Read this advice from PM Najib:

Muslims were reminded to avoid condemning or insulting other religions and the followers with their actions, but instead follow true Islamic teachings by respecting other religions.

Prime Minister Najib Razak said their offending actions could have detrimental effects as those who felt insulted could respond in a worse manner, hence causing racial disunity.

Quoting verse 108 in the Al-An’am chapter of the Quran, he said Muslims were also forbidden from insulting or desecrating anything that the followers of other religions worshipped so that they would in turn show respect for Islam.

He was speaking after breaking fast and performing Maghrib prayer with about 1,000 residents of Mukim Chenor at the Chenor Jamek Mosque in Maran, Pahang today.

Also present were his wife Rosmah Mansor, Pahang Menteri Besar Adnan Yaakob and Chenor assemblyman Mohd Aminuddin Ishak.

Return to real religious struggle

Najib said Prophet Muhammad himself, when setting up the first Islamic state in Medina and drawing up the Constitution of Medina, made Islam the thrust of his administration but allowed the practice of other religions.

“This enabled the people of Medina to live in peace. In our country too, we have big minority groups… God willing, we will remain a peaceful country. If there have been no peace, we would not see rapid development in our country today.”

Najib also called on Muslims to return to the real religious struggle by avoiding jealousy, hatred, backbiting, confrontation and incitement, and to address the ills such as poverty.

“We must correct the negative perception of the West about Islam and Islamic countries by practising true Islamic teachings so that we can be good role models to others,” he said.

Read the verse here.

However, there will be devils in disguise (or even out in the open) who aim to create mischief. One such creature is the toyol. Read about it in Wikipedia.

The protestors found themselves another supporter in the form of ex-Selangor MB, Khir Toyo:

As far as Selangor opposition leader Dr Mohd Khir Toyo is concerned, the controversy surrounding the cow-head protest in Shah Alam last week is just a big misunderstanding over a ’stupid’ animal.

According to the former menteri besar, the protesters had no intentions of belittling the Hindu religion which considers the cow to be sacred.

“The reason (the cow’s head) was brought was to show that the (state government) had acted without thinking as the site (for the Hindu temple) was ready (in Section 18), so why relocate (to Section 23)?

“The state government did not think… the cow’s head was displayed because it is a ’stupid’ animal, to show that the state government made a ’stupid’ decision, and disrupted the peace of Section 23 residents. (It has) nothing to do with religious issues,” he stressed.

“I don’t know who brought it (the cow’s head)… but for me, there is no sensitivity (involved) or link to the animal being holy for the Indians (Hindus),” he added.

Khir was speaking to reporters in Shah Alam. Also present were Section 23 residents action committee deputy chair Ismail Saabri and the neighbourhood’s Umno patrons association chairperson Azmir Md Zain.

Azmir is said to be one who brought the severed cow’s head to the protest.

BTW, the ex-MB of Selangor said that the earlier plan was to relocate the temples and gurdwhara into a complex in Section 18. About RM600,000 was spent on infrastructure, but he claimed the temple committees did not move in after that.

“During my administration, the state government had discussed with people from the temple and other houses of worship and we agreed on the site in Section 18. In fact, the state government offered an alternative site in Section 22,” he told reporters at the site in Section 18 here today.

He said the site in Section 18 was already developed with roads and street lights that cost RM600,000, and seven houses of worship could be built on the 0.92ha land.

“Our initial agreement was to wait until the state government built the infrastructure, but when the infrastructure were completed in 2007, as you can see now, they refused to move to Section 18 or alternatively, to Section 22,” he said.

Dr Mohamad Khir said to accuse the former government of not being sensitive to the need for houses of worship for non-Muslims was incorrect and ill-intentioned.

“In fact, the site in Section 18 is suitable for continuous religious activities as it is not too close to residential areas and is linked to several other Sections (15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 24 and 25, Shah Alam) and Padang Jawa. And it’s only 3km away from Section 23.”

Asked to comment on why the temple people refused to move to Section 18, he said the Pakatan Rakyat could have promised them the site in Section 23 but it had turned out to be an issue.

