A non-Muslim’s take on the imam issue

Mar 05, 2017 08.00PM |
 

by Bertha Henson

FOR the past two days, I have been wondering if I should write something about the imam who was said to have uttered insensitive phrases about Jews and Christians. I asked around and have been flooded with advice, ranging from no, because it’s a sensitive topic and no, because you’re a non-Muslim to yes, because this is an open society tolerant of different views and yes, because it would be good to have a non-Muslim speak who is not, ahem, Mr K Shanmugam.

Patrons of The Middle Ground enjoy priority access to our best stories. To become a patron, click here.

As an outsider looking in, I find the issue fascinating although I’m sure Muslims wouldn’t favour my choice of word. I will, therefore, be writing this very tentatively from a non-Muslim point of view and more importantly, from the perspective of a fellow citizen in a multiracial, multi-religious society in a secular state.

The Law and Home Affairs Minister’s comments in Parliament about suspending the unnamed imam from preaching have ignited a firestorm among Muslims on the Internet. The imam had, at Jamae Mosque last month, reportedly recited a prayer in Arabic that said “God grant us victory over Jews and Christians”, among other things. A whistle-blower uploaded a video of what he said. It went viral.

From what I read online, Muslims are upset, and many wonder if the imam’s words which are spoken to the faithful attending Friday prayers were taken out of context. Many erudite Muslims have been offering their opinions on the matter and citing religious sources.

It’s interesting to see how many different takes there are on one phrase and the deep discussions that ensue.

In the meantime, non-Muslims are looking on.

In these times of increasing religiosity, communities need to be careful about being misinterpreted. “Victory’’, in this instance, might well be a spiritual or religious conversion rather than defeat in the martial sense, as some Muslims have said.

The trouble is, the non-Muslim can only judge the words literally and depend on the whistle-blower, himself a Muslim, to say why he thought it was offensive. (It reminds me of how Christians are usually careful about using the word “crusade’’, so as not to offend the sensibilities of Muslims, even though you could be crusading against poverty.)

Whatever the imam said, I would like to think it was between him and his flock. If any member of his flock finds what he said objectionable, then the matter should be taken up with his religious superiors. I was surprised that the imam was “exposed’’ in this way; I didn’t think video-recording was allowed in a mosque. It took planning. It might well be that earlier complaints fell on deaf ears, and the whistle-blower believes this is the best way to gain attention. But I think it’s the worst way, however well-intentioned.

Muslim Affairs Minister Yaacob Ibrahim said: “While it is correct to whistle blow when one sees wrongdoing, one must also ask whether the manner in which this is done is appropriate, or if it sows more discord and causes tension in our society.’’

Mr Shanmugam weighed in on this point as well: “The right thing to do though, is that when a matter like this is encountered, it should be reported to the Police, and not put out on social media. That will allow police to focus their investigations on the subject of the complaint.

“If instead, the matter is publicly posted, it could lead to a groundswell of feelings, in this case, both from Muslims as well as non-Muslims. It could cause confusion about religion, and increase tensions and so on.’’

I wouldn’t even go so far as to report the matter to the police.

Why get the State involved in an issue that should be resolved by the faithful? Yes, there is the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act which I had always hoped was more preventive than punitive in nature. But even with the law behind it, the State is a blunt tool, and cannot take into account the different levels of knowledge and religiosity among people of faith. Let the religious authorities police their own leaders. (Unless some people believe that the religious hierarchy has lost its legitimacy and authority, which means opening another can of worms.)

I read with some consternation this exchange between Mr Shanmugam and Opposition MP Faisal Manap.

 

Mr Shanmugam: Can I ask the member whether he thinks that it is all right to quote from a text and encourage violence against others? Can I have a direct answer, please?

Mr Faisal: Madam (Speaker), from my own knowledge, the verses in the Quran are always in the context of giving out mercy to the people and the universe.

Mr Shanmugam: That is not the question I asked, and I didn’t refer to the Quran. Do you think it is all right for someone to refer to any holy text to encourage violence either by quoting directly or speaking, encouraging such violence? Yes or no?

Mr Faisal: It is wrong, Madam.

Mr Shanmugam: Thank you. That is a question the police will be considering. Thank you.

 

Oh dear! I am unfamiliar with the Quran, but I know that parts of the Bible make for blood-thirsty reading, especially the Old Testament. It cannot be that mere mention equates encouraging violence? Or does it? And is this a matter for the police?

In fact, I wonder why, if the statements were so objectionable as to be a security threat, that the Internal Security Department did not step in earlier. Surely, it would have its eyes and ears on the ground and the imam seemed to have said the same words before. A “lim kopi’’ session might have been enough to put things right.

But then, the video was made public. Non-Muslims are watching. The response must be public too or there will mutterings of cover-ups or some nefarious shenanigans taking place in secret. The G has made it clear that everyone involved, including whistle-blower and imam, will be investigated. I presume the police will be looking at the motivations behind their words and actions. I will shut up on this because I have to.

I wish that people will not think of social media as the place for all things objectionable or what they consider objectionable. Also, sometimes what you see or hear isn’t the full story. The truth is usually more complicated. Sometimes, a quiet word in the right ear can do more for peace and harmony than a loud-speaker, especially if directed at the wrong crowd.

 

Featured image by Pixabay user aditya_wicak. (CC0 1.0)

If you like this article, like The Middle Ground‘s Facebook Page as well!

For breaking news, you can talk to us via email.

skillsfuture_300x250