In this article, I speak as both a Muslim and an ordinary citizen who can respectfully critique any Islamic leader. I also wish to admonish and offer suggestions to religious leaders whom I believe have overstepped the bounds of their roles.
I have repeatedly written that the religious leaders I truly desire are not only experts in Islamic affairs but also contributors to unity, guiding political figures with fact-based advice and civil discourse. This is my hope, as too many of us face religious and faith-related issues endorsed by social media influencers—many of whom possess superficial knowledge, lack civilized language skills, and include political opportunists and paid trolls专门 hired to confuse the public and discredit the current government.
In two recent incidents, a religious leader loudly and vehemently expressed views on religious platforms. As a scholar who has studied these critiques, I find unforgivable errors in their admonishments—whether in legal, scientific, or Islamic etiquette—that should never have been made by high-ranking, senior figures.
In both the balloon vendor incident and the Hindu temple relocation case, religious leaders failed to present the full story. Despite searching media reports, reading news articles, and listening to various YouTube accounts, I still cannot fully grasp what transpired.
It is inappropriate for religious leaders to penalize one party, as this violates both the ethics of interracial relations and the duties of law enforcement. In academia and society, we must reference the complete narrative of events. Without understanding the beginning and end, we cannot arbitrarily assign blame.
Regarding the balloon vendor incident, we know only a few facts: a physical altercation occurred, the vendor’s injuries were medically verified, and unlicensed vending was involved. That’s all. Given these facts, we cannot pass judgment—nor is it our role, as we were not present and remain unaware of law enforcement’s handling.
The same applies to the “illegal temple construction on land”—an act offensive to other ethnic groups, entirely disregarding historical context and the decade-long positive relationship between authorities and the temple.
Senior officials like state religious leaders must avoid actions that could inflame tensions. If politicians do so, that’s another matter. Most already recognize politicians’ unscrupulous tactics.
Do not forget: religious leaders cannot be legally sanctioned in the judicial system, society, or even the afterlife. Islam rejects the concept of clergy or infallible leaders; no Muslim should obsess over religious or political figures based on faith.
According to Professor Tajuddin, religious leaders beneficial to Malaysia should embody the following traits and codes of conduct:
1. Promote Social Unity, Avoid Division
Religious leaders must act as “peacemakers,” not instigators of racial or religious conflict. Tajuddin criticizes those who address sensitive issues (e.g., the balloon vendor clash and temple relocation disputes) without full factual understanding, as their one-sided accusations exacerbate social tensions. Such actions violate religious ethics and the harmony required in a plural society.
He emphasizes that leaders must transcend narrow religious perspectives, respect Malaysia’s multiethnic, multicultural reality, and avoid politicizing religious issues.
2. Integrate Traditional Knowledge with Modern Political Literacy
Tajuddin advocates for religious leaders to undergo “national development courses” that merge traditional doctrines with modern political and social governance knowledge. This includes understanding constitutional principles of multicultural coexistence and balancing rights among diverse communities.
He criticizes leaders who fixate on religious dogma while ignoring societal complexities, such as perpetuating stereotypes or exclusion toward non-Muslim communities.
3. Base Decisions on Justice and Rationality
When addressing controversies, leaders should rely on complete facts and legal frameworks rather than emotional or biased accusations. For instance, in the balloon vendor case, Tajuddin stresses that law enforcement’s role should not be usurped by religious authority, as excessive interference undermines legal credibility.
He condemns the misuse of religious authority to incite division, viewing it as both un-Islamic (contradicting the principle that “no clergy is infallible”) and socially destructive.
4. Implement Rigorous Selection Mechanisms
Tajuddin proposes reforming religious leader selection through:
- Written exams: Testing candidates’ grasp of religion-state relations, such as practicing religious inclusivity in a plural society.
- Interviews: Evaluated by panels of social scientists and government representatives to ensure balanced consideration of all groups’ interests.
This system aims to select leaders proficient in religious knowledge and modern governance, filtering out extremism.
5. Reject Politicized Religion and Extremist Rhetoric
Tajuddin condemns parties (e.g., PAS) and leaders who stoke racial hostility through extremist language (e.g., derogatory labels like “pig breeders” for non-Muslims), arguing this betrays true religious values.
Citing his own education in Chinese schools, he highlights that Malays can harmoniously coexist with other races—ethnic tensions are often manufactured by politicians and religious figures.
Conclusion
Professor Tajuddin’s ideal religious leader is an “intermediary” blending spiritual authority with social responsibility, prioritizing rational, inclusive actions to foster national unity. He urges leaders to transcend sectarian interests and become bridges—not wedges—in Malaysia’s plural society.
This vision aligns with his critique of Malaysia’s political ecosystem (e.g., parties exploiting religion for gain), emphasizing that religious leaders’ moral high ground must serve the welfare of all citizens.
Related:
