JANUARY 13 — I would like to respond to the letter dated January 12 published in The Star entitled “Ethnic divide, not extremism is the problem” signed by 33 high profile Malay Malaysians from all walks of life.

To summarise, the learned signatories from many walks of life argued that an ethnic divide and not extremism is the major problem facing Malaysia today as reported earlier by the media on a group dubbed “25 eminent Malays”.

I pray both sides are willing to read this humble submission from an untitled Malay Muslim without a high-ranking job, who has spent his 31 years living mainly in Shah Alam, and having graduated with a lowly degree from UiTM in the same town.

I do not deny that there is a growing ethnic divide. I take Shah Alam as a prime example. The citizenry of Shah Alam has always been Malay-majority, yet during my time at primary and secondary school, we still had a large group of non-Malay friends in the classroom. Such is not the case these days.

However, this was not the issue highlighted by the open letter of the 25 retired civil servants to the Prime Minister. Instead, it is the internal struggle within the Malay community that was in the focus of the letter, particularly on those using religion as a mere tool to garner support.

By my definition, the fight against extremism is the struggle against those who insist on using the Malay community and Islam as rallying calls to engage in behaviour that is either violent, instilling unnecessary fear, or just plain ridiculous.

In other words, anything beyond moderate is, to use an Arabic term, zalim or extreme.

While the learned group of 33 has pointed out that we do have numerous houses of worship for all religions, is it not the Muslim community itself that is challenging the rights of other to build new ones?

I take you back to Shah Alam where such challenges have happened. A Hindu temple was proposed to be moved to a different location, and some saw it as a reason to rally Muslims to protest by bearing cow heads, not more than 500 feet from my house.

They stomped and spat on the animal heads, a symbolic insult to Hindus since they consider the cow as a sacred animal. Is this not the work of extremists?

During the town hall discussion on this issue, led by then Mentri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim, some had even threatened to hurl chairs while uttering expletives. Is this not extreme?

While Eric Paulsen had wrongly quipped that the Islamic Development Department or Jakim had promoted extremism “every Friday”, he had received death threats for it by Malay Muslims.

I personally disagree with him, but I do not call for violence, because that will be an extreme response. Can those “moderates” you speak of in your letter say the same?

I see those acts as an abuse of Islam by those who promote violence. I define it as extremism because Malaysians as a whole have been guaranteed the freedom to worship, not just in our Federal Constitution, but in Islam itself.

Historically, I would use the Emirate of Granada as an example. All were free to worship as they were. Similarly during Islamic Jerusalem, freedom to worship was allowed.

Islam was also abused recently again by some in the Malay Muslim community to instil fear over the halal status of bottled water because a picture of a house of worship was depicted on the brand label.

I ask all 33 of you to consider this; was there truly a threat to the halal status of water because of the brand? Do you not consider that as extreme as well?

The learned group cannot deny that there is an agenda of vilifying Malaysians of other faiths using bogeyman tactics that should have no place in this country. For instance, suddenly a Korean pop band is not only considered a subversive element to convert Muslims to Christianity, but at the same time accused of having a Jewish agenda.

I do acknowledge the learned members’ points that moderation is relative to geographical location and as such, are dependent on countries. I am personally awed by the learned group’s view of Saudi Arabia as an example of “moderation”.

Personally, I can finally eat HP and Tabasco sauces once more. I can even perhaps get a halal turkey to roast some time in the future.

Jokes aside, the question that the 25 retired civil servants raised is this; what truly defines a moderate within our own country’s borders? Where are the lines drawn between moderate, liberal and extreme as per our Federal Constitution?

The learned collective did not address this point at all, and it was on this basis alone that the G25 had raised the five points in their open letter to the Prime Minister for his consideration for implementation, which was subsequently supported by the “I Am #26” campaign.

I personally hold steadfast to the belief that a moderate and progressive Malay Malaysian community may have become something of the past, and pray that we all can get a proper platform to discuss how to reach that social equilibrium once more.

Until such a platform for intellectual discussion is in place, how can we know that your proposed solution to review the Federal Constitution is what every Malaysian wants?

I believe that coexistence within this multi-ethnic, multi-religious nation should be and must always based on decisions made out of mutual respect for all.

I note that this mutual respect is under threat by elements on both sides of the divide.

As such, let us all agree to have a proper discourse on a proper platform, as what the 25 retired civil servants have asked for. This will give the learned group and us the opportunity to listen to all thoughts from all Malaysians to reach a truly Malaysian definition of what the moderate is.

In other words, let us have a moderation of ourselves as Malaysians before we act.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail Online.