Interactive Muslimah Association (IMAN): TOWARDS THE SUSTENANCE AND THE ENHANCEMENT OF MUHIBAH

The muhibah legacy is the legacy of our forefathers, and a personal legacy personally passed on to each and every one of us who call ourselves “Malaysians”, by our fore-parents who too call themselves “Malaysians”. They brought us up to be what we are today. Thus muhibah is not a legacy built by any one particular group – not a particular race, not a particular political party, not a particular thinker – no, but by everyone who claims and takes pride in being a Malaysian, past or present, each adding his or her bit to it. Hence, it is therefore people like us that should do our own bit, within the scope of our ability and capability, to promote and enhance muhibah. In so doing, not only do we honor the legacy of our forefathers but we also help to assure the continuance of a harmonious, peaceful nation for our heirs to live in tomorrow, not to mention that we too can have peace and well-being, alive as we are still today.

Though many are the reasons one may postulate as to why this state-of-unhappy-situation has thus developed, and all these postulates may be right too, in this write-up of mine, however, I hope to throw some light only on one issue, and that is the need for all of us, without exception, to be more aware of each other’s sensitivities, particularly religious and communal sensitivities. In this context, I would like to share with the readers some understanding of what each religion is, and means, to their adherents. Since my intention is to repair and certainly not to aggravate, I will not therefore state the name of any religion, believing that the reader is enlightened enough on the fundamentals of the religions to identify which comes under which, or if otherwise, there is no harm, and in fact, much good will be gained by reading further on the various religions in this country.

Conceptions of Religion

To begin with, each religion and religious community understands religion differently. Some look at religion as all-comprehensive and all-encompassing, covering every aspect of life and living, death and dying, the visible and the invisible, the celestial and the human, heavenly and earthly existences. For such religions, nothing is therefore outside the purview and the jurisdiction of religion, and therefore there is nothing such as non-religious matters and nothing such as non-religious concerns.

Some other religions, however, separate the spiritual from all others and relate only matters and affairs of the spiritual to religion while being silent on the non-spiritual aspects of life and living. These religions that separate the spiritual from all other matters come up with dichotomizing all matters and things into the religious and the non-religious compartments, and thereby drawing divides between the sacred and the profane, the spiritual and the temporal, the worldly and the other worldly.

Among those religions that separate the religious and spiritual from the non-religious and non-spiritual, they may also separate spiritual life from worldly life. Therefore some adherents of these religions may choose to live a life that is fully focused on spirituality and religious devotions, immersing themselves fully into the religious and spiritual matters of the religion, becoming devotees, or monks, or the elects. Even their sustenance is provided for by the laity or the other adherents.

Some other religions, on the other hand, narrow the scope of religion even further by allotting to religion only matters that are related to death and dying and the world of the dead while that of life and living are looked upon as completely non-religious matters. Thus the adherents of such religions do not associate affairs of the moment to be of religious concern or as spiritual matters.

Religions are also described or defined in different ways. Some religions are termed as revealed religions since everything in these religions is revealed through revelations from god to the prophets, and these revelations are now eternalized in the scriptures. Others are defined as historical religions since history played major roles in the formation of the religion, from their theologies to the doctrines and dogmas, as well as the rituals and rites. Some others are described as cultural religions since these religions grew out from the cultures of the communities.

Then there are also religions that are termed as local religions because they can only be practiced locally, needing local materials, local space and environment to carry out the rituals and rites. Other religions are ancestral by nature since they were passed down initially from the first ancestors, and these ancestors are worshipped along with other subsequent ancestors. Then there are those religions that prefer to be identified as spirituality rather then religions since the focus is on the upgrading of the spiritual aspects of the adherents rather than on the worship of the divine.

Religions are also said to be inclusive or exclusive. By inclusive is meant those religions that allow, and in some cases even invite, people to join them freely through the process of conversion into them. This is especially so with those religions that are missionary in nature. There are also those religions that are not missionary but nonetheless do welcome conversions into them, while some other religions however make conversion into them very difficult and confined only for the specially selected cases. Then again, there are those religions that allow conversions into them only, but not conversions out, and yet there are also those that allow both conversion in and conversion out quite easily.

