that made international headlines.
The government has since obtained a stay on the execution of the court decision pending an appeal.
In the aftermath of the attacks, dialogue among leaders of the various religions took place, mostly behind closed doors, in an attempt to calm fears. However calls for the formation of an interfaith commission was shot down by Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin early this year, who said it was unnecessary.
Resistance to interfaith initiatives
This was not the first time the government had rejected such an initiative.
In 2005, at the end of a two-day seminar attended by representatives from religious groups, political parties and NGOs, an interfaith commission was initiated. Resistance from Muslim groups pressured then prime minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to defer its formation.
On the recent decision to form the interfaith committee, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Koh Tsu Koon told reporters it is not a legal or rigid structure. “It’s a framework to provide exchanges of ideas on religion and to hold informal dialogues on matters such as inter-marriages, religious conversions as well as custody of children.”
According to Koh, who is in charge of the National Unity and Integration Department, the interfaith committee will comprise representatives from the Islamic Development Department (Jakim), Institute of Islamic Understanding (IKIM) and the MCCBCHST, and will be headed by Illani Isahak, a Muslim woman.
“We decided this would be the best set-up rather than getting politicians from both sides to be involved. We don’t want the discussions to become politicized,” Koh said.
Reverend Philips said it is significant that Jakim is willing to be a part of the committee. The pastor is optimistic that much good will come out of this committee as it has been given recognition by the Cabinet including the prime minister.
The Malaysian Bar Council also welcomed the setting up of the committee. Its president Ragunath Kesavan said in a press statement, “The long-awaited formation of this mechanism is a positive first step to strengthen national unity, and we are optimistic that it will facilitate the process of resolving disputes.”
However this sentiment is not shared by others who feel that unless parliament passes a bill, the committee will remain an ineffective one.
Philip Alacantra, a freelance journalist, observed that the committee can make recommendations to the Cabinet but noted it will be the prerogative of the Cabinet whether to accept the recommendations or not.
“This is a toothless tiger. Is this merely a publicity stunt to win votes?” he asked.
(MS09359/1596 April 7, 2010 64 EM-lines (601 words))
2. The Malaysian Insider (http://www.themalaysianinsider.com)
(1) Malaysia’s decades-old Christian ‘Allah’ issue, 10 March 2010
by Debra Chong
KUALA LUMPUR, March 10 — The issue of Christians not being allowed to use “Allah” goes back to the 1980s when the authorities ring-fenced a list of Arabic terms first on national security grounds then later in order to prevent confusion among Muslims.
The National Evangelical Christian Fellowship (NECF), an umbrella body for Christian groups in Malaysia, said the use of the word “Allah” became a “problem” because of the distortion of certain facts by a government department in the mid-1980s.
“First, they say it is national security. Then they say it will confuse Muslims. But why are they listening only to Jakim?” quizzed NECF’s Bahasa Malaysia section executive secretary Alfred Tais, referring to the Department of Islamic Development Malaysia.
The department proposed a ban of certain Arabic words being used by non-Muslims which was then endorsed by the Cabinet in 1986. However no action was taken to completely enforce the ruling until 2007, prompting the Catholic weekly Herald to dispute it.The Sidang Injil Borneo (SIB), an evangelical church founded in 1928, also wanted a review of the decision three years ago after a shipment of imported Christian religious books meant for Sunday school children were seized by the Royal Customs and Excise Department at the KLIA low-cost carrier terminal (LCCT).
The ministry’s basis for doing so was because the books contain the word “Allah” and may confuse Muslims although the books are meant for Christians only.
But the Home ministry, which also oversees the Customs department, quietly returned the books to SIB two years ago, just before the historic 12th General Elections which saw Barisan Nasional lose its traditional two-thirds grip on Parliament.
The ministry then followed up with a letter signed by Yaacob Samat from its Publication Control and Al-Quran Text division, in reply to the SIB’s earlier appeal and listed 16 reasons for the ban, which are:
1. “That Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution states that Islam is the official religion of the Federation.
2. “That Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution permits laws to be made to control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam.
3. “That several states have made laws or control or restrict propagation among persons professing the religion of Islam and have prohibited the use of certain words or phrases of the religion of Islam in publications of other religions.
4. “That due to the differences in the words and phrases prohibited, confusion has arisen as to what words and phrases are prohibited in particular in Christian publications in the Indonesian language.
5. “That in the late 1970s and early 1980s there was uneasiness among the community and problems of enforcement among religious officers in the various states due to differences as to the words and phrases prohibited.
6. “That following the above, the issue had become sensitive and had been classified as a security issue.
7. “That the Government had decided that the Ministry of Internal Security [now called the home ministry] which controls published materials under Section 7(1) of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 is to deal with the issue.
