Today, I want to break away from politics for a short while and talk about a subject many do not like to talk about — Islam. Tomorrow, I shall continue my story about the Royal Malaysian Police. We have to allow the boys in blue at least two days to absorb what I have written thus far. If we move too fast they may not be able to keep up with us.
Many don’t like me talking about Islam. They also want to know why I only ‘whack’ Islam and not any of the other religions.
In the first place, I DO NOT whack Islam. Yes, I whack Muslims. But I do not whack Islam. And I am certainly not in the business of whacking the other religions, any religion for that matter.
So why do I persistently talk about Islam? Simple, because Islam is the official religion of this country — so Islam touches our everyday life. There is nothing we do or say that Islam does not somehow, either in a big or small way, decide whether what we do or say is allowed or forbidden.
For example, when Muslims make police reports against anyone perceived as being anti-establishment or pro-opposition, they always say it is to defend the dignity of Islam, the Malays, the Monarchy, and so on. They say that the Internal Security Act must be retained because it is needed to defend the rights of the Malays and the dignity of Islam. Every move they make, democratic or otherwise, is for the sake of Islam. Or so they argue.
So how do we separate Islam from our daily lives? A non-Muslim who has a relationship or affair with a Muslim is said to have done something wrong because the other partner is a Muslim. Non-Muslims who employ Muslims in their pubs or discos commit a crime because Muslims must not handle liquor. Non-Muslims who sell beer to Muslims commit a crime because Muslims are forbidden from drinking. Non-Muslim employees who refuse to allow their Muslim staff time off for prayers would be in trouble with the government. Non-Muslims living next door to a mosque who complain about the ‘noise’ would get death threats — that is if they are lucky enough to escape ISA detention. And so on and so forth, the list is endless.
If non-Muslims raise any issue they would be reminded that this is a Muslim country and they do so at their own peril. They can even get detained without trial or charged for sedition for complaining about certain Islamic policies or issues related to Islam.
Malaysian politics is almost always about Islam. Malays would be told if they vote for the opposition then the Kafir (infidels) would be calling the shots. Lim Guan Eng is a Kafir who controls the Kafir government of Penang. So Malays are being subjected to a Kafir regime. Nizar may be a Muslim and from PAS, an Islamic party, but the Kafir is the real power behind the throne in Perak. Nizar is just a puppet of the Kafir. That was why he needed to be ousted even though it was done undemocratically and in violation of the Constitution. Islam comes first and democracy can be suspended or overridden for the sake of Islam.
The bottom line is, Islam is always credited — or blamed, as the case may be — for whatever these Malays do because they claim they are doing it in the name of Islam and for the sake of Islam. But in most cases Islam is not really the reason for their actions. What they do is not what Islam asks us to do. Islam is merely the camouflage used by these people to give legitimacy to their actions, in most instances which are anti-Islamic to start off with — such as the ISA, NEP, and so on.
Until these people who abuse the name of Islam to cover their evil deeds and to give legitimacy to their illegal acts stop doing so, Islam will forever come under the spotlight. And until then we must also continue talking about Islam, not in an attempt to give Islam bad publicity, but so that these fakes, called Munafik in Islamic lingo, can be exposed for what they really are.
Now, I also whack non-Muslims as well. I whack those non-Muslims who try to give an impression that they are experts on Islam and then make uncomplimentary or negative statements about Islam.
These people, the non-Muslims, have never gone to a madrasah or Islamic college or university to receive tutoring in Islam. But they talk as if they have a diploma or degree in Islamic studies. Then they support their arguments with a copy-and-paste job, information they obtained from the Internet, in particular from anti-Islamic websites. And then they say, “This is the proof that Islam is no good, violent, etc.”
There are those who keep posting, over and over again, the YouTube video of a small boy allegedly being punished under Hudud law for stealing some bread. They held the small boy down and used a truck to roll over his arm. The video is not a fake. But it is a video of a magic show or something like that, not of a small boy being punished under Hudud law for stealing some bread.
