Sun, sex and Muslim tourism

Mariam Mokhtar | November 1, 201 | Free Malaysia Today

The president of the extremist NGO Ikatan Musliman Malaysia (ISMA), Abdullah Zaik Abdul Rahman said that Muslim tourists from the Middle East would “cringe” at the manner in which the government promotes “infidel religions”, like Hinduism.

Zaik claimed that Muslim tourists “looked up to Malaysia as a modern Islamic country” and he issued a thinly veiled warning that Umno Baru president, Najib Tun Razak should maintain religious harmony.

ISMA objected to the Sri Sundaraja Perumal Hindu temple renovation in Klang, because the effort involved in the upgrade would imperil Malaysia’s image as a “model Islamic country”.

If anyone is wrong, it is ISMA. Multi-cultural Malaysia, and its present liberal stance, attracts Muslims from the Middle East; but once we become as extremist and intolerant as ISMA, or some middle-eastern nations, we might as well wave goodbye to all those middle-eastern petro-dollars which the nation currently enjoys.

Zaik and other members of ISMA should travel to Bangkok, Phuket, Jakarta, Manila or London, to witness the major attractions for Muslims tourists.

Zaik may be delightfully surprised to find that many “unhealthy, infidel practises” are a magnet for the Muslim tourist who finds that being in these countries is liberating, unlike the repressive and stifling atmosphere which he faces in his own country.

London’s Hyde Park and the banks of the Serpentine in summer are bathed in a sea of black robed middle-eastern women walking hand in hand with their husbands. Young middle-eastern women, in western clothing, drive or are seen clinging to young men, safe in the knowledge that they will not be accosted by their religious police.

Zaik will find many similarities between the Malaysian Muslims and the middle-eastern Muslims who choose to go to places which are free of people, who share the views of ISMA.

Many of the Londoners are angry that their city is hijacked for three months of the year, every summer, by the middle-easterners who take over the centre of their city and treat their roads as racing tracks. These rich playboys are like the infamous Umno-Baruputra children who run riot in Kuala Lumpur.

The rich middle-easterners think they own the city, they park indiscriminately, they drive recklessly, they do not pay their parking fines and they drive without insurance. Their cars are often impounded.

Total disgrace

The night clubs are full of young middle-eastern men and women enjoying themselves, whilst the casinos are full of middle-eastern men, spending their money on a past-time which they cannot enjoy in their own homelands.

Zaik must know that Thailand, a Buddhist nation, attracts large numbers of tourists from the Middle East. By day, the temples have not proved a deterrent to these tourists; nor have the nightspots in Patpong, been off-limits to any of their men-folk.

Last September, ISMA declared that syariah law should be the only law that is practiced in Malaysia and last week, continued their uncompromising stand, saying that the ban on the word ‘Allah’ should be applied to all Christians throughout Malaysia. ISMA alleges that the ‘Allah’ debacle is an attempt to convert Malays to Christianity.

ISMA demanded to know why the Bible should be translated into Malay and said that Chinese and Indian Christians read Bibles in English. He then said that Christians in East Malaysia did not necessarily read Malay Bibles and said, “Malay bibles are published in a larger number than the Christians themselves. Which means, to whom are they meant to be distributed?” (sic)

Zaik is wrong, again. He claims that our moderate Muslim image is at risk, but Malaysia’s moderate credentials were destroyed by the extremists like Hasan Ali, Ibrahim Ali and organisations like Perkasa.

Najib delights in telling the world that Malaysia is a “moderate Muslim nation”, but his failure to make his country practise what he preaches, is a total disgrace.

Keen to cultivate the friendship of foreign heads of state and mindful of their investments, Najib thrives on the false image that he has presented to them.

These leaders either do not know, or have chosen to ignore, that Malaysians back home are subjected to one of the most intolerant societies and unjust rules ever imposed on a modern quasi-democratic state.

He has not accepted that he is responsible for the deep divisions in society, nor has he shown remorse for encouraging the attacks, both verbal and physical, on the non-Muslims and non-Malays.

Najib’s inability to censure the extremists and advise them that non-Muslims have a right to practice their religion freely, have shown us precisely why he is not fit to lead Malaysia.

The irony is that a conservative Malaysia has no appeal to the tourists from the Middle East. Zaik has a difficult choice.

