“This religious bigotry borders on the tendency to ‘takfir’ others, which is an ingredient of the IS ideology,” said Amanah Strategy Director Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad in a statement emailed to FMT.
“Takfir” is a verb in Arabic that shares the same root with the noun “kafir” (disbelieve). It refers to the act of pronouncing another Muslim as a rejector of the truth and is a practice that the Prophet denounced.
Dzulkefly said the offenders in contemporary Malaysia included religious teachers.
“This is a very dangerous trend,” he said. “If left unchecked, it will undermine the nation’s inclusiveness and its ability to manage differences and dissent”.
He added that even people in authority were taking the liberty to make judgements and resorting to name calling. “Those who disagree with them are labelled Wahhabi or Muktalizah. They are even barred from giving religious talks and lectures in some states, even though they are muftis or holders of PhD degrees in Islamic studies.
An open discourse, he said, would help to clear misunderstanding on divisive issues.
“A debate or discourse on this will do a lot of good to the Muslims in particular and the nation as a whole,” he added. “The Religious Affairs Minister and national religious bodies should not outlaw but in fact encourage discourse for the greater good of the nation.”
Dzulkefly said he hoped the proposed debate between Perlis Mufti Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin and the President of the Pertubuhan Ahli Sunnah Wal Jamaah, Zamihan Mat Zin, would take place as scheduled on February 17.
Any last-minute cancellation would be a major letdown and would be typical of Putrajaya’s pussy-footing on anything that reasonable Malaysians would regard as “enlightenment,” he said. “Putrajaya must not allow this perception that it is being illiberal and intolerant when its brand of wasatiyyah is at stake. There must be no flip-flopping.”
The proposed debate, Dzulkefly recalled, had the agreement of Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Shahidan Kassim. “It ended a month of uncertainty about the doability of an open debate.”
Dzulkefly said he was not concerned over the question of who would win. “l am anxiously looking forward to the depth and breadth of the debate on ‘religious extremism in Malaysia,’ and how each debater will be able to contextualise it within our socio-political realities and in line with lslamic precepts and the higher objectives of the shariah.”
The debate, he noted, would be the culmination of more than a week’s worth of “trading barbs and locking horns” between the two personalities.
“More importantly, however, it will highlight the true meaning and embodiment of ‘moderation’ or wasatiyyah and toleration (tasaamuh), given the litany of corrupt practices and scandals that have plagued our nation,” he said.