Exclusive religions, however, are those religions that do not allow for conversion into them and the adherents therefore are only among those who are directly born into the religions. Thus such religions are also ethnocentric. The ancestral religions, although they are also a form of exclusive religion are, however, exclusive not because they do not allow others to join in but because it is not possible for others to join. This is because these ancestral religions involve the worship of the adherents’ ancestors and since there are no ancestors to worship in the religion, therefore conversion into them is not possible.

Another classification of religions is that of closed and the open-ended religions. By closed religions are meant those religions whose teachings are already fixed and determined at the very beginning of its history, and thus no new doctrines or dogmas are developed along the ages. Open-ended religions are however those religions that grew along with history, and are still growing. Religions in this category therefore allow for growth in their teachings, and even shedding off doctrines and dogmas considered out-dated or not relevant to the contemporary needs.

Thus religions not only mean many things to many people, but their nature and characters too are also quite different from each other. Likewise they are also defined and described in different ways. Moreover, each religion has its own identity and uniqueness, and thus the numerous religions existing in this world today, and the number is increasing with some groups of adherents in the religions breaking off to form new religions. Also, there are now active attempts by some people to synchronize religious teachings of a few religions into one and to form new religions out of this syncretism. Thus, despite the trendy view that modernism has ushered in a religion-free age, the signs are loud and clear that religions are far from being dead, and are in fact developing and on the increase.

On God and Divinity

The differences in perceptions on what religion is between the various religions and their communities, spring from the fact that the perception on god and divinity also differ from religion to religion. Some religions look on god as being the one and only, the creator of one and all, and with absolute authority over everybody and everything. For these religions, this creator god is worshipped, he and only he.

Among the religions that believe so, there are those who look at god as he is, in the absolute, and therefore will not accept any association whatsoever with him, nor any manifested forms of him, not even divisions of his divinity. Some others, however, look at this one and only god expressed in multiple manifested forms while some others in multiple expressions of his divinity. Yet, there are also some who see this one god dwelling in every one of his creations and creatures and therefore all existence is part of him, the divine, and is therefore sacred and holy.

Other religions, though also believing in a creator god, however look at this creator god as sharing power with other gods, and thereby specifying the jurisdiction of the creator god only to matters of creation and related matters. Other affairs such as the control on life-span and death-time, sustenance and maintenance of the world, good fortunes and bad fortunes, calamities and well-being, attending to specific needs of the adherents, among others, are under the jurisdictions and are the concerns and the responsibilities of other gods. As such, some of the adherents of such religions may worship the creator god while some others may worship the other gods, and some of such religions may also have concept of the personal god, customized to their personal needs.

Others see the many gods in hierarchical order, with the major gods at the higher hierarchy and the minor gods at the lower hierarchy, and a chief god above all of them. Then there are also those religions that believe in numerous gods and spirits, each responsible for different aspects of nature and of life. There are also religions that elevated the spirits of their ancestors and great people to the status of gods and so are worshipped.

Then yet again, there are also religions that do not even believe in the existence of a creator god or any god or spirit at all. Among such religions, there are also those which do not even believe in supernatural existence, the realm of the unseen, and even the existence of the soul, human, non-human or even the divine, not even in the Hereafter.

God or the divine is also understood in different ways. Some religions understand god to be loving, just, and forgiving, while some others believe that god is austere and strict. God is also described as a personal god in that god is approachable through the rituals and will respond to the call of people. Some of these religions even say that god is active in their history, maneuvering turns of events to be in their favor. Others however understand that god is aloof and is above all forms of human contact so much so that the adherents turn to lesser beings for help.

Worship and Rituals

It follows from this explanation therefore, that the worship of god or the gods, as the case may be, the doctrines and dogmas, and the rituals and rites, depend on how the divine is perceived in the religions. Some religions will not accept the representation of god or divinity in any form whatsoever. Some religions are so strict on the issue of representation that they even forbid the discussions about god because discussions are also a form of representation, that is, a verbal representation, they say.

On the other hand, other religions, however, insist that representations are necessary for visual impact, as a visual symbol of the divine transcendent, without which god and divinity will be too transcendent and too remote for the human mind to grasp, they say; thus the idols. Similarly, the anthropomorphic nature of god is said by some religions to be necessary to help man relate their gods to their real-life situations. Some other religions say that plastic and pictorial representation of exact form and stature are forbidden but it is all right to have symbols as reminders of divinity and spirituality; hence the icons, the images and the symbols.