Would he prefer a multi-cultural moderate Malaysia which attracts an influx of middle-eastern wealth and all the benefits or drawbacks which this brings? Or would he prefer the purity of a truly religious and conservative Muslim nation, like Iran or the Yemen?

p/s: Happy Deepavali to everyone

Mariam Mokhtar is a FMT columnist.

An Open Letter to PAS on ‘Allah’

FMT LETTER: From Jason Seong , via e-mail

First of all, I would like to state that the Sultan of Selangor, a truly people-oriented ruler and a down-to-earth figure, has been terribly ill-advised on the issue of the kalimah Allah. As one who embodies the role of Guardian of Islam in the state, the Sultan must realise that no decree of an Islamic council can bind non-Muslims. We are not under the jurisdiction of Syariah law.

Secondly, non-Muslims are now wondering how is the slogan, “PAS for all” consistent or compatible with the decision by the Syura Council to “forbid” Christians (and by extension, Sikhs and adherents of other faiths) from translating the word, “Allah” in the Bible ( and by extension the Holy Scriptures of the other non-Muslim faiths).

It is illogical to suppose that one can use the word, “Allah” in oral form but not in written form. After all, the meaning underlying both type of linguistic forms would be the same. Furthermore, how is this different from Umno’s move to impose a ban? This being the case, why should Christians support PAS?

As it is, forbidding non-Muslims from using the word, “Allah” whether in speech or text absolutely violates Article of 11 of the Constitution which provides for the freedom of religion as expressed in both profession and practice. It is a question of non-Muslim’s fundamental right to freedom of religion.

“Profession” here would correspond to verbal & written declaration of one’s faith; “practice” relates to ritual habits of non-Muslims as expressed in the divine liturgy for many Christians which would not only contain Bible readings but also follow a pre-scripted text.

PAS needs to ask why is it that Christians in the Middle East do not face such a situation? In fact, there are quite a few questions which PAS must face. How is the prohibition compatible with Islam as an Abrahamic religion? How is it compatible with Christians as “People of the Book”?

After all, there has never ever been such a decree within Judaism prohibiting Christians from claiming the Old Testament as part of their Holy Scriptures. And not least, Muslims have never ever been prohibited by Christians in the West from claiming that the prophets in the Quran refer to the prophets in the Old Testament and the Gospels.

Has this to do with the growing Islamisation in Malaysia? Islamisation can only breed even more extreme forms of Islam. That is the trajectory. In the Palestinian Territories, Hamas must now contend with Salafis and both are at each other’s throats. Pakistan’s current problems with religious extremism can be traced to the Islamisation initiated by Zia ul-Haq.

In a sense, the country is a failed state. Many Iranians, especially the young, are disillusioned with the rule of ayatollahs. In Indonesia, religious intolerance is rising since the downfall of Suharto. And of course, terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiah (JI) consider themselves as “pure” Muslims. But I digress.

PAS must come to terms with the concrete reality of the situation. Non-Muslims respect Islam’s universally exclusive claims. But these claims however central cannot be imposed on non-Muslims. More over, the trend can become a dangerous precedent in the future.

The claim of the oneness of Allah as affirmed in the opening statement of the Syura Council’s “decree” that God is unbegotten and begets not presupposes and implies the Christian understanding of the Trinity. This is consistent with the Quran’s claim that it stands in the lineage of the Gospels albeit as the pure and uncorrupted form of divine revelation.

Is PAS going to next forbid Christians from referring to Jesus as the Son of God since He is Nabi Isa the son of Maryam in the Quran? After all, Jesus as the Son of God and Trinity goes together.

Or to put in another way, Jesus as the Son of Allah is also Allah the Son which of course is blasphemous and scandalous to Muslims. PAS has to realise that the concept of the oneness of God is not unique to Islam alone or even the Abrahamic religions.

It is also worth repeating here that Sikhism is monotheistic and Sikhs refer to their God as Allah. Even Hinduism in its original form is monotheistic. Just as Judaism and Islam understand monotheism in one way, so do Christians (and Sikihism and Hinduism understand monotheism in another way.

The Christian concept of the Trinity is not a concept. The oneness of God is not a mathematical one where you and I can count 1, 2,, 3 … and so on. It is beyond affirmation and negation. It is not a “thing,” and it is not also not-not a “thing.” In other words, it is beyond this world – intellectually and empirically.

