While diversity of faiths and religions test Malaysians’ capacity for unity, it also accentuates the need of a framework which is practicable and acceptable to all.
Two global scholars, Fazlur Rahman and Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas, have suggested in their works, that the positive value of different religious communities is that they may excel with each other in moral goodness.
According to such interpretation, this is indeed a Divine command in the Qur’an, “fastabiqu al-khayrat” (al-Maidah, 5:48).
Since there are very broad opportunities for various religious communities to compete with each other towards all that is good, it is imperative to explore this model to its fullest potentiality.
For example, in the field of providing welfare for the poor, commanding what is good, and forbidding what is evil.
When we say “commanding what is good and forbidding what is evil”, good and evil must not be evaluated according to secularised, anti-religious values. Rather, good and evil there must be judged according to universal religious values and good traditions of man and his society (al-ma‘ruf).
Commanding what is good and forbidding what is evil must also be done by religious adherents in a proper, gracious, honest and sincere way.
It is extremely important to acknowledge the difference between one religion and another and thus its uniqueness.
Interreligious problems won’t be solved by denying the fact that there are differences amongst various religions or by saying all religions are equally the same as asserted by adherent of religious pluralism.
As present-day religious pluralist is either a secularist who himself does not practice the religious life or a secularised individual who is at best doubtful of religious truths, promoting pluralistic co-existence by imposing secular principle which make all religions equal is counter-productive.
Rather, the solution must be sought by having respect for unique, different qualities of each tradition and coexist with those differences.
Inter-faith relation should not be in term of toleration (toleransi) if by toleration we refer to emotionless and dispassionate kind of relation, which is artificial.
The inter-faith relation that we must promote is the one of which the elements of affection and compassion are intrinsic to. Such kindness and honesty is already couched in the Malaysian founding fathers’ term “muhibah”, which comes from mahabbah (love or affection).
However, muhibah may be established between members of our society only through friendship, wherein there will be a mutual help, kindness and respect.
I submit that friendship may only be realised as a result of individuals’ union in school, in university, in workplace, and in their living in the same place.
Here, we must acknowledge the challenging fact that we Malaysians are in.
To my mind, generally there is a divide between children who go to national school and those who go to national-type school, let alone between those who go to public school and to private one. This divide needs to be sincerely bridged.
Bridge from both sides and not wall is needed to unite a divide between public and private universities; between public service and private sectors; between rural and urban population; between national language speaking Malaysians and non-national ones.
If our children, generation after generation, are in general altogether going to separate schools and universities and offices, and then almost altogether living in separate places, and altogether communicating in different languages, is there any hope for genuine friendship to thrive?
Another challenge to this nation is, how to solve problem without becoming litigious multi-religious community, as friendship cannot be expected to flourish between legal complainant and defendant.
While claimant in civil cases related to inter-religious issues are entitled to seek legal redress through court, the fact remains that purely legalistic way (and hostile media) will not conduce to affectionate inter-religious relation.
Just look at how husband and wife who seek legal justice through court with blaring media are in the way of divorce, never of unity. Just look at the fact that claimant and defendant can only be artificial friends, if at all they still want to be friends.
But how can we pay genuine respect to other people; how are we going to be genuinely kindly to others – if we do not have the opportunity to be neighbours or the prospect to be friends?
As mentioned in Greek historian, Thucydides’s work entitled Peloponnesian War, “There can never be any solid friendship between individuals, or unity between communities, unless the parties are persuaded of each other’s honesty.”