These differences also lead to the differences in the forms of worship of god or the divine, namely the rituals and the rites and other religious practices and observances. Some religions, as stated, forbid any symbol in their worships while some have idols, and some have icons and images. Likewise, some religions have very regulated, structured forms of worship while others however have only informal and personalized religious observations. Forms of worship are translated into practice in the form of the rituals and the rites such as the prayers, the meditations, the pilgrimages, the fasting, etc., as well as the various religious duties and observances. Because of these differences, what are thus forbidden in certain religions may however be necessary to some other religions.

Authority and Point of Reference

As varied also is the conception as to what constitute authority of a religion, that is, what is regarded as the reference point or the point of decision of a religion. Certainly, and in general, the authority is in god but what represents god’s words, wills and wishes also differ from religion to religion.

For some religions, the authority is the scripture and nothing else, whereas for some others it is the scripture as well as the prophets and their traditions. Other religions have the scriptures, the traditions of their holy men and the insights and wisdom of their contemporary spiritual leaders as the authorities of their religions. There are also those religions that have human authority rather than documented authorities, taking these persons of religion as the representatives and spokesmen of god.

For those religions that separate the religious from the non-religious, they also have officers taking care of religious matters and concerns separated from those who are responsible for worldly affairs. Hence, there is one institution for religious matters and other institutions for the non-religious matters. The religious institution has its own well defined jurisdiction and well established structures, together with its own class and hierarchy of officers groomed and educated to handle matters related to their functions and duties.

In such cases, the persons or institution are often regarded as infallible. Some religions regard them infallible in all matters, while some regard them to be infallible only in those areas that are related to their jurisdiction. As such these persons and institutions lead, guide and direct their communities regarding all religious matters and concerns. They are therefore to be obeyed and their orders and directives are to be complied with, and disobedience to them tantamount to serious wrongs or are regarded as sinful and even as acts of rebellions.

As for those religions that focus only on the death and the dying issues, they narrow the jurisdiction of the religious officers even further to being just administrators and officers administering rituals and rites and all death-related matters. Such officers therefore are invited into the lives of the adherents only at such times as when their services are duly needed. For these religions, although matters related to daily conduct are looked upon as non-religious concerns, the adherents however do have a serious understanding of right and proper conduct, wrong and bad behavior and thus have an operative or workable code of personal, family and social ethics, of roles, duties and responsibilities. How such behavior and duties are imposed upon the individual is through the proper upbringing and through social sanctions, and not so much as through a specific institution or officers of religion to watch over their implementation.

Truth and Rationality

Then there is the matter on how to understand truth in religion. Some religions insist that religion must be rational and therefore consider rationality and rational truth as essential and part of the religion. For such religions, what is irrational therefore cannot be accepted as truth in religion and religious matter. For these religions there should therefore be consistency to truth, or to put it briefly, if it is true rationally then it should be true religiously, and if it is unacceptable rationally, then it should also be unacceptable religiously.

Some other religions however consider that rationality is not necessary for religion and religious matters because for these religions, rationality pertains to the domain of the intellect and the mind, whereas religion and spirituality pertains to the domain of the heart and the soul. Since each is of a different domain therefore the instrument to measure truth in each domain should be different too, they say. For the intellect and the mind, rationality and rational proofs are the instruments but for the heart and soul, faith and belief are the instruments, they say. These religions therefore may uphold a dual concept of truth, namely, rational truth and religious truth, and the two truths may not be parallel to each other, and in fact may even be quite contradictory to each other.

Then again there are also those religions that are not even bothered about matters of truth; they just believe as they understand how their elders believe and they perform the rituals, rites and other religious necessities as they see these performed by their elders. For these religions, religion is therefore in the performance and observance of it rather than in the thinking about it.

Myths

Another colorful and interesting point to note is the position of the so-called religious myths. Though some religions reject strongly the concept and belief in myths and regarding these as unreal, make-beliefs and superstitions, yet what is deemed as mythical from the perspective of one religion is however regarded as realities and the truth in another religion. These so-called “myths” particularly pertain to those events related to matters on the origin of humanity and creation, namely, the events of creations. Although these matters are over and beyond a person’s personal experiences, yet people do know that they come into this life only at a particular time. The question that they want to know and be answered therefore are, where were they before this, and where will they be after this life, or is there no beginning and no ending at all. Indeed, all religions attempt to answer these questions in one way or another.

