Capitulating in the name of religious tolerance, ethnic tolerance, just tolerance in general. That’s what the Cabinet’s urging IIUM to do, funnily enough. Yes, I think logic would dictate that if IIUM is an islamic university, then it follows strictly speaking that it should prescribe islamic rules as far as dress codes are concerned. What’s this with showing a more moderate muslim face to the world? Moderation in this instance means capitulation, doesn’t it? It means compromise.
The more controversial question I’m interested in is capitulation by whom? Muslims or Malays? Or does it not make a difference? I find that hard to believe. I think the situation in Malaysia’s such that we have one particular ethnicity identifying itself so much with its religion, and then they are encouraged to capitulate on something that involves their religion. What does that really say?
I find it funny that Cabinet seemed more interested in presenting the face of a more moderate islam in Malaysia, somehow bypassing the consequences. I’m sure you’ve read this article over here. Maybe it really was a slip of tongue, but I find this interesting:-
This consensus was reached by the Cabinet today — a decision that is likely to cheer members of the public who believe that moderation should always be the path that this multi-racial country takes. And that in matters of religion, choice and not coercion should be the preferred way.
I wonder what those Nationalists will say now: first turning the tables and introducing English as the medium of instruction for Science and Maths, now a further “infringement”. Things are starting to look interesting.
