….//….With Abdullah, Nazri and Zainuddin making their public stand in support of the Federal Court decision in the Lina Joy case, what is the position of the non-Umno Ministers, whether MCA, Gerakan, MIC, SUPP, PBS or other Sabah and Sarawak component parties of the Barisan Nasional?…//…” YB Kit.

They are ‘loudly’ silent. Silence is however not suggestive of consent. It is suggestive of reluctance or cowardice (depending on whether one is supporter or detractor) to state a public stand.

Lina Joy’s decision draws the axis cutting across and between muslim majority based and non muslim majority based parties.

Whether it is bad PR for the country or otherwise, PAS is with UMNO on this one. PAS spiritual advisor Nik Aziz Nik Mat likened those who have renounced Islam to army deserters because religion, like other institutions, is bound by rules. “It’s like joining the army. You can choose to join. But if you wear a uniform, start training only to desert later, you’ll be caught by the military police,” he told a press conference in Kota Baru last night – Malaysiakini reported.

The stand of most Malay muslims on the implications of Lina Joy’s decision may be speculated but not empirically known, there being no polls taken to canvass opinions. If there were any dissent by more moderate muslims on it, they certainly have not voiced it out.

The Coliseum that is part of the itinerary of every tourist visiting Rome today was in ancient time an imperial circus. Romans gathered there to be entertained by their Emperor, the Defender of the Roman Faith. They enjoyed the gore of Christians being thrown into the Coliseum to fight gladiators or face the imperial menagerie of wild beasts. Christians could be spared with royal clemency – if they converted to the Roman Gods, Jupiter and Mars by performing the ritual of burning the incense. Many refused to do so. They believed in martyrdom. It was a way to settle all scores of past sins, be redeemed and delivered to Heaven.

Against such a setting, England’s greatest playwright, second only to Shakespeare, George Bernard Shaw wrote his famous play, “Androcles and the Lion” in 1912. A meek tailor Androcles, a Christian, fleeing persecution in Rome, befriends a lion after pulling a painful thorn from its paw. Captured by Caesar’s men, Androcles is sent to the Coliseum to face the lions along with other Christians captured including Ferrovius, a fierce fighter, Lavinia, a beautiful aristocrat with whom the Captain of Roman Centurion Legion falls in love and is smitten, Spintho, who always seeks martyrdom. The Christians refuse to burn the incense. All want to be martyrs and die for their faith. They only know how strong is their faith and what it means for them as the hour of trial approaches.

Spintho, who always wants to be a martyr but is weak, chickens out at the eleventh hour, runs accidentally into an area where lions are kept and dies ignominiously by being eaten by them. Ferrovius, also wanting to be a martyr faces the gladiators to be killed by them but in the last minute, the warrior part of him gets the better, he fights back and kills all many of the gladiators. The Emperor is so pleased that he offers Ferrovius a position of honour and luxury as the Emperor’s gladiators and he accepts it. Ferrovius has found his true calling, and martyrdom can wait.

The Captain pleads with Lavinia to burn the incense and be spared. He says it is a sin to gratify the lust of the mob gathered there to see the limbs of a woman being torn by lions. What is the big deal of burning the incense? What is she dying for? He says, after all no respectable and educated Roman or even the Emperor believes in the fables stories and miracles of the Roman Gods, Jupiter, Diana and Mars anymore than Christians. He wants her to live and marry him. (Lavinia is also attracted to the Captain. She describes him as handsome and distinguished.)

But she will not burn the incense. She asks the captain, why would he want to marry a woman who is a coward and have children taking after her in cowardice? In Lavinia, the play’s central theme is revealed – one must have something worth dying for–an end outside oneself–to make that life worth living.

The situation resolves itself in an unexpected way. A big hungry lion enters the arena, snarling aggressively. The Lion suddenly recognizes Androceles as one who pulls a painful thorn from its paw. It becomes happy purring kitten full of happiness and joy and embraces Androceles in a waltz. The Emperor is amazed and declares that if Christians have such powers, he too would convert to Christianity. He pardons the Christians.

Androcles and the Lion uses slapstick humour, verbal wit and physical humour in outlining Shaw’s themes.

Shaw explains some of these themes in the preface to the play. He says that his Christians – how each reacts and holds his/her faith and what it means for each at the supreme hour of trial – are true for all faithfuls of all times.

His says that the persecution of the Christians by the Romans and the Emperor as the defender of their faith (Jupiter, Diana and Mars) is also a persecution that is recurring at all times. But what is the object of persecution? Is it because of different interpretation and beliefs of a different faith inclusive of the rites, the many stories and parables of miracles and what a faith could do or over the Almighty Himself?

Shaw says that persecution is always in defense of vested interest (of power and/or wealth and privileges). His persecuted and persecutor are the persecuted and persecutor of all times.

In reference to Jesus, Shaw says that the vested interests of Jewish clergy were threatened by Jesus and his teachings of being King of Jews and used his driving of money-changers out of the temple as an excuse to persecute him.

Roman Governor Pilate was actually willing to give Jesus a way out. Pilate went out to the Jews again, and told them, “I find no crime in him. But you have a custom that I should release one man for you at the Passover; will you have me release for you the King of the Jews or Barab’bas? (Barabbas was a robber) The mob gathered there cried out again, “Not this man, but Barab’bas – free Barab’bas!” (John 18:33-40)

The choice of Barabbas thus appears as a popular choice of the militant advocate of physical force as against the unresisting advocate of mercy. The moral of the story those who are militant always get their way, even often the wrong way whilst the advocate of peace, dialogue, calm and rationality get sidelined.

End of the story in the Play Androcles and the Lion. My apologies to all for the long post & story telling.