Malaysia will soon celebrate her 65th Day of Independence on the 31st of August and comes 16th of September, her 59th formation anniversary too.
Despite her almost seven-decade long history as a modern nation-state, a few recent incidents, as well as numerous others previously, which impact interfaith and multiracial relations among her citizens have again raised concerns about the longevity of her relative stability and peace.
In this regard, it has been commonplace to hear many Malaysians citing tolerance and justice as necessary ingredients for her to remain stable and peaceful.
Why tolerance and justice then?
And how are these two mutually related?
In answering the aforementioned, it is important for us to realise that tolerance and toleration in their original import, as easily attested to by all dictionaries of the English language, are not exactly the same with what we, Malaysians at large and the Malays in particular, have understood them to mean.
For, in that original sense, both words involve elements of dislikes and, worse, hate, which one will have to bear unfortunately in maintaining one’s relationship with the other(s).
In stark contrast to the above-said, most of the times we mean by them an act or attitude that involves mutual respect and, better still, love.
That is why we usually associate them, in fact, loosely use them interchangeably, with such other Malay words of Arabic origin as tasamuh and muhibah, the former signifying magnanimity, generosity, kindness and liberality while the latter, mutual respect and love.
Muhibah, in particular, derives from the Arabic mahabbah whose root is hubb, meaning love, fondness and liking.
This feeling of love towards the others, as regards the Malays in relation to their colleagues of different faiths and races, can be traced to the famous Prophetic saying: “one’s belief shall not be complete until one loves for one’s friend what one loves for one’s own self.”
Imam Muhyiddin al-Nawawi (d. 676 AH), a prominent jurist in the Shafiʻite school of Islamic Law, emphasised that the friendship meant therein is not limited to Muslims but applies to non-Muslims too.
According to him, in the Muslim’s mind-set, what one ultimately loves for one’s non-muslim friend is that he or she embraces Islam and, accordingly, for one’s fellow Muslim friends, that they remain in Islam.
In the context of today’s interfaith relations, however, the above saying of the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, has often been cited as the distinct Islamic formula for the Golden Rule, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
Yet, for the Golden Rule to work and not collapse, there must be a common ground between all the parties involved.
Common ethical norms or shared moral values serve that ground well, among the most important of which is justice.
In short, we should be just to others as we love to be treated justly.
But, what then is justice?
Essentially, justice means “putting things in their proper place(s).”
Such involves, in many instances, being in the middle position between two extremes, one being the extreme of defect and deficiency, the other being the extreme of excess.
It epitomises the Golden Mean.
Perhaps, a good contemporary example for this is the concept of “sustainability” which, were we to trace its history, is the solution offered to two existing extremes, on the one hand, the pro-growth mind-set with all the over-developments, and on the other, the pro-nature or pro-environment obsession.
Siding with either extreme shall ruin human beings; hence, the urgent need to balance the needs of the present generation with those of the future ones.
Furthermore, we also need to differentiate between justice and equality.
The former may imply the latter in some, but not all, cases.
In many respects, equity reflects justice better than does equality.
This can be illustrated as follows.
Suppose that there are three boys of different heights who are eager enough to watch a football match.
Unfortunately, they happen to be on a site which is separated by a wall from the playing field where the match is taking place.
Suppose too that of the three of them, only one is tall enough to be able to watch the game without being obstructed by the wall, whereas the heights of the other two are such that one is the shortest and the other is of medium stature as rendering them handicaps who are in need of assistance.
Let’s assume that of the two, the shortest really needs a ladder to climb so as to view the tournament while the medium-tall boy merely requires a chair to stand on in order to do so.
Equity being justice demands that in order to enable all the three of them to watch, the tallest can be left to his own devices while the shortest be supplied a ladder and the one of medium stature be provided a chair.
Yet, to treat all the three equally, say, providing each with merely a chair, is to commit injustice then.
To illustrate further the difference between justice and equality, let’s now attend to a lucid explanation which Prof. Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas had supplied in some of his past lectures.
Imagine a situation that takes place in a court of law.
Normally, in any legal proceedings, when a case is brought to a judge, at the beginning, as a procedure of justice, the judge must treat both the plaintiff and the respondent equally.
The judge must be impartial.
For, he does not know yet, who is right, and who is wrong.
In other words, he is still ignorant of the truth.
However, at the end of the trial, when he has properly deliberated all the evidences produced and arguments presented before him, and having known the truth of the case, he will have to issue a verdict.
At that point, he should no longer be impartial in the sense of treating both parties equally; for, to do so is in fact an act of injustice.
On the contrary, he must be partial to the right side, siding with the truth.
Hence, justice is to be defined AT THAT POINT, at the point of knowledge, not ignorance; at the point when one is obliged to side with the truth, and not continue to be impartial.
In understanding and exemplifying justice thus, knowledge and truth are both necessary, as if they all are different sides of the same reality.
Therefore, in order that tolerance (in the sense of tasamuh and muhibah) as well as justice be properly instituted and nurtured so as to ensure longevity of Malaysia’s peace and stability, dissemination of true knowledge and right understanding among her citizens through effective and continuous education is indispensable.
May Malaysia, by God’s leave, continue to flourish and prosper in harmony!