30/07: Raja Petra seditious? Hogwash!

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin



Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak once told TV3 in 2004 that if I have insulted Islam or the Rulers then I can be charged under the Sedition Act. And if there are no laws that I can be charged under, added Najib, then the government can always use the Internal Security Act (ISA) against me. Not long after that, they brought me in for interrogation under Section 112 for a crime under the Sedition Act. A week later, they raided my house and confiscated my computer as evidence.

This, we must remember, was after they had done the same about three years before that in 2001. On Hari Raya Haji Day of March 2001, they arrested me under no specific charge. (“Kita akan pikir kemudian,” they said, as they handcuffed me.) And, the next day, they raided my house to confiscate my computer. A month later, on 11 April 2001, they detained me under the ISA.

Well, it’s now three years since that 2004 episode, which, in turn, was also three years after the 2001 episode. It looks like every three years they need to come to my house to confiscate my computer and detain me under a charge they will ‘pikir kemudian’. I suppose, therefore, this time around it should be no different. So expect them to come to my house soon to confiscate my computer and probably arrest me and charge me under the Sedition Act -- or maybe take the easy way out and use the ISA on me again.

The fact that my matter has been raised and heavily debated in the Lower House of Parliament, plus every Umno man and his dog (metaphorically speaking of course) has whacked me (and all bloggers in general), while Nazri Aziz and a horde of others have urged the government to use the ISA against me, probably means that the end is very near. (Not sure yet whether it is my end or theirs though).

Anyway, my reply to them is sharp and simple. Raja Petra seditious? Hogwash! If anyone is seditious it is Umno and until today those propagating a blood-bath have not been made accountable for their actions. Was it not Najib, that ex-Selangor Menteri Besar with two Muhamads in his name, and all those others calling for my detention under the ISA who raised their keris above their heads at the TPCA padang in 1987 and threatened to bathe it in Chinese blood? Was it not Umno in November 1999 during the ceremony to launch Barisan Nasional’s election machinery in the Bukit Jalil Stadium that warned the Chinese if Barisan Nasional was to lose its two-thirds majority in the 29 November general election, just like on 11 May 1969, then another May 13 may erupt?

Yes, who in heaven’s name is seditious? (I was going to say ‘who the fuck’ but changed my mind so that I can keep this piece decent and suitable for minors). Is it I or Umno? I am alleged to have raised racial tension by allowing comments in Malaysia Today’s blogs that may rub some races the wrong way. Me? Me who has Malay, English, Welsh, Indian, Chinese, Thai, Filipino, etc., relatives who are Muslims, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, atheists, etc? Hey, if there was a medal for being the most ‘global’ family I would be he who is most eligible to receive it. My family is almost like a mini-United Nations. And I have not even started dissecting the ‘Malay’ side of my family into sub-groups such as Bugis, Javanese, Minangkabau, etc.

Hey Umno! Yes, you, Umno! You, who accuse me of being seditious and who should be detained under the ISA. I, Raja Petra Bin Raja Kamarudin, is not only accusing you of being seditious, I am also accusing you, Umno, of being the cause of an unknown number of deaths suffered in the 13 May 1969 race riots. And I make this allegation with God as my witness and the testimony of the First Prime Minister of Malaya/Malaysia, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Bapa Merdeka, who went to his grave an extremely sad man and who grievingly said he wished he had died and never lived to see the day that Malaysians would murder Malaysians.

Learning the truth about May 13

The Sun, 27 July 2007

Thank you for your feature on the 1969 riots. This was the first informative article about the event that I have read in my 24 years of life. Never before have I encountered such a revealing account of that episode.

I didn't get it in primary school, neither in secondary school, nor in university either. And all this while I have studied locally. I think somebody somewhere thought that by not exposing young Malaysians to this chapter of the nation's past, we would be better off.

But they should realise that history has a tendency to repeat itself. Thank you for printing the truth. Now we all know what really happened and can learn to avoid it.

The May 13 incident as personally related by Tunku Abdul Rahman, the First Prime Minister of Malaya/Malaysia and Bapa Merdeka

At his residence in Penang, 1972

“It was clear to me as well as the police that in the highly charged political atmosphere after the police were forced to kill a Chinese political party worker on May 4th, 1969, something was bound to happen to threaten law and order because of the resentment towards the Government by the KL Chinese on the eve of the general election. This was confirmed at this man’s funeral on the 9th May when the government faced the most hostile crowd it had ever seen.

Therefore, when the opposition parties applied for a police permit for a procession to celebrate their success in the results of the general election, I was adamant against it because the police were convinced that this would lead to trouble. I informed Tun Razak about this and he seemed to agree.

Now, without my knowledge and actually “behind my back”, there were certain political leaders in high positions who were working to force me to step down as a PM. I don’t want to go into details but if they had come to me and said so I would gladly have retired gracefully.

Unfortunately, they were apparently scheming and trying to decide on the best way to force me to resign. The occasion came when the question of the police permit was to be approved.

Tun Razak and Harun Idris, the MB of the state of Selangor, now felt that permission should be given knowing fully well that there was a likelihood of trouble. I suppose they felt that when this happened they could then demand my resignation.