Religions explain human existence before the present through the stories of creation and the events of origin, and since each religion has different stories and events to relate, therefore there are also different perceptions to the origin of humanity and of all others. However, there are stories of origin that are similar across some religions although these may be presented in different versions. In some cases, a religion although rejecting and dismissing those stories of creation that are not consistent with its own as real and true, nonetheless may acknowledge these as part of the religious beliefs of other religions. There are, however, some religions that dismiss and reject completely the stories of creation of other religions, regarding their own perceptions to be the one and only authentic version and therefore dismissing off other religions’ versions as myths, narratives and make-beliefs only.

If indeed creation events are to be regarded as mythical, then all religions therefore have myths since all religions offer some form of explanations about the origin of humanity and everything else. However, religions do not regard such stories and other narratives as found in their scriptures and holy books as myths and therefore untrue. On the contrary, these were real events that took place somewhere and sometime very far away in human history, and for the creation events, they took place at the very beginning of human history itself.

Understanding Each Other

Such being the different perceptions on religion, divinity and authority, it goes without saying therefore that each religious community has its own worldview and thought-patterns, its own value systems and sensitivities, its own definitions and positions. It is indeed most unbecoming, and in fact is even wrong and uncalled for, for any person or any community to project, let alone imposes, upon another person or another community his or their very own perceptions, preferences and sensitivities, faulting another or the others over what he or they themselves do not uphold, or regard as right or wrong.

In fact in a multi-religious and multi-communal society, such acts may even be deemed to be mischievous in intention and can be provocative and even pose a challenge to the harmonious relationship and the amiable social atmosphere of the nation. The crux of the matter is that different people think differently and comprehend their religions differently, and are therefore sensitive and responsive to matters and issues in different ways. Understanding this fact is of paramount importance in a multi-religious nation if the healthy and harmonious relationship among the various communities is to be sustained and hopefully, enhanced.

In fact, appropriate behavior and proper conduct vis-à-vis other people and other communities are well outlined by all religions. Indeed, religions are not only about faith, belief and spirituality, or only about relationship of the persons with god and the divine. Religion is also about relationships with people, about how to respect and accommodate people, agreeable or disagreeable these people may be. This relationship is called ethics, and together with the guidelines on proper conduct, namely the etiquettes, they form the inter-personal dimension of the religion. Therefore, whereas all matters of faith and spiritual concerns and relationship with god are intra-personal matters, all matters related to relationship with others are however, inter-personal matters.

Working Together

It is at the level of ethics or the inter-personal dimension that people relate to people as fellow human beings, and for some religions, the concept of common parentage makes all humanity of one family. Thus all religions therefore lay emphasis on ethics or patterns of behavior and many also detail out how to behave appropriately with each other, and this is called “etiquettes”. Through ethics come social discipline and co-ordination, and subsequently, the development of a social order. With a firm and developed social order, a society is formed and through societies, states, nations and civilizations grow and flourish.

It is at the level of ethics that religious communities can truly work together and where adherents can engage with each other to promote a nation of goodwill and a country of good citizens. Such an enterprise is most urgently needed today in view of the amounting social problems looming in front of us today, problems that are immense, complicated and real, very real indeed. Rather then getting entangled and be entangled in complexities of ideas, why don’t we move in the direction of harnessing the beautiful and pragmatic ethics that each of our religion spells out so that life at the social level can be better lived.

For such co-operations to take place, and for our multi-religious, multi-communal nation to move smartly forward, peace and well-being is essential, and so also trust and confidence in each other as fellow citizens. For this to take place, certain cardinal principles or formulae for pluralistic living need therefore to be appreciated, learned and ingrained within society.

The first cardinal principle for pluralistic life is that not to interfere in intra-religious and intra-communal affairs of the other communities. Indeed, no community appreciate outsiders to teach them how to believe or how to think vis-à-vis their own religion and affairs. Such an act will open the Pandora box for retaliations and counter actions, of challenges and counter-challenges. Religion is a sensitive matter and retaliations are sure to come and retaliations, as the nature of retaliations goes, often lead to further complexities. Thus, in the interest of peace, harmony and happiness in a multi-religious and multi-communal, restrain must be observed not to interfere and intrude in matters and concerns of other religions and their communities.