“It’s not that we didn’t consider Section 23 for the temple site, but the residents objected as it is too close to a residential area. So, we looked for an alternative site,” he said.

According to Malaysiakini’s report on the same matter:

Former Selangor menteri besar Dr Mohd Khir Toyo today said the previous state government led by BN was resolving the temple relocation issue in Shah Alam contrary to allegations that suggested otherwise.

Khir, who is now state opposition leader, said the previous BN administration had initially allocated land in Section 18 for a non-Muslim place of worship and this was ready in 2007, with fully equipped infrastructure worth RM600,000.

Speaking to reporters at the proposed site in Sungai Renggam, Shah Alam, Khir said the seven-lot site was “suitable and it was never BN’s fault as we allocated a strategic place.”

“I think there is no other state (government) in history willing to provide such infrastructure to build a non-Muslim place of worship,” he added.

However, Khir said the BN government had to subsequently propose another site in Section 22 following the objection from the Hindu community to the site allocated in Section 18.

He added that the Section 22 location was also agreed to by the Malay residents of Section 23. However, the infrastructure was not completed in Section 22 as BN lost the state in the last general election.

The Section 18 site is situated beside a Telekom building and a river to separate it from a mosque and another Hindu temple. The site is currently being used by car enthusiasts for motor sport of ‘drifting’.

The current Pakatan Rakyat state government has proposed that the temple be relocated to Section 23, and this led its Muslim residents to stage a protest last Friday.

However, the protest became controversial when a severed cow’s head was paraded. The animal is considered sacred to Hindus.

Back in 2005, the Hindu community had objected to the Section 18 proposal since there were already three temples in the area and wanted the temple to be constructed in a different section to cater for devotees living there.

However, Mohd Khir said this was not a valid reason as there were many places where temples “stand side by side.”

“Along Jalan Puchong for example, they have temples built side by side because we all know that they have different gods,” he added.

The ex-MB’s statements were rebutted by current state government reps:

In an immediate reaction, Shah Alam PAS MP Khalid Abdul Samad said Khir’s previous proposal would have been more ‘insensitive’ towards Muslims in the long run. [how?]

According to him, Khir (when he was the menteri besar) proposed a ‘temple complex’ where seven temples, six Hindu temples and one Sikh temple, would be located in one place.

Khalid also pointed out that Section 18 was also a Malay-majority area. “And the mosque that is located opposite to the site is even closer compared with the distance in Section 23.”

Commenting on the RM600,000 spent on the infrastructure in Section 18 for a non-Muslim place of worship, Khalid described it as a “waste of money.”

Meanwhile, state exco Dr Xavier Jayakumar also criticised Khir over his remarks, claiming that he had never solved the problem.

“If his proposal was such a great idea, why did the people reject it? If it was approved so long ago, why has the temple not moved yet?” he asked.

So, now each trying to blame the other and show that they were doing something to solve the problem. Anyway, I think I know the spot in Section 18. Its not near housing area, but there’s a mosque nearby.

One a side note, I’m interested to read about the research done by Yayasan Dakwah Islamiah Malaysia (Yadim):

An Islamic missionary organization added fuel to the Shah Alam temple row today by concluding that the root cause of the controversy was that there are too many Hindu temples in Malaysia. [can a case study on one location be extrapolated to cover the whole country? Does temple mean shrines as well?]

Yayasan Dakwah Islamiah Malaysia (Yadim) president Datuk Mohd. Nakhaie Ahmad said today that Muslims could accept the right of non-Muslims to build their own houses of worship, but the problem was the proliferation of illegal Hindu temples. [Illegal since when is it because the land title changed hands or development takes place in that area? How many temples were surveyed and their age recorded to justify the legality? How easy is it to legalise a temple?]

He also argued that it was the responsibility of non-Muslims to take care of the sensitivities of Muslims. [He must be joking. Is it stated in the Quran or is he preaching some deviant teaching?]

He said that Yadim had come out with a research case study to back the opposition to the construction of the Sri Mahamariamman temple in the Section 23 neighbourhood of Shah Alam, in an apparent justification of last week’s cow-head protests by a group claiming to be residents there. [It would be great if can publish the case study. I just found some extra details on their website.]

