Are pluralism concepts applied differently by Malay Muslims?

Question

Accepted Answer

Pluralism is applied selectively by some Malay Muslims, with freedom-of-speech and freedom-of-religion arguments often limited to views that align with their own group.

The controversy around Zakir Naik’s scheduled talk at UTeM on April 17, titled “Similarities between Hinduism and Islam,” is used to illustrate how pluralism is treated unevenly within segments of the Malay Muslim community. The talk was cancelled after uneasiness in the Hindu community, and the uproar among some Malay Muslims framed the cancellation as an infringement of freedom of speech, while other cases involving different faiths or dissenting Muslims were raised less prominently. The columnist argues this shows double standards, where principles are invoked when they benefit one’s own position but not when others’ rights are affected.
Freedom-of-speech claims rise when it involves their side
The episode describes how some Malay Muslims reacted immediately after the cancellation, claiming it was “freedom of speech” being curtailed and speculating that Hindus feared mass conversion. At the same time, the piece notes that the public narrative overstated what happened, saying it was one cancelled event among many that proceed as normal. This framing is presented as an example of how speech-related rights are highlighted more strongly when the issue involves an Islamic scholar and a topic viewed as aligned with their interests.
Religious freedom is treated as compatible with Islam but not always with others
The discussion contrasts calls for “freedom of religion” with limits on the propagation or profession of other faiths, while also describing support for propagation of Islam and defence of converts from Islam who face family or social pressure. The columnist then contrasts this with earlier disputes involving religious minorities, including protests against the construction of a Hindu temple, Molotov cocktails thrown at a church, and a church forced to take down a cross. In this portrayal, pluralism is not applied as a mutual principle across communities; it is treated as conditional.
Historical cases are cited to argue double standards on religious dissent
The piece points to the denial of entry to Dr Ulil Abshar Abdalla in 2014 for allegedly being “deviant,” contrasting it with the public reaction to Zakir Naik’s cancellation. It also references other cases involving religious identity and treatment, including Lina Joy seeking a legal change of religion, the Raif Badawi case, and Juli Jalaluddin being deported from Malaysia. The columnist’s central claim is that outrage is uneven when the affected person is not aligned with the dominant views of the Malay Muslim public.
Disagreements on takfir are framed as conditional on who is being targeted
The controversy around Zakir Naik’s statement against excommunication of other Muslims is used to show that some Malay Muslims support limits on takfir when it protects their preferred figures. However, the article argues that the same group can label those with unorthodox opinions as “kafir,” and it cites examples such as progressive Muslims being told to leave Islam and organisations like Sisters In Islam being labelled “deviant” and accused of infidelity. This is presented as another way pluralism is applied differently, depending on whether the dissenting position challenges the prevailing in-group boundaries.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Are pluralism concepts applied differently by Malay Muslims?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends