Discussing religion healthily

IT often seems like we are told: “Never speak about race, religion, and royalty!”

I think that if we want to be a truly united nation, as we enter our 60th year as one, then what we need is not to talk less, but to learn how to talk more in healthy and effective ways.

Malaysia as a whole has all the ability and potential to work towards healthy, productive, and most of all, effective discussions of even the most sensitive topics out there.

As with many things, it all starts with setting a good example.

Ideally, these good examples would come directly from our nation’s top leaders. And if any of them should feel in need of supportive feedback and sincere suggestions, there are no shortage of us who would be more than happy to help.

Either way, there is nothing stopping the rest of us ordinary Malaysians from practising effective communication.

The principles of effective communication apply equally to race, religion, and royalty.

Given recent events, today seems like a good time to look at questions of religion in particular.

First is the introduction of an “Imam Al-Nawawi 40 Hadith” module in schools; followed by the involvement of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim in a conversion ceremony in Klang; and the multireligious rituals conducted at an MIC groundbreaking ceremony.

The school module issue seems to be the hottest, and perhaps the one we can learn the most from.

In general, a lot of public discourse in Malaysia seems centred around “jumping”.

Jumping is akin to what a mediator friend of mine once described as “reacting” as opposed to “responding”.

Basically, an announcement is made that seems to say something that we don’t like hearing, and immediately everyone starts jumping – releasing angry press statements, yelling at each other in the media, and so on.

Anyone who has found themselves grumpy at the same time as their spouse or partner can perhaps relate. One person says something even slightly annoying, the second person reacts emotionally, the first person reacts to that reaction, and before you know it, you have a full-blown argument on your hands.

I’ve had so many arguments where I remember what happened, how I felt, what things were said and done, but have absolutely no recollection of what started the fight.

A lot of the time, these arguments do not take place in a vacuum, but in a context – usually one of long held, unresolved resentments and tensions between the parties involved.

These tensions have been part of Malaysia for decades – for almost as long as we have existed as a nation, in fact.

When these tensions are simmering right under the surface, it’s easy for any little thing to set off an argument.

This seems to me to be what happened regarding the controversy surrounding the new school module.

The issue appears to have begun in a news article concerning the announcement, which apparently did not specifically mention whether non-Muslim students would have to study the module.

Following this, the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism soon thereafter issued a somewhat angry sounding press statement, going so far as to say that introducing this module might be “unconstitutional”.

And in response to this, several Muslim groups spoke up – some characterising the council’s statement to be “biadap” (rude) and anti- Islam.

The Education Ministry, meanwhile, has been rushing to clarify post facto that the module is indeed only for Muslim students.

I can’t help but feel this is such a close parallel to the grumpy couple analogy earlier.

At so many junctures, it seems that people were more inclined to jump before talking.

There are of course so many would haves, could haves, should haves in this situation.

The Education Ministry could have more clearly specified right from the get go that this module was only for Muslim students.

The Consultative Council could have reached out to the Education Ministry and sought a more private clarification before jumping the gun and publicly shooting off words like “unconstitutional” from the hip.

Islamist groups could have emphasised the need for patience and better understanding, instead of appearing like they might be trying to silence others.

I imagine at most junctures, there was one hothead or two in the various organisations that got really riled up, and pushed everyone else to take a hardline stance in response to what was happening.

My gentle suggestion is: resist these hotheads, at least for a day or two.

Had this been done, non-Muslims might have learned that these 40 hadith were (ironically) chosen precisely because they are focused on moderation and the exact types of positive values that are designed to temper extremism, and highlight the inclusive nature of Islam.

Religions frequently counsel patience, reflection, prayer, and meditation.

No one is saying give up your rights, or let others walk all over you. But sometimes just because you feel someone is walking all over you, doesn’t necessarily mean that they are.

Maybe those other people are just being led around by hotheads of their own.

It’s true that sometimes we have to stand up and “fight” for our rights, but if we approach every issue with this kind of “fighting” mentality, using only one tool for every job, all we create in the end is a state of eternal conflict.

If the cooler heads from each side reach out to engage in genuine dialogue and seek true mutual understanding, I feel the sky is the limit, as far as the sense of unity that may emerge as a result.

Let’s take a brief look at the other controversies:

Anwar of course has a right as a Muslim to attend whatever conversion ceremony that he likes.

That said, I think the concerns raised by some members of the non-Muslim community, and Indians in particular, are understandable. Perhaps such optics would indeed create undue anxiety about the top government official in the country actively looking to convert non-Muslims to Islam.

Perhaps a little sensitivity surrounding the fact that Indians in particular also have a long and difficult history when it comes to Hindu-Muslim relations could go a long way.

One practical alternative or compromise for being involved in such conversion ceremonies could perhaps simply be to ensure that they are not publicised.

Indians are perhaps one of the most diverse groups in the country when it comes to religion. Thus, it is perhaps not surprising that the MIC groundbreaking ceremony involved rituals from multiple faiths.

I think such diversity should in general be allowed, but I do understand that there are also Muslim sensitivities regarding how these things are handled. I think with proper, considered, and careful consideration, discussion and planning, perhaps the sensitivities of all religions can be appropriately taken care of in such diverse ceremonies.

It’s a little sad when the response to many of these controversies are: “Talk less!”

What we need is not just “Talk more!” but more importantly, “Talk differently”.

One simple rule of thumb when issuing statements is simply to avoid negatory words like “no”, “don’t”, “cannot” and so on. You’d be surprised at what a difference this simple strategy can make.

If we let our anger subside a little, and increase our empathy and patience before opening our mouths, we may find ourselves in an ever more beautiful Malaysia.

Nathaniel Tan is strategic communications consultant who also works with Projek #BangsaMalaysia. He can be reached at [e-mail]. The views expressed here are solely his own. It’s true that sometimes we have to stand up and ‘fight’ for our rights, but if we approach every issue with this kind of ‘fighting’ mentality, using only one tool for every job, all we create in the end is a state of eternal conflict.