That there are problems at hand in this nation, that is undeniable; hence the atmosphere of general discontent and restlessness among certain quarters. To mention one item - the grouses on injustices and the miscarriage of justice – these are real situations indeed. Truly, there can never be peace and well being without justice because injustices give a bitter taste to life and discolor the normal perspectives of those deprived of it. However, these issues should be taken at the level of justice, not at the level of religious or communal divides.

So important is justice in human life that it is not surprising therefore that almost all religions entrusted their adherents to be just and fair, and in fact, even to be kind, compassionate and magnanimous, to all and sundry, regardless what the beliefs and preferences of the others are. Justice is thus a divine mandate. For this purpose, it is necessary therefore that the concept of justice and its application be well understood if justice is indeed to be carried out appropriately and justly. It is only when justice is duly established that society will feel at ease and with that comes peace and security, harmony and happiness, and with these, muhibah is instituted.

Understanding and Defining Muhibah

It should be understood that muhibah is not simply tolerance, no. In truth, “tolerance” is an inappropriate word because it is awfully inadequate to capture the whole meaning and nuances of muhibah, let alone the spirit of it. This is because the very word “tolerance” implies a forced and an imposed acceptance of the other or of something that is not particularly liked and agreeable to the person. There is also an air of condescendence, and even of snobbery and arrogance, on the part of the person who is obliged to tolerate the other, that he feels he is stooping down to accept the other, as if to do a favor to the other. At the other end, the person tolerated certainly will not feel nice about it, let alone feel dignified or duly respected. He will feel that he is unworthy or not up to standard, so much so that he is only being tolerated by the other. This is surely an unbecoming social situation, bad at the communal and national level, and even worse in a family setting.
Thus, inherent within the word “tolerance” is a superiority-inferiority status of relationship, i.e., superiority on the person who is tolerating the other, and inferiority on the part of the person tolerated. Tolerance also indicates an element of obligation and entails a form of compulsion. As such, tolerance is actually a sort of pretence, and is therefore an insincere and a fake relationship. Surely, and indeed, tolerance is not the legacy that our founding fathers passed on to us. This is because at the essence of it, tolerance is actually, as explained, an inadequate concept, and is in fact even a distasteful philosophy from which to build a strong, firm and resilient social relationship. This is particularly so for a pluralistic society like a country like Malaysia where social relationship is the very essence of its existence and survival.

Muhibah is also not an act or a deed, a one time or a few times good deeds done for the other. That muhibah encompasses good and chivalrous deeds too, that is of course both true and necessary. But muhibah is not merely an act or a few isolated deeds but rather muhibah is a spirit, a spirit of togetherness, a culture of sincere and appreciative co-existence with sensitivity towards fellow citizens and fellow beings, a kinship and a fellowship among the people of this nation, Malaysia. Muhibah is therefore based on willing and sincere acceptance of the other, of genuine respect for the other, of the kinship of citizens. Indeed, in Malaysia, it is muhibah that is our legacy, our spirit and our culture – not mere tolerance.

The history of muhibah in this nation is colorful indeed, a history of beautiful deeds and noble sacrifices, a history of intelligent and sensitive co-existence, of togetherness in trying and challenging times, of give and take, of unity in multiplicity. Above all, muhibah is in fact a history of the judicious common sense and of the pragmatic wisdom, of simple sincerity and genuine humaneness of this nation. And muhibah is the history of our beloved nation, Malaysia.

That we have faulted once or twice is also a part of our muhibah history, and these are our invaluable lessons too and ought to be revisited now and again for we surely do not want such incidences to recur. So precious is muhibah to this country that we surely cannot take it lightly. Let us be reminded that it is in the nature of legacies that if ignored, the legacy will fade away and expire. If this is to happen to muhibah, then we may lose it and thus lose not only a legacy but also the very spirit of Malaysia. Indeed, it is muhibah that makes Malaysia, Malaysia.

Certainly, muhibah is not just a legacy to this nation; muhibah is the foundation for the survival of this nation. Without muhibah, Malaysia will not be what it is today, and we will not be what we are today. More importantly, without muhibah, Malaysia may not even exist anymore, at least not as it is today. Thus this legacy of muhibah is not to be taken for granted. Not only should it be sustained, but it should also be enhanced and be expanded. Certainly we cannot afford to lose it because without muhibah, Malaysia will not be Malaysia. For in truth, it is muhibah that makes Malaysia, Malaysia.

Notice board