Khairulnizam Mat Karim

al-Wasatiyyah in the practice of religious tolerance among the families of new Muslims in sustaining a well-being society

Purpose - The main value in a culture of tolerance is Design/methodology/approach - The study was conducted through descriptive data qualitative methods. Purposive sampling was used which refers to a group that has the characteristics of samples required by researchers (Mohd Najib Abdul Ghafar 2003). This study applies the method of in-depth interview with the selected new Muslims around Kota Kinabalu (representing East Malaysia) and around Kuala Terengganu (representing Peninsular Malaysia/West Malaysia). Thus, data accumulation involves new Muslims (new Converts) from various ethnics (Sabahan and Sarawakian) which comprise Kadazandusun, Murut, Rungus, Sino and Iban. Secondly, those are from the Peninsular Malaysia which includes Chinese and Indian. Whereas in Kuala Terengganu, data accumulation involves new Muslims from various ethnics (Chinese, Indian, Sarawakian and others). The result of the interview is shown through descriptive narratives which display the practice of tolerance in the form of supportive interaction from the non-Muslim families towards the new Muslims in Islamic lifestyle. Findings - The concept of Originality/value - Tolerance is a culture that founded the co-existence of pluralistic society in Malaysia. The culture of tolerance can only be built if ethnic tolerance and religious tolerance is accepted as a common practice – Muslims and non-Muslims alike. The description of

Religious Leader (Islam & Christianity) Understanding of Inter-Faith Dialogue Basic Concept in Malaysia and Its Effect to Social Relations.

The objective of this study is to, (1) measure level of understanding of religious leader (Islam and Christianity) on the basic concept of interfaith dialogue, (2) analyse the factors of the understanding developed and (3) analyse its effects on their social relation. This study uses the purposive sampling method in determining the appropriate respondents and total respondents for Islam dan Christianity which are 36 and 37 respectively. The authors use the method of questionnaire in collecting data and Likert Scale (1-5) in measuring the level of understanding and its effect, which is developed as the Skala Tahap Kefahaman Dialog (STKD) and Skala Kesan Hubungan Sosial (SKHS). The authors also use the Fixed Comparison Method and the Matrix Analysis in analysing the collected data, whereby the results were descriptive in nature. A major conclusion that could be drawn from the study is, (1) the level of understanding between Muslim and Christian Religious Leaders on the basic concept of the interfaith dialogue is equal as both are in the category of “Faham (F)” the fourth level of the Skala Tahap Kefahaman Dialog (STKD). (2) The main factors which contribute to this understanding are (a) Factor 1 (F1): level of education/formal education on religion, (b) Factor 2 (F2): past experience in interfaith dialogue activities and (c) Factor 3 (F3): level of respondent religiosity. (3) Even though the level of understanding is equal for both groups of respondents but the Christian Religious Leader has a higher scale “Tinggi(T)” on the effects of the understanding towards social relation in comparison to the Muslim Religious Leader whose level of understanding is in the mid-level of “Sederhana (SD)” based on the Skala Kesan Hubungan Sosial (SKHS). Using the Matrix Analysis, the result shows that there is a correlation between the ISSN: 2201-6333 (Print) ISSN: 2201-6740 (Online) www.ijern.com 2 understandings on the interfaith dialogue basic concepts with the respondents’ social relation but it is contributed by different factors for every group of respondents. Thus, this study has found that Factor 4 (F4): Factor of Current Policy (Organization) has a heavy weightage which forms an overall average impact to the Muslim Religious Leader’s social relation only in the scale of “Sederhana (SD)”. On the other hand, the Christian Religious Leader scored “Tinggi(T)” for their social relation which is contributed by Factor 1 (F1): level of education / formal education on religion and Factor 4 (F4): Factor on the Current Policy (Organization).