That is to say, the oneness of God does not share the same logical status with human logic and experience so that oneness of God is opposed to the multiplicity of creation. But that God is both, simultaneously, one and three – “numbers” of which are absolutely unique and without parallel. God is both unity and multiplicity.

The unity of God is found in the Father the Almighty and the multiplicity of God is expressed in the eternal begottenness of the Son and the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit. God’s oneness, therefore, is “structured” around the divine Persons. God’s oneness is not a solitary oneness but a “social oneness” – a paradox to the human mind.

The closest analogy is the human family where propagation is physical and takes place in time and space takes place.

It is my sincere wish and hope that, especially for the sake of my East Malaysian, Orang Asli and Indonesian brothers and sisters in the faith, that good sense would prevail out of this controversy. Let us strive to respect, understand and accommodate one another in the spirit of national unity and Bangsa Malaysia.

I appeal to PAS not to infringe on the fundamental right of the Christians in Malaysia but rather work for solutions that would preserve both the parties’ concern and also of the non-Muslims who are anxious about the forthcoming general election.

From : Free Malaysia Today

Allah is not the problem. Mankind is.

FMT LETTER: From Lembu Susu, via e-mail

I wish to share my thoughts to laypersons and have intentionally omitted quoting scriptures from both the Quran and the Bible, so as to make it easy reading for both divide.

1 The word ‘Allah’ is meant only for Muslims and for all who hold the view that there is only one God, according to the PAS Majlis Syura. This view resonates well with the majority of Muslims in Malaysia. The non-Muslims and the Christians must understand that the reason PAS does not allow the word ‘Allah’ in the Bible translation was because of theological reason.

Christians hold the view that God is a Trinity; that is, the belief in a Triune God (God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Though the Christians maintained that they believe in One God, but the concept of Trinity was unacceptable in Islam. Hence, if the Christians were to use the word ‘Allah’ for their God, then, it will not represent correctly the ‘Allah’ of the Muslim God.

2 The Christians, on the other hand, have a problem if they use the word ‘Allah’ without qualification. The problem is that the ‘Allah’ of the Bible is not the same as the ‘Allah’ of the Quran. For example, the Christians believe the Bible teaches monogamous marriages, but in the Quran, polygamy is allowed, albeit with certain conditions.

Moreover, in the Quran, jihad also involves wiping out infidels, which is not advocate at all in the New Testament of the Bible. Hence, when the Christians use the word ‘Allah’ for God, they have to clarify, that though the word ‘Allah’ is the same word being used for ‘God’ by both the Christians and the Muslims, yet, the ‘Allah’ revealed in the Bible is different from the ‘Allah’ in the Quran.

3 The bottom line is this: ‘Allah’ is just a word to denote ‘God’. It is how you will fill that word with meaning. This is where the teachings in the Quran and in the Bible gives meaning to the word  ‘Allah’ by each religion.

4 But if we were to look it in another angle, actually, Allah is greater than any human words can express. Allah cannot be confined to a word. The word is only necessary to help man connect to Him, but He is greater than a word. In fact, there is no word that is sufficient to address Him. He is beyond words. He cannot be reduced to just a word, ‘Allah’. He is greater than any words mankind can call Him.

5 So, on ‘Allah’s side, there is no issue for the Muslims and there is no issue for the Christians. He will never be confused by the Christians or by the Muslims.

6 As for Muslims and Christians, there were also no confusion with the word ‘Allah’, as the years has proven. It is how you fill the meaning of the word ‘Allah’ with. The teachings from the Quran and the Bible will give understanding and meaning to that word, by each one’s religion accordingly.

7 Every person will believe his or her religion is the correct and right one. Malaysia has existed in harmony all these years because of the mutual respect shown towards another’s religion and faith.

8 In each religion, it is only normal for their religion to tell them that theirs is the only and correct religion. Others are not. In fact, they are false. This is alright, because the constitution allow freedom of religion. But what a person believes must only be confined to himself or herself. They are not to extend what they believe onto others. If that is done, it will cause war.

9 Though Islam is the religion of the Federation, the Constitution allows freedom of religion. Hence, to stretch one’s believe and impose it on others infringes on the rights of a citizen.

10 The non-Muslims cannot impose on Muslims their beliefs, neither can the Muslims beliefs be imposed onto non-Muslims. Instead, there must be mutual respect for one another’s beliefs.