8. “That vide PU (A) 15/82, the Government had gazetted the prohibition of the Alkitab in Malaysia under Section 22 of the Internal Security Act 1960.
9. “That special exemption was made to the said prohibition vide PU (A) 134 permitting the Alkitab to be possessed by Christians in churches.
10. “That there was continuing confusion and uneasiness in the community when enforcement on the use of the words and phrases in religious publications was not effective.
11. “That on 19.5.1986, the Government had decided that the words ‘Allah’, ‘Kaabah’, ‘Baitullah’ and ‘Solat’ are words and phrases exclusive to the religion of Islam and cannot be used in published materials of other religions save to explain concepts pertaining to the religion of Islam.
12. “That the Government had permitted the use of the Alkitab by Christians in churches only and not in any other places.
13. “That the aforesaid permission did not extend to other Christian publications other than the translation of the Bible in Bahasa Malaysia, i.e. the Alkitab.
14. “That the Government practices religious freedom as enshrined in the Federal Constitution but bears the responsibility of avoiding any confusion in the community of various religions which if allowed to occur will threaten security and public order.
15. “That religious sensitivity must be respected and preserved by all.
16. “That the Applicants [SIB] as a religious institution with a large number of followers also bears the responsibility for promoting religious harmony in the community.”
The ministry told the church to just comply, leaving no room for disagreement.
Two judges, Datuk Abdul Kadir Musa and Datuk Aziah Ali, who have been entrusted to sort out the dispute have been eagerly pushing for the two parties to settle without the court’s interference, especially after another High Court ruled on the Catholic Herald’s case on the use of the same word three months ago.
The Home ministry plans to appeal against this even as it is holding closed-door talks with the Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur.
(2) Cabinet inter-faith committee gets thumbs up, 7 April 2010
by Debra Chong
KUALA LUMPUR, April 7 — The new Cabinet-endorsed inter-faith committee set up yesterday appears to have bolstered confidence in the government’s ability to resolve long-standing religious conflicts.
Leaders from Malaysia’s major religions today applauded the Cabinet’s latest move to provide a formal mechanism for them to meet directly with the prime minister and come up with practical measures to deal head-on with the problems affecting their communities and restore harmony.
Sources said the committee on promoting inter-religious understanding and harmony — as it is officially named — is aimed at providing the Cabinet with practical solutions to restore religious harmony.
The main committee was officially set up yesterday and is chaired by former Kota Baru MP, Datuk Ilani Isahak, who had also sat on the National Unity Advisory Panel previously.
“It’s a new process for the government. I’m happy to engage,” said Tan Kong Beng, the executive secretary of the Christian Federation of Malaysia (CFM), an umbrella body representing the Roman Catholic church, the Protestant churches and the evangelical groups.
Tan sees it as an “opportunity to build bridges” and expressed hope that the new committee will be able to resolve the increasingly worrisome problems pitting Muslims against non-Muslims.
Jamaah Islah Malaysia (JIM) president Zaid Kamaruddin agreed with Tan.
He told The Malaysian Insider that it was a golden opportunity for all religions to be formally represented in inter-faith talks.
He added that several Muslim non-governmental organizations (NGOs), including his, had been holding inter-religious dialogues with Christian, Hindu and other non-Muslim groups over the past one year to answer questions on Islam and had received positive feedback. But Zaid noted that it was vital all groups could give their input through a formal platform on how best to resolve the conflicts.
“Our contacts are from the grassroots and we can give a better picture of what’s going on from the perspective of civil society,” he said.
Malaysian Hindu Sangam (MHS) deputy-president Dr M. Bala Tharmalingam said he was initially skeptical about the committee but changed his mind yesterday when told Cabinet had green-lighted five sub-committees to draw up proposals on how best to deal with the inter-religious conflicts.
The sub-committees will be jointly-chaired by a Muslim and a non-Muslim and include five religious representatives from both communities and will each focus on the following areas:
. religious conversion from non-Muslim to Muslim and vice-versa;
. places of worship and burial grounds;
. propagation of religion and the use of religious terminology;
. on-the-ground conflict resolution;
. working a formal annual meeting between the prime minister and religious leaders.
Dr Bala explained that the main inter-faith committee will be represented by five Muslim groups, including the government’s Islamic Development Department (Jakim) while the non-Muslim body will be represented by the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST).
He said the set-up was still in its infancy but noted that some of the sub-committees were already buckling down to work to draw up protocols to move the agenda forward.
For the first time ever, there will be a formal meeting between the prime minister and religious leaders, he pointed out excitedly.
“We’re looking forward to a committee that is really functioning,” he told The Malaysian Insider over the phone today.
New inter-faith committee chief Datuk Ilani Isahak said she is aware of the challenges ahead in dealing with the sensitive subject but is optimistic that long-standing disputes can be resolved through mutual respect among the different religions.
