The disunity of the Muslim community, ironically, often thrives in a climate that upholds unity, a perplexing

phenomenon that requires in-depth examination. Although Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama'ah (ASWJ) is officially

accepted as the main methodology in Malaysia, tensions between groups continue to spread, questioning the

effectiveness of the ideals of wasatiyyah and tasamuh in practical application. Previous studies often stopped at

textual descriptions of ASWJ principles, failing to uncover how they interact or fail to interact with contemporary

In Malaysia, which staunchly declares Islam as the religion of the Federation, ironically we are often presented

with episodes of escalating religious misunderstanding. This is truly disappointing. Although Ahl al-Sunnah wa

al-Jama'ah (ASWJ) is upheld as the official methodology an ideological umbrella supposedly promoting

moderation and tolerance religious polemics remain a thorn in the side of society. Public debates that tear apart

the fabric of communal brotherhood, sometimes ending in dangerous labeling, reflect an implicit failure to fully

embrace the principles of wasatiyyah and tasamuh. It is as if there is a gaping chasm between the beautiful

doctrines extolled from Friday pulpits and the harsh reality on the ground, where narrow views and petty

extremism seem to find space. This not only causes great damage to social stability but also tarnishes the image

The long history of the narrative of wasatiyyah and tasamuh in Islam, especially that which relies on the

framework of Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama'ah (ASWJ), is often depicted as a middle path that saves the community

from left and right extremes. Scholars such as al-Qaradawi (2000) vociferously position wasatiyyah as the core

of civilizational building, emphasizing the balance between worldly and otherworldly, individual and society,

rationality and revelation—a seemingly complete and ideal view. Similarly, the view of tasamuh is proclaimed

as sharia-based tolerance, allowing space for diversity without compromising faith, as discussed by Muhammad

Uthman El-Muhammady (1993) in the Malaysian context. However, the reality of applying these concepts,

particularly in the social and political arena of Malaysia, is often far from theoretical perfection. There is a clear

tension. Muhammad Faiz Azzam et al. (2020) may argue that ASWJ provides a strong bulwark against

pressures and diverse religious interpretations. We often see elegant definitions, but less observation on 'how'

and 'why' they fail to function effectively. Some other scholars (e.g., Hairudin Harun, 2019) touch upon the

challenges of contextual interpretations of wasatiyyah, acknowledging that what is considered 'middle' in one

place might be seen as 'extreme' elsewhere, or an unprincipled 'compromise'. This creates confusion, an

ambiguity that opens space for subjective interpretations, ultimately undermining the validity of the concept

itself. They tend to view this problem purely from a theological perspective, ignoring the more complex

sociological and psychological dimensions. Furthermore, discussions on tasamuh are often limited to the context

of inter-religious relations, whereas the issue of tolerance among Muslims themselves between schools of

thought, intellectual currents, or da'wah groups is often marginalized. This issue, which is far more sensitive,

requires deeper research, a matter severely lacking in the existing body of literature. Some argue (e.g., Zulkifli

This study is fundamentally a conceptual analysis based entirely on the literature review method. There are no

field surveys, no interviews, let alone experiments it is desk research, excavating and dissecting meaning from

texts. Why choose this method? Because the challenges we face are not merely problems of raw data, but

problems of interpretation, problems of deep understanding of how abstract concepts like wasatiyyah and

tasamuh truly function in the minds and actions of society. This method provides space to delve into theological,

sociological, and historical nuances often overlooked in empirical studies that focus too much on measurement.

The data collection process involved searching and filtering academic documents, such as peer-reviewed

journals, books, conference proceedings, and research reports from various disciplines especially the fields of

Islamic studies, political science, and sociology of religion. We specifically focused on works discussing

comparison and contrast of different perspectives, seeking commonalities and differences, and identifying gaps

in existing understanding. Third, the synthesis of extracted concepts to construct a more robust analytical

framework, capable of explaining the role and challenges of wasatiyyah and tasamuh in the harmony of