11 No one can tell another religion what word they can use and what word they cannot use. If this is allowed, it will breakdown the peace and harmony that was built and cherished all these the years. It will be the same as telling them, ‘you cannot practice your own religion, because your religion violates my religious beliefs’, and we all know that it is common for almost every religion, if adhered to fully, will violate against another. If this happens, then, there will be provocation and war.

So, in conclusion, may the one in authority not use their authority to impose one’s beliefs onto another, just because this is what they believe in. Instead, the call for restrain and respect for one another’s faith and belief should be paramount and upheld. Let the Muslims respect the non-Muslims’ faith and beliefs, and vice-versa, the non-Muslims respect the Muslims’ faith and beliefs.

If ‘Allah’ is consider a sacred word to the Muslims, then, keep in within the context of own religion. Don’t impose it on another, who may not share the same beliefs. The Christians have no intention to hurt or to confuse the Muslims. They are only asking for their right to practice their own religion, using a word that has been there and used all these years

From : Free Malaysia Today

Why Allah in Bahasa Bibles should be allowed

Many Muslims and even some Christians have misunderstood the use of “Allah” in Bahasa Bibles. To clarify some of the confusion:

1. The BM Bible or the Alkitab is not translated from the English Bible but from the original languages, ie Hebrew and Greek.

2. The Hebrew word for God is 'El' or 'Elohim' (similar root as 'Ilah' in Arabic) and 'Yahweh' for LORD. The Greek words are 'Theo' for God and 'Kurios' for Lord.

3. Biblical translators all over the world have used the local language terms for 'Elohim' and 'Yahweh' eg God and LORD in English; 'Dios' and 'Senor' in Spanish, 'Shangti' and 'Zhu' in Chinese

4. For 15 centuries, Arabic Bibles have used Allah for God and Rab for Lord (predate Islam)

5. The first Malay translation of the Bible was made in 1612, and Allah was used for God and Tuhan for Lord in this and all the subsequent translations till today.

6. Malay-speaking (and Iban) Christians have used the term Allah for more than a hundred years in Malaya and the Borneo states in worship, prayers and reading their holy scriptures.

7. Twenty million Christians in Indonesia have used Allah for years without any misunderstanding or objection.

8. English Bibles nor Bibles of other languages obviously do not use the Bahasa terms

9. Forbidding the use of the term “Allah” by Christians, not only infringes their rights to practise their faith but also lead to confusion. For example, is the “Tuhan” in Negara-Ku and Rukun Negara not the “Muslim God” or can Christians sing the Selangor anthem where “Allah” is used?

10. Theological meanings between Christianity and Islam will always be different whether the term used is “Allah” or “Tuhan” or “God”.

-harakahdaily

From : Malaysia Chronicles

Bishop slams ‘sex on TV3′

Bishop Paul Tan slams the showing of the sex video implicating Anwar Ibrahim to an audience comprising women and children.

PETALING JAYA: A Catholic Church leader has slammed the showing of a snippet from the sex video purportedly involving Anwar Ibrahim on TV3.

Bishop Paul Tan, who is the president of the Catholic Bishops Conference of Malaysia, denounced the move as an “inexcusable outrage.”

Yesterday, the government-linked TV station had broadcasted a snippet from the so-called part two of the video allegedly depicting the opposition leader’s tryst with a sex worker.

“From the start, a permissive attitude has characterised the attitude of the authorities towards this sordid episode,” said Tan, who also heads the Malacca-Johor diocese.

“Now that permissiveness has led to this outrage: the showing of material that is vile and putrid on public TV to an audience that comprises women and children.

“This is an inexcusable outrage for which the laxity of the authorities in not acting firmly to nip things in the bud is at grave fault.

“No person of conscience can fail to deplore this permissiveness, this inaction in the face of a puerile voyeurism that has now reached a nadir,” he added.

Tan urged the authorities to act swiftly and bring the culprits who procured and featured the sex video to book before “evil begets more evil.”

“This permissive attitude, this relativism in the face of evil actions is an obvious contributor to the moral turpitude we see before us.

“Guardians of law and morality cannot afford to equivocate in the face of insolent evil. They must act or society is at grave risk,” he warned.

The second installment of the sex video had come even before the dust had settled on the first part, which was released last month.

Anwar, who is also facing a sodomy charge, had dismissed the video as another attempt by his political rivals to discredit him.

