.png)
World of Buzz published a recent article titled “Ex-Religious Affairs Minister: It's Haram for Muslims to participate in the ‘Secret Santa’ tradition.”
A content creator for Newswav also picked up on the topic and blew the issue up further.
I have a genuine question for these authors: what exactly was the objective of reviving this story now?
The guideline cited - former Federal Territories Mufti Dr Zulkifli Mohamad Al-Bakri’s view on Secret Santa - was issued TWO YEARS AGO. It is not new. It is not a recent clarification.
So why resurface it?
Malaysia has, over the past few years, navigated far more complex and sensitive issues - economic strain, racial rhetoric, religious tensions, and governance challenges. Yet the article chose to exhume an old ruling, frame it as a discussion starter, and end with:
“So, what do you guys think…? Do share your thoughts in the comments!”
Anyone familiar with Malaysian online discourse knows exactly what that invitation produces: long threads of judgement, moral policing, and colourful language - rarely nuanced, often weaponised.
Was that the expectation?
Let’s be clear: no prominent religious figure made new comments on Secret Santa this December. No national debate was unfolding. No workplace crisis demanded clarification. This was not journalism responding to events. This was content meant to provoke reaction.
What makes the piece even more questionable is its selective use of religious material.
The author highlighted Guideline #5091 on Dr Zulkifli’s website, where Santa Claus is forbidden due to its deep roots in Christian tradition. Fair enough. But why stop there?
Why was there no mention of Guideline #8403, where Dr Zulkifli also discusses the issue of entering houses of worship of other religions - a far more sensitive and nuanced matter than exchanging gifts at an office?
In that guideline, Dr Zulkifli demonstrates something crucial: Islamic scholarship is not monolithic. There is no single opinion that represents “the Islamic view” on many issues. Scholars have disagreed for centuries - respectfully, methodologically, and textually.
Regarding entering houses of worship of other faiths, he explains that classical scholars differed on the ruling: some considered it haram, some makruh, and others harus.
He illustrates this with historical precedent: when Caliph Umar was invited to a banquet held in a church, he personally felt uncomfortable attending and chose to abstain. However, he did not prevent others from going and even asked Caliph Ali and others to attend on his behalf.
As Dr Zulkifli explains, Muslims are encouraged to maintain and safeguard their identity and principles, while interacting respectfully with people of other faiths. This approach reflects the essence of Islam, which consistently promotes peace, coexistence, and harmony across religious communities.
He then contextualises these views within Malaysia’s multi-religious reality, concluding that the harus position is often the most appropriate, aligning with the spirit of coexistence and mutual respect. Historical examples involving Prophet Muhammad’s companions illustrate restraint, wisdom, and sensitivity - not absolutism.
Most importantly, the guideline demonstrates a core Islamic principle: Muslims are allowed - even encouraged - to understand differing scholarly opinions and make informed decisions based on context, intention, and communal harmony.
Why was this perspective excluded?
Had readers been exposed to the full breadth of Dr Zulkifli’s thinking, the conversation might have been very different. They might have understood that Islam does not operate on reflexive prohibition alone, but on discernment, balance, and social reality.
Which brings me back to the question: what was the author expecting?
To re-educate Muslims who were already navigating workplace interactions peacefully?
To embolden colleagues to “remind” Muslim friends they should opt out?
To legitimise public commentary on how others practice their faith?
Are we now crowdsourcing religious enforcement through comment sections?
If every writer begins resurrecting old religious rulings without context or balance, we will drown in manufactured outrage - endlessly reopening issues society has already learned to manage with maturity.
This is not about silencing religious views. It is about responsibility in amplifying them.
Context matters. Timing matters. Completeness matters.
Otherwise, we are not informing society - we are agitating it.
And frankly, Malaysia has enough real problems without writers digging up old controversies simply to watch the comments burn.
Fa Abdul (fa.abdul.penang@gmail.com) is a content creator under the Newswav Creator programme, where you get to express yourself, be a citizen journalist, and at the same time monetize your content & reach millions of users on Newswav. Log in to creator.newswav.com and become a Newswav Creator now!
The User Content (as defined on Newswav Terms of Use) above including the views expressed and media (pictures, videos, citations etc) were submitted & posted by the author. Newswav is solely an aggregation platform that hosts the User Content. If you have any questions about the content, copyright or other issues of the work, please contact creator@newswav.com.
