On the contrary to what Helen Ang suggest as to my letter being ambivalent towards terrorism, it is precisely because terrorism concerns me that I responded to her column.
Again, in Ang's reply to my letter, her request in which to do an Internet search on 'Muslim terrorist' and 'Buddhist terrorist' which results in a grossly uneven number on the latter, is telling of how unaware she is of her prejudiced worldview. What is she trying to infer by that example? That it infers to a certain truth?
As far as searching those terms on the Internet are concerned, the results at most reflect the number of people talking about Muslim terrorists, and not even terrorist websites themselves. After all, what she would term as terrorists would not call themselves terrorists on their own websites. Ang then tries to compare the attitudes and actions from minorities in Malaysia to that of minorities in Britain which is hardly a comparison since both groups of minorities have different histories and, even between the minority groups in Malaysia evolved through different circumstances.
She also cites the recent Merdeka Centre survey as interpreted by Dr Patricia Martinez who summarised: "It is significant that negativity defines Malaysian Muslim attitudes (83.5% of Malaysian Muslims in peninsular Malaysia have a negative attitude towards the US) towards what constitutes "the West", and this finding is in consonance with other global surveys on Muslim attitudes, such as those conducted by the Pew Research Center."
Again, one wonders what Ang is trying to infer from this. I wouldn't be surprised if a number of non-Muslims in the world hold a negative attitude towards the west, but that doesn't mean they all support the actions of suicide bombers or indiscriminate murder and killing.
Finally Ang cites the same survey '...in terms of suicide bombing - 11.6% (of our own Muslim population) chose 'Syahid' or martyr, and a high percentage, 24.8%, chose the 'don't know' response', and asks 'Why does a sizeable proportion of fellow Malaysians see as martyrs those who choose to snatch the lives of as many innocents...?'
To examine this question, and if one does not want this proportion to increase, we ought to examine what supports it and what it thrives on, as suggested in my previous letter , I can understand Ang's concern, but what about the other larger percentage of 62% - 88% that does not subscribe to this view? Why not engage with them instead of alienating ourselves by stereotyping them?
In response to other questions in the same survey, 79.5% responded that Muslim Malaysians should learn about other religions in Malaysia, 83.8% responded that Muslims could participate in interfaith dialogue, and 76% responded that if there was an interfaith council in Malaysia, Islam should be part of that council. This goes to show that a large majority of Malaysian Muslims were not against the IFC has how it may seem to be during the recent uproar over Article 11.
My concern of Ang's column and use of language is simply this; that there is already such deep polarisation between the 'west' and 'Islamic' world, that shouldn't we look to build bridges instead of burning them? Continuing to possess and to expound this prejudiced worldview without the slightest awareness of it only serves to further divide people.
We should be engaging with one another, if not actively, at least to keep check on whether one's language or action that reflects on his or her worldview, is fair, or otherwise, to support the latter efforts.
To help fight injustices suffered by your neighbours is one way to build bridges. Failing to do so would be a lost opportunity and a detriment to our own fight against the deepening divides in our society.