His wife and PKR president Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail had also denied that it was her husband in the video

The name don’t maketh the man

The Muslim sense of values is totally warped. If you eat pork or drink liquor or gamble, at least you are doing it with your own money. But corruption and fraud involves other people’s money, in most cases the taxpayers’ money. So this makes it an even bigger sin.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Civil Defence director charged with falsifying documents
By EMBUN MAJID, The Star

ALOR SETAR: Kedah Civil Defence Department director pleaded not guilty to two counts of falsifying documents at a Sessions Court here. Mohamad Abdullah, 49, was charged with falsifying two documents on Jun 26 and July 28, both in 2005 at his office at Wisma Persekutuan building here.

In the first charge, Mohamad was alleged to have falsified a document by endorsing that Mohd Roshid Hussain had supplied food for a group of 70 people for the Civil Defence Training Programme at Unit Giat Mara Sungai Tiang on March 17, 18, 19 and 20, 2005 although there was no such supply during the said period.

In the second charge, Mohamad was alleged to have falsified a document on July 28, 2005, by endorsing that Mohd Roshid had supplied food for a group of 80 people for the department Intensive Training Programme at Unit Giat Mara Sungai on May 19, 20 and 21, 2005, although there was no such supply during the three days.

The charge sheet, however, did not state the amount of money involved.

Mohamad faced both charges under Section 11(c) of the Anti Corruption Act 1997 that carries a maximum imprisonment for a term of not less than six months and not more than twenty years; and a fine of not less than five times the sum or value of the gratification which is the subject matter of the offence where such gratification is capable of being valued or is of a pecuniary nature, or ten thousand ringgit, whichever is the higher.

In the same court, Mohd Roshid, 32, claimed trial with abetting Mohamad to falsify the two documents. He was also charged under Section 11(c) of the same Act.

Judge Norsharidah Awang set bail RM10,000 in one surety for each offences to Mohamad and Mohd Roshid and fixed July 8 for hearing.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Fieza Fazlin Fandi prosecuted the case while counsel Shariff Matt represented the two accused.

*************************************************

Would you name your son Jesus the servant of God? And if you would, would you expect him to grow up into a righteous and god-fearing man rather than a corrupted scoundrel? I suppose parents who name their son Mohamad the servant of God would expect no less from their son, as would parents who name their son Jesus the servant of God. But this did not quite work out for the parents of Mohamad Abdullah who now faces two charges of swindling. Yes, in case you have not figured it out by now, Abdullah translates to the servant of Allah (some would say the slave of Allah). So Mohamad Abdullah, which is also the name of the Prophet of Islam, translates to Mohamad the servant of Allah.

And how would one who is named after Islam’s Prophet, with the servant of Allah added to his name, be expected to conduct himself? Considering Mohamad is a public servant, in China he would be put to death with a bullet in the head. And, to add insult to injury, the cost of the bullet would be charged to the family. But sadly, this is not the case in Malaysia. In fact, he would not even lose his limb, as the proponents of the Islamic law of Hudud would like to see. Instead, he would probably beat the rap because the normally smart lawyer would in most cases run rings around the nincompoop prosecutor and the irritated judge would find the accused not guilty out of sheer disgust for the incompetence of the prosecutor.

Yes, names do not maketh the man. How many with names like Isa (Jesus), Musa (Moses), Yusof (Joseph), Sulaiman (Solomon), Ibrahim (Abraham), etc., have been dragged to court for criminal breach of trust, corruption, fraud and whatnot? Some of the worst scams to appear before us have been perpetuated by those who carry the names of the revered Prophets of Islam. Maybe it is time the government banned the usage of names from the Quran. It just makes a mockery of those noble names when people who carry those names act less than noble.

At least people like Mahathir, Najib, Muhyiddin, Khairy, Hishammuddin, Khir, and so on can be excused. Their names are not names of the Prophets of Islam. But when you have people with two Muhammad’s in their name or people with names like Mohamad the servant of Allah, then the expectations would be very high indeed. We do not expect them to be cheats and swindlers.

Why is it that people who carry the names of the revered Prophets would shun pork and steer clear of liquor and despise gambling but would never hesitate to fill their stomachs with money earned the not kosher way? Is money earned through corruption and fraud any less haram than pork, liquor or gambling? It is like saying that raping a girl is okay as long as you don’t rape a boy. Same gender sex is haram. So raping a boy is a huge no-no. But raping a girl is tolerable.

