Malaysiakini : As the lawyer representing the cast said: “It’s appalling. If we look at the entirety of the reaction to this - the reaction of the government, especially - it seems it has been pure condemnation of the film, making it a blasphemy issue.

“No one has specified what it is that is blasphemous at this point in time, but regardless of that fact, it doesn’t mean that their safety should be disregarded.”

When civil society groups decried the harassment of the cast members, they were missing the point. The harassment is part of a targeted campaign to silence moderate religious voices in this country.

The harassment of the cast and crew serves as a warning to moderate believers not to speak up. It is a reminder that the sole guardians of any kind of religious inquiry are the state and state-aligned preachers.

The harassment of the filmmakers is a warning for moderates not to align with outsiders to explore religious themes through art.

Art to provoke reactions

I have written about this before. Art is, by definition, an exercise in offending somebody, somewhere. If your art does not provoke any kind of reaction - good or bad - then you have failed right from the start.

It’s not to say that great art comes from an intention to provoke, merely that art of any kind should not come from a place of censorship or fear of censorship.

This is exactly what far-right or far-left political coalitions and their supporters want. They want some form of censorship and if it is self-regulated, so much the better.

And in this country, the dominant polity gets it worse. Why do you think this is? Well, because art that deviates, art that offends, art that genuinely tackles social issues go against the political and religious narratives of the state.

In this film, this young girl explores other religions in hopes of seeking answers to her questions. It really does not matter what her questions are, only that to the religious far-right, their religion and those who have control over it, provide all the answers one will ever need.

This is why moderate Muslims always preface their objections to anything that comes to religion claiming that they are not religious scholars. In no other religion do believers do this.

Most people in democratic countries who believe in God cherry-pick what they find acceptable in their religious texts and there would be no sanction from the state.

In this film, the Department of Islamic Development Malaysia (Jakim) apparently found elements “going against the creed and way of life of Muslims from the Syafie school of thought in Malaysia.”

Now, keep in mind that Jakim wants creative people to make products that advance the agenda of the Madani government.

It is right there in the public statement of Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Islamic Affairs) Mohd Na’im Mokhtar: “I would also like to advise creatives to be more careful in producing and distributing content to the public so that the government’s goals for Malaysia Madani can be achieved.”

So, of course, moderates are going to be afraid to speak up and when they do, it is with the fragile anonymity the internet provides.

This government was supposed to be a reformist government led by a progressive leader and yet a simple religious affirming story is defined by the state as something hurtful and damaging to the majority Malay community.

Meanwhile, the cretins who had no problem dressing in religious drag when it suited their political purposes and who were warned of this kind of religious chinchanery by comrades who were termed chauvinists, are as silent as church mice.

Now, of course, they have the cover of possible arson attacks if they spook the Malays.

Far-right religious voices define the film and the filmmakers and the state wage a campaign to ensure that the subject matter of the film is vilified.

How exactly are moderate voices supposed to speak up in this climate? This is exactly the point.

In 2017, the then-deputy minister in the Prime Minister's Department Asyraf Wajdi Dusuki claimed that in Malaysia, there was no freedom from religion.

He was arguing that atheism was “unconstitutional” and that while Muslims were subject to certain laws, non-Muslims needed to be reminded that: “As for non-Muslims, as we are all aware, it (atheism) goes against public order and morality laws, we have laws such as the Sedition Act 1948, where action can be taken under the law against anyone who spreads certain ideologies and doctrines, such as atheism which denies the sanctity of other religions.”

Nobody is free from religion in this country.  Read all the 9 + comments here....