Nakhaie told reporters that the case study had been done to examine the sensitivities of Muslims towards the building of temples/ places of worship of non-Muslims.

“The number of mosques compared to Hindu temples are not at all balanced with the ratio of people who live in a particular area. There are approximately 2600 Hindus living in Sentul and there are also 72 temples there,” he said, citing Yadim’s research of a Kuala Lumpur neighbourhood. Muslims make up the majority of residents in Sentul at around 60 per cent of the population, he said, but there were only 13 mosques in the area. [Perhaps need to mention the background of Sentul. What was it 100 years ago? The temples include shrines as well as Gurdhwaras, according to their website. Why not include suraus in the calculation? What about the temple size and their deities? I think need to refer to their full case study.]

According to him, the Muslim level of tolerance in the country was “quite high”. [I agree.]

“Muslims are fine if temples are built but there has to be some limit. They cannot accept it if temples were to be built in Malay-Muslim majority areas. There will be some level of uneasiness if the temple activities disrupt the harmony of Muslims,” proclaimed the Yadim chief. [Majority area, yeah can accept that. But lets look at Shah Alam. Its practically been invaded by one race due to policies of the state. Where's the non-Muslim area in Shah Alam? Even Sri Muda looks like foreign country. Even Batu Caves has high percentage of Muslims. Can we close down the Batu Caves temple?]

He added that what happened in Section 23 “was expected” because the sensitivities of the Malay-Muslims were not taken into account by the Selangor state government.

He also blamed ‘certain’ parties for politicising the issue, stating that based on statements made by politicians, there was a tendency for the public to blame the residents of Section 23 for being racist. [I think its quite clear people are unhappy with the protestors, not the whole residents]

“Whatever that has happened is simply the reaction of Malays towards the aggressive moves of building an illegal temple in the area.

“They are disappointed with the Selangor state government. The reason this has escalated to such a level is due to the negligence of the state to act swiftly and promptly on the matter,” lamented Nakhaie.

Nakhaie urged local governments to take action on the proliferation of illegal temples, emphasising religion should not be used for political gain by some parties. [Can anyone remember when a new temple was built in Selangor? So far, the government of past and present are focused on relocation and demolishment only]

When asked on what should be done to handle the current crisis in Section 23, he said that tolerance is the answer and that non-Muslims should take care of the sensitivities of Muslims.

“Back in the time of pre-independence, past leaders like Tan Cheng Lock understood their position in this country. Non-Muslims did not arrive on an empty piece of land in Malaysia. Malays and Malay Kings were already here for centuries. [ah..yeah. pre-independence time. Now is 2009.]

“The past leaders understood that in order to be a part of this country, they had to respect the rights and sensitivities of the Malays, and they did just that. Sadly today this agreement is lost,” he said. [from privileges, now becomes rights and sensitivities. When was this inserted in the constitution?]

Nakhaie also lambasted Selangor Pakatan Rakyat (PR) leaders like Shah Alam MP Datuk Khalid Samad as well as state executive councillor Datuk Rodziah Ismail, calling them hypocrites for wanting legal action to be taken against the protestors.

“These people who wanted the ISA abolished suddenly have no qualms in wanting it to be used against Section 23 residents,” said Nakhaie. [yeah, no need ISA lah. Existing laws are adequate]

Its only in Bolehland we can find people like this

I found some more details on the research done by YADIM:

“Contohnya terdapat hanya 13 buah masjid dan 62 surau di mukim Sentul di sini, sedangkan terdapat 532 rumah ibadat lain (20 gereja, 72 kuil Hindu/Gurdwara dan 440 tokong Budha).

“Di seluruh Kuala Lumpur pula terdapat 64 buah gereja, 192 buah kuil Hindu, malah bilangan tokong Budha mencecah 819 buah, dan hanya ada 59 masjid dan 218 surau/madrasah “ katanya semasa sidang media Hasil Kajian “Sensitiviti Masyarakat Islam Terhadap Struktur Rumah Ibadah Agama Bukan Islam” di sini hari ini (4 September).

Just curious, did the study include the suraus in offices, shopping complexes, schools, government departments, business centers, hospitals etc., and also provide details about area size/built-up of the places of worship?