Rape is rape whether you raped your pet dog or the neighbour’s donkey. Haram is definitely haram and there are no two ways about it. And it does not matter whether it is pork, liquor, gambling or money you obtained through corrupt and fraudulent ways. One is not less haram than the other.

The Muslim sense of values is totally warped. If you eat pork or drink liquor or gamble, at least you are doing it with your own money. But corruption and fraud involves other people’s money, in most cases the taxpayers’ money. So this makes it an even bigger sin. Why can’t Muslims see that a person who eats pork or drinks liquor or gambles is not harming anyone other than himself -- okay, maybe his family as well if he does all this in excess and it affects the family (for that matter, even excess ice cream or an overdose of multivitamins are bad for you). But when you cheat the taxpayers you are hurting 27 million Malaysians who that money belongs to.

My Tok Guru told me, when you sin against God, then it is up to God to forgive you. But when you sin against humankind, then God can’t forgive you. You must first beg for forgiveness from all those you have sinned against and only when they have all forgiven you will God forgive you.

Well, this is what my Tok Guru told me. But can you imagine seeking out 27 million Malaysians, one by one, and personally begging for their forgiveness? How would this be possible? I mean, how long will it take you to personally meet 27 million people, one by one?

In short, you are doomed. There is no way this can be done, or done in the time frame you would like to see it done. Give me a pork-eating, liquor-drinking, gambling man one who has not sinned against fellowman any time. That man has a better chance of being forgiven for his sins than a corrupted swindler of taxpayers’ money.

And don’t try to impress me with the names of the revered Prophets because the name does not maketh the man. Some of the worst scoundrels walking the face of this earth are named after the revered Prophets of Islam.

Does Islam Need To Be Defended?

Those who, stand either individually or in clumps, and claim that they are defending Islam do not trust in Allah and thereby blaspheme. Let us consider some of the more relevant and obvious repercussions of accepting Allah as the "The Originator of the heavens and the earth!" (Surah 6:101) which is basically this Universe, and the many billion other universes out there, all that space, and clutter in between. We, in truth, don't even make up an atom of a grain of sand in the entire scheme of things. And those are just His creations - so, in truth, we will never be able to even comprehend Allah. Whoever claims they do, makes false claims to godhood. 

Let us consider this starting point: that we are unfathomably small in His entire design. We die out just like all other living things on this earth. Our lifespan is short - a maximum of just over one hundred - with an average of about late 60s these days. We, as Homo Sapiens, only arrived on the scene relatively recently i.e. about 400,000 years ago, and our recorded history only stretches back to about 32,000 years ago with those cave paintings in Chauvet Cave of Chauvet-Pont-d'Arc Cave, in southern France. The earth is estimated by scientists to be approximately between 4.5 - 6 billion years old. So that's how we are even compared to the earth. Nothing much. And the universe? Scientists currently estimate it to be about 13.7 billion years old. So temporally our Homo Sapien race existence compared to the universe - our significance is 0.0000029197080. Now you then divide that by all the many people, animals, etc. and you come through and we realize how insignificant any of us are in the entire scheme of the universe. Even if you had the biological abilities, you just didn't the time.

When seen in this light, that Allah was long before us and shall be for ever, so what does it matter if some of his most insignificant creations on one of His billions, if not trillions, of galaxies and planet, does not believe in Him or infringes His injunctions? What does it matter that there are these non-believers who speak ill of Him? The truth is that no one can harm Allah or his religion because we are in His realm. What is more, going by scripture, we are all answerable to him on Judgment Day, so why should we have to answer to someone lesser whilst we are alive? A comparative analogy of the relationship between Allah and mankind/His Universe would be as a computer programmer to his program. Whatever program a programmer programs into his computer can never harm him (assuming it is your usual standard desktop PC and not some robotic killer machine whose sole purpose is to annihilate any living thing) - he can manipulate it, change it, do virtually anything to it but the computer or its programs or the product of its program can never, ever harm the programmer. So when there is no threat, there cannot be a defence.

And Allah is Eternal and Creator of All - what possible threat can there be to the Supreme Being of the Universe? If even Satan himself cannot bring about such an event (because he will get his butt kicked in the End), then what more the mere sons of Adam? And what do these ants think they can do in Allah's defence? That some of his sons thinks that Allah is in need of protection is to betray what they really think of themselves and Allah. The first is that they think too highly of himself and his worth to Allah and the Universe and secondly, they think too lowly of Allah and his Creations. They do not say this explicitly, but there is no need to because actions have always spoken louder than words.

