Most people who analyse the politics of race and religion tend to think that there are only three major ethnic groups in Malaysia, the Malays, the Chinese and the Indians. We tend to forget that there are something like 70 major ethnic communities living together in the imagined space of our nation.

All Malays are Muslims, by constitutional definition. (Are all Muslims in Malaysia classified as Malays, and if not, why not? Which comes first for the defining identity of the Malay/Muslim community, race or religion?) The other ethnic communities however, tend to be pluralistic in their religious belief.

Living in this land of varied faiths, it must be confusing for the followers of any religion, at times. Daily, we are bombarded by the messages, information, symbols, rituals, dress codes, and the sights and sounds that emanate from the practice of our kaleidoscopic array of religious worship. Our annual calendar is dotted with public holidays set aside for our various religious celebrations.

Casting our glance around the world, and witnessing the clash of religious faiths that is tearing asunder many nation-states and geo-political regions, we may congratulate ourselves for our success in being a pretty religious nation generally, while developing a decent healthy tolerance for other people's religious beliefs.

Tolerance comes with a price of course, sometimes at the expense of the purity and clarity of our religious faith. This must be especially succinct for followers of monotheistic beliefs, the Muslims, the Christians and the Jews.

(I am told that one of the most misunderstood religions is Hinduism. It is actually a monotheistic religion and rich in philosophy. Since I know practically nothing about Hundu theology, I am awaiting a basic lesson from my enlightened Hindu friends out there. Could anybody oblige, without trying to convert me?)

A mountain of research

In the short span given to me on earth, I have done some cursory study of some religions, from books and from living in our multi-cultural Malaysia. Max Weber's work on this subject is illuminating. In general, the scope and depth of study needed to understand the different faiths of our land is simply mind-boggling. I sometimes wonder if it is humanly possible.

Just imagine! All these great religions with massive following come to us from thousands of years of their respective traditions. To understand all their histories thoroughly would take a few lifetimes. Even within any one faith, for any believer to study the long history of the twists and turns of his religious faith through the millennia will take many decades of full-time research.

Then, there is the mountainous depository of religious writings that each ancient religion has accumulated through the ages, anything from various versions of the holy books, hermeneutic interpretations of the divinely-revealed words contained in those books, and the endless liturgical debates going on through past eons on the most contentious theological issues that have plagued and divided the community of the faithful.

Among the various arenas of human interest, no other subject can inspire more devotion, awe, meditation, reflection, speculation than religion. Religious writings have always topped the best selling list since the printing press was developed in Europe a couple of hundred years ago. The Christian Bible is still the most read publication in the West today. The same can also be said about the Koran in countries with a Muslim majority.

In the face of such a treasure trove of inspired reflection and scholarly learning, whatever I think or say about any religion must be regarded as incomplete, if not down right superficial. Nevertheless, think and say about religion I must, as if not thinking about it is possible for me or any other human soul.

Here I observe that all the three most auspicious forms of monotheism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam seem to have shared the same source of divine revelation. While they differ radically in many important dogmas on specific issues, they seem to share the same idea of a Supreme Being which is described in very similar concepts.

What perplexes me to no end is this: why should the three different versions of the same Supreme Being lead to endless warfare and mutual persecution from time immemorial? Are they not all, strictly speaking, People of the Book, and share membership in a very exclusive club?

Mere difference in specific dogmas and doctrines alone will not explain the horrible antagonism between the followers of the various faiths. Religious differences are a fact of life among all human civilisations, but they do not always generate such fervour to the extent of creating rivers of blood in the name of their Deity.

The Supreme Being

The perplexity is even more profound when one considers that various sects and denominations inevitably emerge in these forms of monotheistic belief, and they would soon set upon their fellow faithful in peace and in war, in the defence of the true faith.

It cannot be the Supreme Being that goes by various names who is at fault, since the concept of a Supreme Being already encompasses perfection. On their own terms then, there is something disturbing about the fallibility in the way fallible humans try to interpret the perfect will of a Supreme Being.

In short, it is probable that schism and hatred are the nature of very imperfect human believers of a perfect God.

A senior Catholic priest once told me he would have no problem conversing reasonably with a Muslim theologian. He sank into pregnant silence when I asked why there were so many conflicts between laymen and laywomen of different faiths all over the world.

Among all faiths that have organised into massive structures that govern or co-ordinate worldwide movements, there has always been this dialectical tension between the clerics and their lay believers of course. It would be all too easy to declare that ordinary people do not understand the true teaching of the holy books, and so need the enlightened and scholarly guidance of the clerics. This is probably true in most instances, and that is why classes in religious instruction are crucial for the group coherence of the faithful.

"Group cohesion" is perhaps the key term in understanding the enigma of organised religion.

These monotheistic religious beliefs are always social phenomena. The more modern liberal interpretation of religion may emphasise faith as a key to direct personal relationship between human individuals and the divine. Yet, it is a universal social fact that all religious beliefs are communal actions. People inevitably worship in a community. Even the odd reclusive mystic has presupposed that very community from which he has retired.

It is a social fact that whenever people are organised into communities, they enter into political relationship with one another. Religious organisations are no exceptions; they are political by nature.

My Muslim friends like to claim that Islam is a complete way of life, and therefore it cannot be divorced from politics. What I suspect, is that all organised religions have this tacit or explicit human will to political power. In ancient times, old civilisations tended to be ruled by a king with a mandate from the supernatural as his legitimating principle. And it took some bloody turns of events - among many other things - for the Catholic Church to release their grip on secular affairs of the state.

Collective interest

How is this so? Well, whenever people are organised, personal and group interests are at stake. The organisations are the product of the individual member's detour towards the protection and furtherance of his interest. The organisation must then think and act in unison to protect and further the collective interest of the members.

Unfortunately however, unlike other modes of human organisations, organised religions tend to assert their human will to power in the protection of their earthly interests from a supernatural and often absolutist position, thereby excluding all other possibilities of truth other than their own.

When fervent faith and other burning religious sentiments accompany that fallible human will to power, violent clashes are both logical and phenomenological. In short, the clash of civilisations and religious communities arise because too many puny insignificant human individuals claim to have access to eternal, transcendental, divine truth, when in fact they are simply seeking the transient, temporal, external, natural goods needed for biological survival.

Without faith, there is no religious belief. In the language of revealed religion, without faith, there is no possibility of salvation, and reunion with the Divine. But the faith of human beings has meaning precisely because we do not have the possibility of perfect knowledge, i.e., knowledge of the Divine Supreme Being. In these days when there are no longer prophets, no mortal humans - clerics and laity alike - receive instruction from the Supreme Being through Pos Laju or e-mail. Any claim to a perfect knowledge from an absolutist metaphysical centre must be cast into rational doubt.

Fortunately, we are left with our reason, no matter how limited and imperfect human reason can be. Reason is the most precious gift from the Supreme Being. Also we reason with language, no matter how imperfect our words are. The existence of reason manifest in our language seems to dictate that we temper our faith with reason. What true believers may need to nurture, is not blind faith, but reasoned faith steeped in thinking and discussions.

If that is that case, our relationship with the faithful of another religion ought to be grounded, not upon condescending tolerance alone, but on humility and love, and a readiness to talk reasonably with our neighbours.

Is not "Love thy neighbour" a universal virtue taught by all great religions?