reduced and recycled

…between dissent and hate-mongering. That’s what we lack; we appear to lack the discernment necessary to differentiate between comments and opinions that run roughshod over acceptability, and those that respect its borders. Who can deny at least some truth to this? And yet, these very considerations are defined by the mores of particular social milieus - or by the biases of particular governments, it appears. “Acceptability” is the question.

The problem, it appears, of mediating notions of ‘acceptability’ is when you have disparate groups of people holding differing views of what is ‘acceptable’. This is unremarkable, happens all the time, and is uninteresting in and of itself. However, negotiating the ‘acceptable’ requires at least this condition: the ability to talk, discuss and argue over competing notions of ‘acceptability’. To be imposed, it has to be consensual; we become our own moral guardians. Notions of ‘acceptability’ which are wholly alien, or find no purchase, among large sectors of the population only leads to resentment of one kind or the other - resentment, and fear of said imposition.

There are some strange parallels between the Danish cartoon debacle and the current lockdown on MMU’s forum by Malaysia’s Special Branch [⁽¹⁾]; on the one hand you have the call to silence the press over blasphemous caricatures of the prophet Muhammad, and in Malaysia on the other hand, you see the crackdown on apparently anti-Islamist sentiment in an institution of higher learning. What some Muslims do with calls for economic sanctions and threats of fatwas, the government in Malaysia does with the threat of brute force.

What it cannot do with brute force, for fear of public outrage, it does by exerting pressure; the Sarawak Tribune is practically no more [⁽²⁾], and Guangming Daily has been suspended for two weeks, from February 16th to 1st March [⁽³⁾].

Wherefore the image of Malaysia’s moderate Islam? What, in this instance, could ‘moderate’ possibly mean? Being moderate means, apparently:

1. Being within reasonable limits; not excessive or extreme: a moderate price.
2. Not violent or subject to extremes; mild or calm; temperate: a moderate climate.
3. • a. Of medium or average quantity or extent.
   • b. Of limited or average quality; mediocre.
4. Opposed to radical or extreme views or measures, especially in politics or religion.

Putting aside questions of being “opposed to radical or extreme views or measures, especially in politics”, in what way have the recent moves to silence people and institutions a reflection of moderation? What would moderation demand, in this instance?

Would it demand that we hold open debates and discussions about the nature of the blasphemous cartoons? Would it demand debates on the levels of acceptability we as Malaysians are willing to accept? Would it or wouldn’t it, simply put, demand that we talk about the issues first, rather than threaten and silence?

I will admit, though, that sentiments run high (an understatement) over the blasphemous caricatures, but I often wonder to what extent these sentiments are representative of an unwillingness by adherents of Islam for objective discussions about the sources of their religion. I have often wondered where the questioning of the Quran’s authenticity will land me, for example: in a grave or in prison, or in the midst of a bloodthirsty mob.

1. Head over to carboncopy's post for more information. (↩)
2. Jeff Ooi's post here. (↩)
3. Jeff Ooi carries the story and some updates over here (↩)