If Allah does not need defenders, neither then does Islam. So what is this Defence of Islam really about then?

It's the same thing that has happened over the centuries where religion is concerned: frustrated, unthinking, unlearned, morally and ethically corrupt human beings who want to achieve some control in their livese and that of others, and do so by piggybacking on a religion to establish a high moral position and to burn with righteous anger with supposed authority from God with which he can then carry out his psychosis. This Defence of Islam strategy is an attempt to play up their victimhood (defence presupposes an attack) to try and attract sympathy from concerned or related parties. But then in banding together and claiming defence they then allow themselves the possibility of a pre-attack strike (that is a 'defence' too which America used as a justification in attacking Iraq. Anybody notice the similarity in modus operandi between Muslim fundamentalists and USA foreign policy towards hostile countries?). Ultimately, the strategy is geared towards confrontation, violence and non-resolution. 

The truth of the matter is that the Defence of Islam was, is and never will be about Allah. It is about flawed human beings. It is about the corrupt, hypocritical human beings who seek not to worship Allah in humility but to try reach His exalted status by inflating further their massive ego; and then in failing so miserably and ending up ultimately becoming a disgrace both to Allah, Islam and human beings in general. Just because someone professes to be Muslim does not necessarily mean they practise Islam (i.e. submission) and just because one is practising Islam does not necessarily mean they are actually practising Islam. In either case, those questions are for Allah to decide, not us. If there's one thing I am certain of it is this - there is no human being in existence that can equal Allah's ability in deciding whether someone is a Muslim or not (and consequentially - a good enough one for that matter). One would have thought a Muslim would be very wary of assuming such a responsibility. That some are ready to do so with such casualness and vindictiveness provokes me to think they do not take their faith seriously in the ways that are important and meaningful for their own personal self-development (which must be distinguished from self-enrichment) and that of others.

