The azan controversy arose out of the police report lodged by Shah Alam, Umno committee member Mohd Azhar Othman over an article Local authorities ought to be sensitive to individual rights penned by Yang Pei Keng in the May/June edition of Infoline , which is published by the Malaysian Bar Council.

The portion which was alleged to have insulted Islam read: 'True, dogs may be noisy at times but that is a different issue.'

'As in the case of those developers building mosques in the vicinity of a non-Muslim community, while one recognises any community's right to perform its religious obligation by way of using a loudspeaker, to some, it is noise pollution created to the annoyance of those residing in the neighbourhood.'

From the two paragraphs, we can conclude three things:

  • Dogs may be noisy at certain times;

  • A community's right to fulfil its religious obligations in a manner involving the use of loudspeakers is recognised. (This stance is repeated in the fourth paragraph which read in part: 'However, this has never been an issue so far, simply because the non-Muslim community recognises the Muslim community's right to freedom of religion.')

  • Some parties consider the broadcasting of the azan using loudspeakers as 'noise pollution'.

    • To be fair to the writer of the article, all the three points have some truth in them, and from the points alone, it is difficult to infer that either the writer or the Bar Council of Malaysia had the intention to insult Islam by means of the article itself or by publishing it.

    Misunderstanding

    As such, in his press statement issued on Aug 6, the president of the Bar Council , Haji Kuthubul Zaman Bukhari, stressed that the message conveyed by the article is one of moderation and consideration for others, and that it was most unfortunate that both the writer's stance and his message had been misunderstood.

    Awang Selamat, in his ' Bisik-bisik Mingguan' column in Mingguan Malaysia on Aug 8, had accurately stated the background of the article involved: 'In fact, it questioned the Subang Jaya Municipal Council (MPSJ) guideline which required dog owners to obtain prior consent from their neighbours before applying for dog licences.'

    To Awang Selamat, the problem was in the analogy used by the writer. To compare the noise from barking dogs with the 'noise' from mosques was certainly not proper.

    If anyone had purposely equated the azan with the barking of dogs in order to insult Islam, then it is easy to understand the anger of Muslims.

    However, a careful, unprejudiced reading of the article will reveal that what had been compared was not the barking of dogs with the azan , but the tolerance for barking with tolerance for the azan - two different comparisons.

    Many critics of Yang's article agreed with his stance that tolerance for barking of dogs is important. It is also important to bear in mind that the issue of barking dogs had not been raised by Yang, but arose out of the MPSJ guideline which was a step backwards for the spirit of tolerance.

    Yang had only stated that the barking may be noise at certain times, and the point about barking dogs had only been used in that manner.

    Certainly all parties involved, including Yang and the Bar Council, will agree that tolerance (from non-Muslims) for the azan is not a problem in our nation. Yang's article did not question that tolerance, and actually used it as an example to remind the MPSJ about the need for tolerance in the issuing of dog licences.

    Religious activities

    It cannot be denied that in our nation, there are still those who are not tolerant, including being intolerant of religious activities. To them, noise is just noise irrespective of whether it comes from cats and dogs fighting, or from melodious music, or from religious activities which involve the sound of gongs and bells or azan calls.

    As for Yang's article, clearly those who considered the azan as annoying 'noise pollution' are the intolerant people mentioned above.

    In a pluralist society which guarantees the freedom of religion and protects the rights of the individual, if such intolerant people only think in the aforementioned manner can the Muslim community then sympathise with their feelings and adopt a more tolerant attitude?

    Or must they be viewed as guilty of insulting Islam, and as such deserve to be taught a lesson and punished?

    I am most relieved to read the comments from Anak Perelih in ' Tranung Kite'. The writers points out that what we need to do with those who consider the azan , in particular the azan subuh (dawn azan), as annoying, is to explain to them about Islam, especially about the meaning of the azan , so that they will understand and no longer consider it as an annoyance.

    I do not know if Anak Perelih is a Muslim or not, but I am sure that if the Muslims of our nation were as tolerant as he is, then Islam would be more respected and welcomed.

    As the official religion of Malaysia, and with the political dominance of the Malay race, Islam's position is assured and most eminent amongst the many religions.

    What is of concern is not the matter of Islam being insulted (who would dare?) or whether the azan will cease to reverberate through Malaysian air one day. It is whether the rights of non-Muslims will be eroded due to the implementation of a programme of Islamisation.

    Not guilty

    The views of some that the azan is too loud and annoying should be handled with understanding and sympathy, and the issue resolved through clarification and education, not through punishment. The filing of police reports over Yang's article in Infoline is patently over-reacting.

    From the above analysis, it is most evident that Yang and the Bar Council did not consider the azan as noise pollution, much less did they purposely compare it with the barking of dogs, as has been alleged.

    If anyone needs to apologise, then it is surely not Yang or the Bar Council as they are not guilty of any wrongdoing.

    Presently, the reputations of Yang and the Bar Council have been harmed, and they have been misunderstood to the extent that they have been viewed as enemies by confused Muslims. Who can dispense justice to them?

    From this azan issue, there are some lessons that we can learn in that:

  • Writers and editors should be more careful when handling religious issues to ensure the issues are not exploited by certain parties.

    • The method of clarification, criticising and debating rationally and fairly should be used to resolve individual differences of opinion (for example the differences between Yang's views and those of Umno Shah Alam committee member, Mohd Azhar Othman) as opposed to making police reports and thus creating a storm in a teacup dragging in both religion and race into such matters.

    • The leaders of our nation, political parties and NGOs must be careful not to be too easily drawn into false issues - such as this matter of the azan - due to religious and racial sentiments.

    It is most sad that the prime minister, the deputy prime minister, the PAS president and the secretary-general, Part Keadilan Rakyat leaders and several commentators have been confused and, knowingly or unknowingly, have been used by some to bring pressure to bear on Yang and the Bar Council, when neither of them had in fact insulted Islam.

    • As a result of the azan issue, the Muslim society seems to be ever more irrational and scary in the eyes of non-Muslims, and they will distance themselves even more from Islam to avoid bringing disasters upon themselves. In such a scenario, all theories about bringing about a united Bangsa Malaysia are worthless.

    I pray that the unfair pressures on Yang and the Bar Council of Malaysia will cease forthwith, and the lessons mentioned above will be given due consideration by all parties who truly value harmony in this plural society of ours.