|
"We need to hold more dialogues to promote understading between Muslims and non-Muslims and solve our problems," said religious leaders after attending a dialogue hosted by the National Unity Department last week.
"We had a most direct form of dialogue," chairman of the consultative council representing the five major religions in this country said after the dialogue. Although no conclusions have been drawn during the dialogue, the participants have been able to express their views, and offer explanations on a number of issues. There was nothing like being right or wrong, but at least the participants agreed that "the feeling was great!" Worthy of mention, representatives from various religions, including Islam, have struck a common understanding during the dialogue: Anyone proposing to divorce, irrespective of his religion or belief, has the responsibility to take care of the other. It has been reported that during the same dialogue, Muslim representatives expressed their unwavering stand on the conversion issue. Muslims and non-Muslims are not in complete accord on this particular matter. Nevertheless, opportunitites to further deliberate on this matter remains wide open, and non-Muslim representatives felt that the issue was still open for discussion in the future. At the end of this government-sponsored dialogue, the participants brought back with them the wonderful feeling that they could express their views. However, another forum on Saturday, also on the conversion issue but organised by the Bar Council and deliberated from the legal perspectives, was met with more than 200 rowdy protestors and petrol bombs, and had to be wrapped up prematurely. The fire continued to burn long after the forum was put to an abrupt end last week, and the Bar Council fears possible actions against them under the sedition act or something, as certain quarters have already expressed their intention to see that actions be taken against the Bar Council to serve as a warning to check any similar future attempt. Meanwhile, some others have accused the protestors of disrupting the forum and in grossly violation of the freedom of speeech while showing no respect for the country's laws. Contrasting the two events, why is it that in one the participants were allowed to sit down and discuss in a cordial atmosphere, while in the other the organisers must be dealt with? Why is it that the invitation extended by the government agency to representatives from various religious bodies was viewed favourably, while a similar forum was seen as a challenge to the country's Constitution? While the National Unity Department's dialogue was a closed door event, so was the Bar Council's forum. | "Religious issues are not that sensitive after all. As long as we look at things with an open mind, we can absolutely strike some common understanding admist our differences. " |
At the dialogue hosted by the National Unity Department, the contents of discussion were well under the government's control and would therefore not likely to cross the line of sensitivity. As for the Bar Council, the same issue was discussed from the legal perspectives, and the contents of their discussions should have also been under the prudent control of this professional body. The government doesn't seem to be ready to take any action against the protestors who clashed on someone else's event, but instead threatens to take actions against a legal organisation that has hosted a legal forum. If the National Unity Department was allowed to invite religious representatives to its dialogue, why didn't the government lend its support to the Bar Council's forum, as an alternative channel to amass civilian views? Everyone has his own version of annotation to the events above, and it all depends on how each organisation or individual interprets. An important feature of a multiracial, multicultural and multireligious society is that we have a melange of differing ideas and viewpoints. The best way to bring about common understanding among different organisations and individuals is to hold dialogues. Any form of dialogue is acceptable, provided that it is not done against the law, or dominated by extremist views. Inter-religious dialogues have been organised every now and then by non-Muslim organisations in recent years. The Muslim organisations they are trying to approach are not only conservatives, but reformists, too. This is because differing sects or schools of thoughts do exist within each and every relgion, and the dialogues will not be meaningful or fruitful unless they are participated by a broader spectrum of dialogue partners. Having said that, a dialogue must not be dominated by one particular party, or it will be renderred meaningless. As a matter of fact, shortcomings did exist within the National Unity Department's dialogue. However, the participants felt that disputes over certain matters were immaterial; most importantly their rights had to be respected. To be frank, religious issues are not that sensitive after all. As long as we look at things with an open mind, we can absolutely strike some common understanding admist our differences. (By CHONG LIP TECK/Translated by DOMINIC LOH/Sin Chew Daily)
 |
The Blogs 