We deliberately excluded overly dogmatic or apologetic views, instead prioritizing reflective and critical

analyses that acknowledge the complexity and ambiguity in every interpretation. This is an effort to move beyond

common rhetoric and achieve a more substantive, honest understanding of how these principles operate in the

real world. The conceptual framework built from this synthesis will not only explain the problems but also offer

a new lens for viewing solutions, or at least, understanding why existing solutions often fail. We are building an

intellectual map, not merely listing what already exists. Therefore, the strength of this methodology lies in the

ideas, something impossible to achieve with superficial data alone. This is a method that demands patience,

intellectual sharpness, and the willingness to keep questioning, even texts considered authoritative. It is a heavy

rhetorical tool, sometimes used to reject any view that does not align with the dominant narrative, thus losing its

appeal as a unifying force. We observe how 'moderation' is sometimes equated with 'conformity to the status

quo', neglecting the spirit of change and justice that should be at the core of wasatiyyah. The second very

noticeable theme is the profound challenge in operationalizing tasamuh, or tolerance. Although often proclaimed,

its practical application in Malaysian Muslim society is frequently limited to tolerance towards followers of other

religions even then, with strict boundaries. However, when it involves differences of opinion among Muslims

themselves, especially on issues of fiqh or da'wah methodology, tasamuh seems to vanish, swallowed by

animosity. We see how labels like 'deviant' or 'liberal' are easily thrown around, hindering constructive dialogue

and fragmenting the community. In reality, true tasamuh requires maturity to accept differences in interpretation

within the permissible scope of sharia, something that is clearly still lacking. Third, the ASWJ methodology,

critical of a single narrative. Fourth, there is a significant gap between official rhetoric and the reality of

grassroots society. Religious institutions often promote wasatiyyah and tasamuh through lectures and sermons,

yes, but this message often fails to resonate well with a society increasingly exposed to various schools of

thought, including extremist ones, through social media. This is a war of narratives. Official messages,

sometimes delivered in a dry and dogmatic manner, cannot compete with the appeal of more emotional and

concise radical narratives. Consequently, trust in traditional institutions begins to erode, leaving a vacuum easily

filled by more divisive ideologies. Finally, it was found that identity politics plays an undeniable role in shaping,

and even damaging, the embodiment of wasatiyyah and tasamuh. When religious affiliations are overly

politicized, these principles are easily sacrificed to gain group support. It becomes a tool, not an objective. Party

or individual interests often override the priority of communal unity, causing the principles of wasatiyyah and

for concepts that we ourselves consider the cornerstone of unity. When wasatiyyah can be dragged in any

direction by anyone with a platform it loses credibility. It is no longer a compass pointing towards balance, but

rather a mirror reflecting the biases and interests of different groups, a rhetorical tool easily distorted. This is

truly disheartening. This situation raises a profound question about the effectiveness of our religious institutions

in shaping public understanding, because if even the basic message fails to be uniformly understood, how can

we expect unity of action? Perhaps this failure also stems from a tendency to teach religion dogmatically, without

emphasizing the ability to think critically and empathetically. Overly conservative views, often entrenched in

official institutions, may have inadvertently narrowed the scope of wasatiyyah, causing it to be seen as a

backward path, not a progressive one. We need to stop clinging to rigid old definitions. Furthermore, the inability

of the Muslim community to practice tasamuh among themselves especially in differences of fiqh or theological

religious relations but not intra-religious ones is flawed, defective, and dishonest tolerance. It is merely a mask.

This raises suspicion that the problem is not the absence of the principle of tasamuh, but rather intellectual ego

and the inability to accept that truth may have multiple facets, even within the same sharia boundaries. It seems

so that it can foster more open and inclusive thinking, in line with global realities. The failure of institutions to

compete with alternative narratives, especially from social media, should also serve as a harsh reminder. It

demands that we think strategically about how the message of wasatiyyah and tasamuh can be conveyed in a

more engaging, relevant, and easily understood manner to a younger generation exposed to various ideologies.

This requires more than just Friday sermons; it requires more proactive and innovative engagement in

cyberspace, a new battlefield for minds. Finally, the involvement of identity politics in religious issues has

poisoned the ability of wasatiyyah and tasamuh to function as agents of unity. When religious principles are

instrumentalized for political gain, their value erodes, and they become bland. This indicates that the solution to

the problem of harmony lies not only in theological correction but also requires a reform in how politics interacts

with religion. This is a systemic challenge that requires political courage to separate the domain of religion from