Holier than thous

By Aloysious Mowe, The Nut Graph LAST Christmas, after a splendid lunch at a hotel in Kuala Lumpur, my nieces posed with their dad for photographs amidst a glittery forest of Christmas trees in the hotel lobby. Earlier that day they had scrambled to yet another tree, in my mother's house, to open the presents that had been piled up under it in anticipation of their arrival. None of this is remarkable, except for the fact that my brother-in-law is a strictly observant Malay Muslim, and that at lunch my sister was veiled, as are many Muslim women in Malaysia these days.   We didn't pretend, for the sake of my Muslim family's "sensitivities", that Christmas was some kind of jolly secular knees-up. Next to our Christmas tree was set up, as it is every year, a scene made up of carved wooden figures depicting the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem. From the CD player came carols about how he "came down to earth from heaven, who is God and Lord of all", and calls to "come let us adore him, Christ the Lord". If some people in Malaysia were to have their way, my family would no longer be allowed to celebrate our very Malaysian Christmas. We would be accused of "confusing" my Muslim family, and of being "insensitive" to their faith. Is Christmas in Malaysia increasingly de-Christian- ised? (Pic by Arnold Wong, courtesy of Nick Choo) Mental convolutions Just before the last election, a group of Muslim non-governmental organisations (NGOs), including the Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia (Abim) and the Muslim Professionals Forum (MPF), issued a set of demands.  The usual suspects were rounded up for condemnation: "pluralism"; "secular-liberal thought"; the Interfaith Commission; the notion that Malaysia is a secular state, etc. It is a depressing document to have to read, both for its intellectual dishonesty as well as for its being a fairly accurate reflection of public discourse about Islam in Malaysia today. The mental convolutions it must take to produce such a document would win a gold medal if intellectual bankruptcy were an Olympic sport. It would be clear to a Martian emerging from her (do notional Martians have gender?) ship in Putrajaya that Islam is an all-pervasive and dominant force in this land. Nevertheless, these Muslim NGOs prefer to paint a picture of Muslims here as a community under siege. They state that all forms of religious and ethnic extremism must be rejected, and in the next line demand that Muslim organisations have a say in approving the building of non-Muslim places of worship in Muslim-majority areas, because the "sensitivities" of the "local community" must be considered. It is even suggested that the authorities have been too permissive with regards to the building of non-Muslim places of worship, while being very rigid regarding the erecting of mosques. Does any non-Muslim recognise this state of affairs as congruent with reality as we know it? The NGOs also call for the strengthening of civil society institutions, and the opening up of greater democratic space. At the same time, they call for the restriction of religious terms such as "Allah" to Muslim use only; condemn those who promote individual rights and freedom of religion for Muslims; and warn the Ministry of Education to ignore non-Muslim concerns about the role that Islamic rituals have in national schools. Hypersensitivity The Muslim NGOs also lament the fact that four states and the federal territories have yet to introduce legislation forbidding non-Muslims from proselytising among Muslims. By highlighting this, they perhaps inadvertently explode one of the myths about the Constitution, viz. that it forbids such proselytising. In fact, Article 11(4) states only that non-Muslims may be forbidden by state legislation to preach their faith to Muslims. There is nothing in the Constitution that says this must be done. These NGOs, however, are the same ones who emerge from under a rock every time there is a Muslim apostasy case, with demands that we should respect the "position" of Islam as guaranteed in the Constitution. Their reading of the Constitution is as dishonest as their interpretations of civil society and democratic space. One of the dominant tropes in the list of demands is the need for non-Muslims to be "sensitive" to Muslim sensibilities. The authorities justified the recent detention of Teresa Kok under the Internal Security Act (ISA) by claiming that she had injured Muslim sensitivities. Whatever the real political calculations (or miscalculations) behind her detention, the mere allegation of injuring Muslim sensitivities was a sufficient condition to orchestrate a campaign against her. Some Muslims are feeling that the authorities are not building enough mosques, compared with churches and temples (© Keran McKenzie / sxc.hu) It has come to a point where nothing labelled "Muslim" can be questioned or debated by non-Muslims, and even dissenting Muslims, for fear of injuring "Muslim" sensibilities. To some, given the dominant position of Muslims in Malaysia, this has the ring of a rich man asking a beggar not to bother him with requests for money: the beggar's pleading is "insensitive", as it highlights the disparity between his enormous wealth and the beggar's poverty. The rich man thinks his comfort should not be disturbed, even if the poor man dies at his doorstep. Walk into any Muslim bookshop in Kuala Lumpur, and you will come across the works of South African writer Ahmad Deedat. They are filled with vitriol against Christian beliefs, and Christian sensitivities do not enter the picture. A Malay politician slanders the Chinese citizenry of this country (and spouts anti-Semitism in the same breath), and gets away with a three-year suspension from his party, while a journalist who reports his hate-speech is detained under the ISA. When it comes to sensitivities in Malaysia, which community is it that truly has a grievance? The other point of view It is easy to adopt a condescending tone when approaching the issue of Muslim sensitivities, especially when it is clear that non-Muslim sensitivities are on a regular basis ridden over roughshod. However, I want to take seriously the idea of the Muslim community's sensitivities. I understand why a pious Muslim could be distressed whenever she sees pork being consumed, or when she sees alcohol being sold openly. A Muslim who finds truth and consolation in his faith will certainly be saddened by the apostasy of another Muslim. These are not trivial matters. Ahmad Deedat (Public domain. Source: Wikipedia.org) However, these neuralgic points are just as painful for non-Muslims as they are for Muslims. It pains me to see a Catholic convert to Islam only because Malaysian law (against the weight of Islamic tradition) says she must if she marries a Muslim. I am offended by the toxic writings of Ahmad Deedat, in the same way that some Muslims were offended by Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses or by the Jyllands-Posten cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. But what is it that causes me not to demand a ban on Ahmad Deedat's books? I do not believe that those who offend me should as a consequence lose their right to free speech. Racists and bigots should have their opinions challenged and debated: dismissing them from the public sphere simply drives them underground, and who knows then what noxious weed will grow in the dark? Neither do I think that the world should always pander to all my sensitivities. To have every desire fulfilled, without discernment or accommodation, is to be an infant. We all know the exasperation we feel at friends who are sensitive to the most minor imagined slight, or who are unable to cope with the rough and tumble of relationships. We want to say to them, "Oh, for heaven's sake, just grow up!" Societies also can be infantilised, and religious societies with strong authoritarian tendencies all the more so. An infantilised religious community is one that will always feel that it is under siege, for it will never have had to take its creeds and practices into the light of reason and charity, those adult qualities so emphasised in the Quran. Aloysious Mowe, SJ, was born after Merdeka and considers himself Malaysian by birthright and not by anyone's concession. The last time he checked his passport, it says he was born in Malaysia, not Tanah Melayu.