A visit to places of worship may not be a simple act in Malaysia

IT’S about time Terengganu mufti Mohamad Sabri Haron cleared the air following the anxiety that has prevailed among non-Muslims over his reported statement a few days earlier that gave the impression that Muslims could visit houses of worship of other religions with the primary purpose of proselytisation.

Indeed, to go to a house of worship to foster mutual understanding and respect among adherents of various faiths in our society is one thing, but to visit it with the motive of proselytisation is quite another.

In response to the mufti’s earlier statement, the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST) rightly expressed fear that a transgression of the sanctity of respective places of worship could occur if the visit was to propagate Islam.

The MCCBCHST had also cautioned that any unauthorised entry into a non-Muslim house of worship to propagate Islam to other religious followers may be an offence under the following sections 298, 298(a) and 505(c) of the Penal Code, which revolve around the issues of hurting the religious feelings of any person or group, and inciting hatred or enmity on the grounds of religion.

MCA vice-president Wee Jeck Seng has waded into the controversy, saying Malaysians should respect each other’s religious traditions and not impose one’s views on others.

If indeed there was such an intended visit, it would have been like having sales executives of, say, McDonald’s visiting a commercial premise of competitor Burger King only to brazenly promote their merchandise. That would certainly create ill-will and trepidation within the business community.

Contrary to what was reported earlier, Sabri Haron now said that it’s important for Muslims to adhere to certain “guidelines” that would help preserve harmony among Muslims as well as non-Muslims.

He added that it was vital to know the intention of Muslims visiting places of worship of other religions so that they would not be accused or suspected of wanting to vandalise or trespass those entities, or worse, to convert out of Islam from these places.

As intimated above, the mufti’s supposed clarification emerged after receiving flak from a group of concerned non-Muslims.

The clarification was partly made in the wake of a recent visit by Muslim participants to a Hindu temple that was promptly criticised by fellow Muslims.

The aim of that visit, which was jointly organised by the Perak Islamic Religious Department and NGO Global Unity Network, was to improve the understanding of Islam as a way of combating Islamophobia in our diverse society. This is commendable.

However, the programme was brought to a halt when one of the participants observed that there were many similarities between Islam and Hinduism. The religious department had to issue a public apology as a result.

We wouldn’t know what would be the religious authority’s argument against such an observation by the one person.

To be sure, there had already been disquiet among non-Muslims prior to the mufti’s initial expression.

There was apprehension among non-Muslims when Kuala Terengganu Municipal Council decided to prohibit Guang Di Temple there from engaging female singers in any of its performances.

This was obviously seen as the local council, which appeared to have assumed the mantle of an Islamic religious authority, interfering with their religious freedom, thus possibly reinforcing their trepidation.

The situation does not augur well for national integration, and it is a sad testimony for a nation that is about to celebrate its 67th Merdeka anniversary.

One wonders whether the National Unity Ministry will address such a socially polarising issue.

Politicians, preachers, and public officials ought to be circumspect in their utterances and actions, especially if these are underpinned by bigotry, religious extremism, and identity politics. They could very well be the seeds of social strife. – August 17, 2024.