Being consistent on religious issues that matter

The week has only just started, and already it seems like we have a mess of issues related to religion on our hands.

These include the headscarf controversy; Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi’s claims about the floods in Penang; concerns about Muslims attending candlelight vigils for Pastor Raymond Koh; and preacher Zamihan Mat Zin criticising Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak for opening the King Salman Centre for International Peace (KSCIP).

Of these issues, I think the headscarf issue is perhaps the most fruitful to discuss.

I imagine most of us can easily list a host of areas in which non-Muslims feel discriminated against as a minority in Malaysia.

Many of these are completely valid grievances.

The challenge facing us now is whether we can be consistent regarding the principles that inform our fight for equality and justice.

I believe that doing so requires us to take the position that Muslim women in Malaysia should never be required to remove their headscarves for “professional” reasons.

Religious rights vs rigid commercial interests

In examining this issue, let us weigh the probable factors against each other.

On the one hand, we have a hotel that purportedly wishes to retain a consistent corporate image internationally.

On the other, we have an individual who wishes to live according to her religious beliefs, while performing her duties professionally.

Between these two competing interests, it seems to me that the latter should take priority.

I cannot for the life of me imagine that seeing a Malaysian hotel receptionist in Malaysia wearing a headscarf would offend anyone, or tarnish the image of a hotel.

Is there some twisted commercial need to create a headscarf-free zone in Malaysia or something?

I have never once seen a hotel receptionist in a headscarf and thought, how terribly out-of-place, unprofessional, or offensive this is.

Even if there are foreigners small-minded enough to feel that way, I’m willing to bet that they would only make up an insignificant minority.

Conversely, I imagine that taking a hardline stance on this would, in fact, tarnish the image of said hotel, especially in a country like Malaysia. Surely good business sense should prevail, alongside basic human decency.

I am glad that Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng has reportedly stated (albeit through secondary sources) that he feels the headscarf ban to be discriminatory.

DAP legal bureau chairperson Gobind Singh Deo has voiced his support more clearly, and should be lauded for doing so.

Perhaps when more non-Muslims start taking up the cause of Muslims, we will also see more of the same happening vice versa, and the cycle of mutual support will grow bigger and bigger.

A nice place to start might be not considering attendance at candlelight vigils to cause “de-Islamisation”, as allegedly feared by “the powers that be”. 

I have been to quite a few of these vigils, and I would be shocked beyond belief to find that there has been a single attendee who has changed their religion as a result.

These are everyday candles capable only of providing light, not magical devices capable of transforming religious beliefs. To suggest so would be ludicrous.

Leaving God out of floods

Equally ludicrous is Zahid’s claims that the recent Penang floods were a sign from God that the state was ready to be taken over by BN. In his very own words:

“It is not impossible. It can be done. God smote those who thumped their chest claiming that Penang is free from floods.

"What happened is a sign from God that this is the best time for us to retake the Penang government.”

These shocking words truly defy belief. One would be hard-pressed to find a more offensive, imbecilic statement anywhere.

Does Zahid mean to say that God killed seven people to make a political point?

Anyone who says such a thing does more disservice to a religion than a million candlelight vigils possibly could.

It is bad enough to have people interpreting the will of God in occurrences of nature, it is absolutely intolerable that these interpretations are narrowly political in nature.

Gerakan president Mah Siew Keong shames himself with his “interpretation” of Zahid’s words:

“I interpret this as: we have to take care of the environment and nature. So, if we don’t take care of the environment and nature, nature will have a reaction.”

If Mah cannot be honest about something so simple and straightforward, opting instead to twist and turn words in a way that suggests he takes us all for complete idiots, I would not trust him with administering my housing area, much less a state or country.

Don’t add fuel to the fire

This is not the only area in which Zahid may be finding himself in hot soup.

His “champion” Zamihan recently fired a broadside at Najib, calling the latter “not smart” in allowing the building of the KSCIP in Putrajaya.

Zamihan argued that there was no reason to let the Saudis help in the fight against the Islamic State (IS), because the Saudis created IS in the first place.

This is not the place to go into the intricacies of Arab politics, but surely Zamihan’s swipe against Najib will not go unnoticed.

Whatever the case, it is always a tragedy when religion gets mixed up in politics.

Let’s do our best to not add fuel to this fire, while maintaining a consistent position on religious issues that do matter.

While non-Muslims continue to stand up for their religious rights, as well they should, hopefully they will also consider speaking up for others as well.

The current headscarf controversy presents precisely such an opportunity, and the more of us who pick up the gauntlet in solidarity with our Muslim sisters, the further we shall go on the road to a truly united Malaysia.

---

NATHANIEL TAN appreciates all who showed up for his candlelight vigils, so very long ago.- Mkini