The Mainstream and the Buddhist parable

A Buddhist parable went like this. Three blind men were asked to describe an elephant by touch. One held its leg and said it was a tree. Another held its trunk and said it was a giraffe. The third held its tail and said it was a snake. The men were not able to identify the mammal by holding it at separate places.

Point is, Islam is being explained by people who are familiar with only parts of it. The recent furor in Selangor about the slaughtered cow is a case in point.

Several years ago, the Mufti of Perak and a director of Takaful Nasional adopted what was thought as controversial, if not peculiar, positions and as a result of which, they were castigated and ridiculed by the mainstream. Cynics even hoped the ‘no open house’ proposal offered by the mufti and the ‘no deepavali greetings’ memorandum issued ­by the director were a brand of humor peculiar to only them.

The mainstream applied pressure and in the context of multiculturalism and the prevailing political correctness, they apologized. In reality, they were pressured and rebuffed by a mainstream unfamiliar with the subject.

Although the mufti recanted, it is noteworthy that his peers did not say that the proposal was flawed. The director was more exacting. He said he relied on the subject of syirik but was not offered the opportunity to counter his detractors. Both were offered space only to apologize.

The end result is the mainstream is left with the apology it demanded but without an explanation as to the foundation of their positions vis-a-vis the doctrine, if there were any.

The Muslim protesters who wielded the head of the slaughtered animal maintained that their position was in accordance with the doctrine, but they were ridiculed and drowned by the noise of the mainstream. I would simply ask them to explain the foundation of their actions and in what manner or form, if relevant, were they based on the doctrine.

In essence, they did not want a temple located near a Muslim population. At first blush, I square this position with Arabia itself, the seat of Islam, and the literal reading of Chapter 9.

The mainstream is just as religious but guards its secularist doctrine with zeal and regards religion as a matter of personal faith. Although its political and social conscience are drawn from its secularist instinct, it sustains itself on common ethics threading various beliefs.

Instinctively, it reacts to perceived anomalies that infringe its political and social space. The positions of the mufti and director and now, the actions of the protestors are such anomalies with similar underpinnings and should be treated to an open and honest discourse.

Cheers, Tommy