“Any discussion must be anchored on mutual respect and I am thankful that all the committee members have exhibited a strong sense of goodwill and understanding as a good start,” Ilani said in a media statement today.
She added that the issues have been identified and that the sub-committees will be able to come up with solid suggestions on resolving them but hesitated to set a timetable for now.
“We are not only looking at managing the problems and polarities but cultivating friendships and bonds that will be durable and able to withstand the challenges faced by diverse societies such as ours,” she said.
The Bar Council also gave Cabinet a thumbs-up for finally setting up an inter-faith body to address religious disputes.
Its president Ragunath Kesavan said the association of lawyers believed that when it comes to religion, sometimes the best solution lies outside of court.
“A court interprets the law, and applies the law to the facts of a particular case, but certain issues require more, and would be more effectively resolved outside of the courts, through healthy dialogue and constructive debate,” he said in a statement.
Ragunath pressed the government to be open about the Cabinet committee’s make-up, scope and how it planned to restore harmony among the different religions.
The High Court has given the state and SIB until April 30 to try and settle the dispute amicably, failing which it will set a hearing date.
3. ABC Radio Australia(http://www.radioaustralia.net.au)
Little faith in new Malaysian inter-religious initiative, 7 April 2010
Christian groups in Malaysia lack faith that a new government-backed panel to mediate religious disputes will be effective. A Senior Minister has announced an inter-faith panel to advise the government on religious disputes amid concerns that race relations in the diverse nation are deteriorating.
Presenter: Stephanie March.
Speakers: Reverend Herman Shastri, executive member of the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism; Father Andrew Lawrence, editor of the Catholic Herald.
MARCH: Religious disputes have always existed in Malaysia but are becoming increasingly frequent and violent. In recent months Christian churches have been firebombed, and severed pig heads have been left on the doorsteps of mosques. The incidents have prompted a warning from influential former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad that increasing racial friction could destabilise the country. The government is now promoting the an inter-faith committee. It is supposed to be a place for religious groups to exchange views and provide feedback to the government and cabinet. But a number of Christian organisations feel it doesn't go far enough. Reverend Herman Shastri is an executive member of the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism.
HERMAN: This is nothing new. There have been previous attempts by government and civil society to forge such (sic) platform when where different religious communities can interact, discuss, build trust and most importantly solve problems.
MARCH: Reverend Herman says past panels have failed to make any real advancements towards religious harmony.
HERMAN: From the government side there have been many attempts but much bogged down by bureaucratic pressures and political interests.
MARCH: One of the most recent, and public religious disputes in Malaysia has been over the use of the word "Allah" to describe God in non-muslim texts. In the Malaysian high court the Catholic Church recently won the right to continue using the word to describe a Christian God in its weekly publication. The decision enraged some Islamic groups which lead to arson attacks on a number of churches late last year. In January police found four severed pigs heads at two mosques. Prime Minister Najib Razak has signalled the Home Ministry will appeal the courts decision. The editor of the Catholic publication at the centre of the dispute is Father Andrew Lawrence.
LAWRENCE: This panel doesn't mean much at the moment. As I say they have no legal standing, no legal structure, they are just a group of religious groups and (inaudible) come together to talk about disputes, and so I do not see any impact that this will bring for the moment at least unless something more substantial is put in.
MARCH: Non-Islamic faiths will be represented on the panel by the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism. Muslims will be represented on the panel by two government Islamic bodies, IKIM - the Institute of Islamic Understanding and JAKIM, the Department of Islamic Development. Father Lawrence says he doesn't believe this will be truly representative of Malaysia's muslim community.
LAWRENCE: JAKIM is rather conservative and IKIM tends to be reflective a bit more but never the less they are in many ways dogmatic. So what kind of dialogue can you have? I'm not sure.
MARCH: A spokeswoman for JAKIM declined to comment and representatives from IKIM were unavailable. The idea of an inter-failth council has already reportedly been rejected by various Muslim groups, who feel Islam should be on a higher footing than other religions. While the committee's creation was born from the escalation of violence over the use of the word Allah. Its discussion topics will extend all the way from the court room to the home. The government hopes members will also hold informal dialogues on issues like inter-marriage, religious conversion and custody of children.
4. The Malaysian Insider（http://www.themalaysianinsider.com)
Interfaith dialogue or monologue-Dr. Lim Teck Ghee, 8 April 2010
APRIL 8 — Recently, the Deputy Prime Minister declared that he was a Malay first but that he was also a Malaysian. That is very reassuring.
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 scrutinised 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 minimise 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. — Centre for Policy Initiatives
・This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The Malaysian Insider does not endorse the view unless specified.
(End)
