“Can’t we just leave the Hindu temple alone as there’re already ample mosques around Jalan Masjid India?”

 

AS UMNO Youth chief Datuk Dr Muhamad Akmal Saleh insisted that even if a mosque which sits in someone else’s land needs to be moved if such is the desire of the landowner, a Muslim foreign correspondent wonders “if there’s really a serious need for another mosque” in the Jalan Masjid India vicinity.

In his personal opinion with regard to the controversy surrounding the 130-year-old Dewi Sri Pathrakaliamman Hindu temple which faces ‘eviction’, a baffled Hadi Azmi (@amerhadiazm) pointed out that there are already three other mosques in the surrounding (probably within a 3km radius).

“I don’t get it. The location is minutes from Masjid India and Masjid Balai Polis Dang Wangi. Not too far away is Masjid Jamek,” the Malaysian correspondent for South China Morning Post tweeted with reference to the needs to re-locate the temple to pave way for the construction of Masjid Madani.

“Is there really a serious need for another mosque here to the extent that a 130-year-old Hindu temple had to make way?

While he accepted that the temple does not own the land it sits on – the late Jakel Trading Sdn Bhd founder Mohamed Jakel Ahmad bought the land and entrusted it to a waqf for the construction of a mosque (in 2014) – Hadi regarded the purchase of the land and earmarking it for a mosque as “tone-deaf”.

“Sure, the temple doesn’t own the land it sits on. Many things that existed before Malaysia came to be carry those discrepancies,” argued Hadi.

“But for the proposed mosque to be named Masjid Madani and Prime Minister @anwaribrahim is expected to officiate the groundbreaking ceremony later this month … Whew!”

Addressing a netizen’s view that “it doesn’t matter if the mosque is big or small or if there is another mosque two doors away so long as the wishes of the landowner who endowed it for mosque construction is realised”, the liberal-minded journalist has this to say:

“Is it about building a mosque that adequately serves the community or is it only to satisfy the wishes of the late owner of the land who wants a mosque there? The land is tiny, hence the mosque will be tiny.

“Also, if three billionaires each bought prime property in the city centre next to each other, and each waqf it for a mosque, are we irrevocably tied to their wishes and end up with three mosques side-by-side?

“Best case can merge, but if explicitly said no, how?

While Hadi’s opinion which has garnered 1.9M views at the time of writing does offer food for thought, he is surely alone given many of his Muslim brethren continued to harp on the legality aspect of the land that the temple sits on or “playing victim” to the extent of disputing the temple’s age of 130-years-old.

The best representation may be that of Malay Muslim defender Akmal who has been silent on the non-fasting slap incident involving anon-Muslim Sarawakian Chinese undergraduate in Johor Bahru but suddenly surfaced to take a pot shot at former Malaysian Bar president Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan and fellow lawyers on the temple case.

Even if there is a mosque built on someone else’s land, it needs to be moved because that land does not belong to the mosque.

The landlord has been decent to pursue 10 years of discussion to find a solution, not buying (the land) today and ask you to move out tomorrow.

In addition, DBKL (Kuala Lumpur City Hall) has proposed an alternative site which you refuse to accept.

Instead, you’ve the chic to ask the landlord to find another land (purportedly to build the mosque).

Eh, what kind of lawyer are you to be using this kind of legal logic?

I want to ask these lawyers to move out of their existing house because I want to occupy their house. Is that okay?” 

Post-script: This is an interesting ‘warning’ of the curse which may befall those who unknowingly upset the deity Pathirakali as shared by a Malaysiakini subscriber:

- Focus Malaysia