In cases like these I would certainly get upset. I would never defend any cruelty to children — especially if it is for a minor crime like stealing some bread. But this a lie being perpetuated, over and over again, about the so-called cruelty of Hudud, supported by so-called evidence, the YouTube video. How, therefore, can I allow this to pass unchallenged?
What if I were to copy-and-paste the Gospel by Barnabas and whack the Christians? Hey, I have ‘evidence’, and the ‘evidence’ is the Gospel by Barnabas. I searched the Internet and found this Gospel on one anti-Christian website. So I copy-and-paste it for my article and that now makes me an unchallenged expert on Christianity. And I now openly challenge the Bishop to a debate so that I can publicly prove that Christianity, as being practiced now, is false and that the ‘real’ Christianity is like what is mentioned in the Quran, not like what is stated in the ‘false’ Bible — and this is proven beyond any shadow of doubt by the cut-and-paste Gospel that I have found on an anti-Christian website set up by a Muslim.
I am not saying that Islam is a sacred cow. And this is the trouble with Muslims; they want Islam to be regarded as a sacred cow. If you keep Islam personal then this would no doubt be a reasonable demand. But when Islam touches everyone’s lives, non-Muslims included, then it becomes ‘public property’ and the public, non-Muslims included, have every right to comment on Islam.
But what is comment and what is insult? I can comment, but I should not insult. And this is where many do not understand the difference between the two. They feel that commenting also means the freedom to insult. And this is when the problem begins. Have you noticed that Muslims (at least learned Muslims — although there are some stupid ones who try to comment on something they know nothing about) are very careful about commenting on other religions lest they accidentally insult the other religions?
Muslims regard the Prophets of the other religions as also Prophets of Islam. And from the beginning of time there were supposed to be 124,000 Prophets in all, according to the Muslim belief. And EVERY community has a Prophet; sometimes some communities have more than one Prophet at one time. But only 25 Prophets are mentioned by name in the Quran. This means 123,975 more Prophets are unknown. Could Buddha be one of them? Could be, who knows, since there are no names mentioned for 123,975 of the Prophets.
Only stupid and unlearned Muslims would whack the other religions. And those non-Muslims who whack Islam are also stupid and unlearned. And when you collect ‘evidence’ from anti-Islamic websites to support your arguments, then you are even more ignorant than you realise.
On another point, some non-Muslim readers like to copy-and-paste so-called Hadith to support their anti-Islam bashing. They will copy-and-paste a saying or story that is supposed to be ‘authentic’ and gleefully say, “There you are. This is the proof.”
Why do you think Muslims get upset with this cheap shot? Even amongst Muslims there are disagreements as to which Hadith are authentic and which are fakes. There are supposed to be 700,000 Hadith in all. Some Muslims accept only 7,000 of them. Others accept only 5,000. And there are some who accept only 500. Then we have those who reject the entire 700,000 and will not accept even one as authentic.
But we have these non-Muslim readers of Malaysia Today who consider themselves an authority and expert on Islam who cut-and-paste one of the disputed and not unanimously accepted Hadith and say, “There you are, this is proof that Islam sucks.”
As I said, if I were to copy-and-paste the Gospel by Barnabas and say to the Christians, “This is proof that your brand of Christianity is bullshit,” how do you think they would feel? Well, that is the same way I, as would many Muslims, feel — a cheap shot below the belt aimed at smearing Islam in an unfair and unprofessional manner.
So you really do not know much about Islam as what you think you do. Hell, even many Muslims who think they know so much about Islam actually know very little. What they know are merely old wives tales and superstition, which they think is Islam but in reality are mere fables. So please refrain from commenting and then being very smug about it. And anti-Islam websites would be the last source I would depend on to support my anti-Islam bashing. That would be like asking Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad to say nice things about Anwar Ibrahim.