S Thayaparan
Published: Mar 10, 2025 7:30 AM
Updated: 10:40 AM
“Belittling or ridiculing the religious practices of others is not only contrary to Islamic teachings, but can also create tension and damage social harmony.”
COMMENT | We should start with what Zamri Vinoth said: “If you find it upsetting, then stop doing it so that others won’t follow.
“If you choose to continue, then don’t be offended (when others mock it). So, pick one.”
He is saying that the religious practices of Hindus are debased (macam orang kena rasuk) while intoxicated (mabuk todi), but if you do not want people to mock your debased practices, stop doing them.
In other words, Zamri, who has links with the state religious bureaucracy, is telling Hindus that they have to stop their religious practices if they do not want people to mock them.
If you listen to what Zamri says or even Ridhuan Tee Abdullah, another state-linked religious convert, you will notice the echoes of what Zakir Naik pushes in his “inspirational” sermons.
This idea that there is something wrong with your faith is why conversion is necessary to ameliorate doubts about your faith and circumstances.
You have to understand who Zamri is - a preacher who was arrested and then released in 2019 for a sermon which insulted Hindus in Malaysia.
Perlis mufti Asri Zainul Abidin claimed that Zamri was only testifying when it came to his personal experience with the Hindu faith.
What Zamri was doing as a professional proselytiser was creating a narrative for Muslims to use to convert Hindus in the course of his professional duties.
Understanding Zamri
You have to understand the role of a preacher like Zamri.
A follower of Zakir and member of Angkatan Skuad Mubaligh Malaysia, Zamri is known as an “independent” preacher as if there are a plurality of Islamic narratives in this country. There isn’t.
Published: Mar 10, 2025 7:30 AM
Updated: 10:40 AM
“Belittling or ridiculing the religious practices of others is not only contrary to Islamic teachings, but can also create tension and damage social harmony.”
– Islamic Development Department
COMMENT | We should start with what Zamri Vinoth said: “If you find it upsetting, then stop doing it so that others won’t follow.
“If you choose to continue, then don’t be offended (when others mock it). So, pick one.”
He is saying that the religious practices of Hindus are debased (macam orang kena rasuk) while intoxicated (mabuk todi), but if you do not want people to mock your debased practices, stop doing them.
In other words, Zamri, who has links with the state religious bureaucracy, is telling Hindus that they have to stop their religious practices if they do not want people to mock them.
If you listen to what Zamri says or even Ridhuan Tee Abdullah, another state-linked religious convert, you will notice the echoes of what Zakir Naik pushes in his “inspirational” sermons.
This idea that there is something wrong with your faith is why conversion is necessary to ameliorate doubts about your faith and circumstances.
You have to understand who Zamri is - a preacher who was arrested and then released in 2019 for a sermon which insulted Hindus in Malaysia.
Perlis mufti Asri Zainul Abidin claimed that Zamri was only testifying when it came to his personal experience with the Hindu faith.
What Zamri was doing as a professional proselytiser was creating a narrative for Muslims to use to convert Hindus in the course of his professional duties.
Understanding Zamri
You have to understand the role of a preacher like Zamri.
A follower of Zakir and member of Angkatan Skuad Mubaligh Malaysia, Zamri is known as an “independent” preacher as if there are a plurality of Islamic narratives in this country. There isn’t.
Zamri Vinoth with fellow preacher Zakir Naik (right)
The Islamic Development Department (Jakim) hooked up with Zamri in 2017 to give courses on the Tamil language to increase productivity when it comes to proselytising in a multilingual milieu.
What this course was supposed to do was make it easier for Muslim preachers (state-sanctioned) attempting to convert Indians, using Tamil as an entry point into their lives.
The idea of Muslim converts as the perfect vehicles to proselytise is nothing new.
Ridhuan, for instance, always pleaded “special knowledge” when it came to the Chinese community, hence, his “attacks” against the community had the appearance of legitimacy to a certain section of the Muslim community.
This idea of using converts to preach is propagated by proselytising faiths all over the world.
I understand the Hindu outrage when it comes to what Zamri said.
While most Hindus expect their faith to be mocked, especially in the current political climate, the reason why the video of these deejays mocking Thaipusam struck close to home was that this spiritual experience is both personal and public to the community.
It is a personal act of devotion on public display. This, of course, means it is open to interpretation and discussion.
Power to sanction
The problem with the religious discourse in this country is not that people are going about insulting each other’s religion, but rather the state has the power to sanction people for trespassing on religious and racial issues.
This power is often applied unequally, with the state-sanctioned religion and its adherents getting off scot-free, when the same does not apply to the other religions.
The question is, will the state take action against Zamri, or will the religious apparatus of the state take action against him?
The state apparatus took days to take action against Zamri’s post.
This preacher, in response to a rather dumb debate challenge by MIC, claimed that this was probably the first time in history that a Hindu MP was up for debate, which just goes to show you how ignorant this preacher is.
If this had been a transgression against the religion of the state, all hell would have broken loose.
What this course was supposed to do was make it easier for Muslim preachers (state-sanctioned) attempting to convert Indians, using Tamil as an entry point into their lives.
The idea of Muslim converts as the perfect vehicles to proselytise is nothing new.
Ridhuan, for instance, always pleaded “special knowledge” when it came to the Chinese community, hence, his “attacks” against the community had the appearance of legitimacy to a certain section of the Muslim community.
This idea of using converts to preach is propagated by proselytising faiths all over the world.
I understand the Hindu outrage when it comes to what Zamri said.
While most Hindus expect their faith to be mocked, especially in the current political climate, the reason why the video of these deejays mocking Thaipusam struck close to home was that this spiritual experience is both personal and public to the community.
It is a personal act of devotion on public display. This, of course, means it is open to interpretation and discussion.
Power to sanction
The problem with the religious discourse in this country is not that people are going about insulting each other’s religion, but rather the state has the power to sanction people for trespassing on religious and racial issues.
This power is often applied unequally, with the state-sanctioned religion and its adherents getting off scot-free, when the same does not apply to the other religions.
The question is, will the state take action against Zamri, or will the religious apparatus of the state take action against him?
The state apparatus took days to take action against Zamri’s post.
This preacher, in response to a rather dumb debate challenge by MIC, claimed that this was probably the first time in history that a Hindu MP was up for debate, which just goes to show you how ignorant this preacher is.
If this had been a transgression against the religion of the state, all hell would have broken loose.
Clearly, if you follow Jakim’s reasoning, Zamri did something that went against the tenets of Islam.
However, various Muslim political leaders have cautioned against raising religious sentiments instead of calling for the sanction of this preacher.
Maybe he did this because he thinks that since he has been arrested by the state and let off, sued by people and let off and has faced no sanctions from the state religious bureaucracy, he believes that what he said was in accordance with the teachings of Islam and the ideas promulgated by Jakim.
Or is Zamri mocking Jakim? Maybe Jakim understands that whoever is backing him is more powerful and has more influence than Jakim?
Maybe Zamri understands that Jakim will not take action against someone whom the state has relied on in their proselytising efforts?
Sowing discontent
What we are dealing with here are state-sponsored religious provocateurs. We are dealing with people whose aim is to sow discontent in the Indian Malaysian community.
The fact that Zamri continues to be a state actor when it comes to religious discourse should tell us something about the way Jakim views other religions.
The fact that Zamri can openly mock the supposed tenets of Jakim and the religion of the state is demonstrative of how much influence he and his ilk have over Madani.
You have to wonder, is the state enabling Zamri to engage in Zakir-type proselytising?
S THAYAPARAN is Commander (Rtd) of the Royal Malaysian Navy. Fīat jūstitia ruat cælum - “Let justice be done though the heavens fall.”
No comments:
Post a Comment