To this day I find it very hard to believe that Razak, whom I had known for so many years, would agree to work against me in this way. Actually, he was in my house as I was preparing to return to Kedah and I overhead him speaking to Harun over the phone saying that he would be willing to approve the permit when I left. I really could not believe what I was hearing and preferred to think it was about some other permit. In any case, as the Deputy Prime Minister in my absence from KL, he would be the Acting PM and would override my objection. Accordingly, when I was in my home in Kedah, I heard over the radio that the permit had been approved.

It seems as though the expected trouble was anticipated and planned for by Harun and his UMNO Youth. After the humiliating insults hurled by the non-Malays, especially the Chinese, and after the seeming loss of Malay political power to them, they were clearly ready for some retaliatory action. After meeting in large numbers at Harun’s official residence in Jalan Raja Muda near Kampong Bahru and hearing inflammatory speeches by Harun and other leaders, they prepared themselves by tying ribbon strips on their foreheads and set out to kill Chinese. The first hapless victims were two of them in a van opposite Harun’s house who were innocently watching the large gathering. Little did they know that they would be killed on the spot.

The rest is history. I am sorry but I must end this discussion now because it really pains me as the Father of Merdeka to have to relive those terrible moments. I have often wondered why God made me live long enough to have witnessed my beloved Malays and Chinese citizens killing each other.”

RPK's Reply

The following is Raja Petra's reply to those who make unfounded allegations against him and bloggers.

Raja Petra endures 8 hour grilling

Reply To Dr. Dzul

Here is a good and brief reply that was among the comments (exactly my sentiments, so I didn't bother to post anything) to this highly hypocritical article (from an Islamist of the PAS party) in Malaysia Today, that actually fights for an Islamic state in Malaysia. It was indeed a very well written article from a smart man, with intentions to hoodwink the unsuspecting reader who doesn't understand his motives.
The reason why I had put the comment before the article, was so that the reader would be able to read the article with a proper, unbiased perspective..


creeper wrote:

Dear Dzul,

I'm quite impressed with this piece of work ..... especially the last bit :-

"Only a vibrant and genuine democratic state will ensure and provide for every citizen to partake and advocate their respective ideological commitments and defend the right of others to exercise theirs be they Secular, Islamic or Agnostic or what have you. That is truly the defining criterion of a democrat. This shall remain our enduring mission that will unite us together.
Will the true democrat please stand up!"
........................................

Allow me to begin by defining two words - OPINION and CONVICTION :-

An OPINION is a position you hold with a varied degrees of intensity, that merely voices your preference.
A CONVICTION is that which is rooted in your conscience;
.........so that if you were to toy with your opinion, you would be jostling with your preferences. If you were to toy with your conviction, you are going to deal with your conscience, before you alter it.

Now let's dissect what you have written.

Firstly, you're from PAS Research Centre (whatever that is).

Then, you do not wish to take sides, and yet have spoken for Democracy/ Democrats as it would give you the opportunity to attain power via elections.

However you speak for a party that aims for an Islamic state - and an Islamic State by Syaria, isn't compatible with Democracy, freedom and justice based on universal values!

And you have the audacity to say,"Will the true democrat please stand up!"?

Get off your high horse, man - take a good look at yourself and the principles that your party stands for!

As long as you speak in this manner for PAS, you've made yourself nothing more than a hypocrite - and it stinks to the high heavens!

Do you even realize that it is people like you (i.e. PAS supporters) that provoked NTR to come out with such seditious statements so as to play politics?

Are you so shameless, that you wanna "sidestep the debate" with the excuse that it is a lost cause?

I somehow sense a conflict, a dilemma in you - between that of your conscience and your opinion.

The only problem here is - I don't know which one speaks here!

Is it any wonder that despite all your religiosity, people don't trust you?

27/07 12:42:11

........................................................................................................................

Now, the following is the article ......................

27/07: Islamic State or Secular State? Not Again!

Category: General

Posted by: Raja Petra

GUEST COLUMNISTS
Dr Dzulkifli Ahmad
PAS Research Centre

The pronouncement made by the DPM that Malaysia is an Islamic State has expectedly sent shock waves across the nation. Already we are measuring swords between detractors and advocates of the ‘Islamic State’. The full-blown outcome of this debate, now turning into a War of Words, has yet to be witnessed. Having frantically wrote “Dark Alley of Self-Destruction”, the writer has now to pen down this piece, in an effort to mitigate the anticipated damage that will be caused by this ‘edict’. Very sad indeed.

The DPM has chosen such an opportune time to unleash his ‘well contrived strategy’. This may very well be presumptuous. What could be better than to have it pronounced on the occasion of the “International Conference on the Role of Islamic States in a Globalised World”? If Malaysia is anything but an Islamic State, what business has she to do with that conference? Hence, his insistence that ‘we have never, never been secular...we are an Islamic State”, (Bernama, 17/0707) logically fall in place, when refuting an allegation by a pressman that Malaysia is going secular. Appropriate though it may seem, it is not as innocuous as we would like to believe so.

The writer has deliberately used the word ‘well contrived strategy’ of the DPM. Yes it could have been his knee-jerk response given the theme of the conference. To say anything less than one that is premeditated, doesn’t befit his stature as the heir to the premiership and equally debasing to his supposedly high intellectual caliber.

Given the various debacles of the current regime including of his own of late, and with the 12th General Election looming ever closer, what could be more expedient than to distract the entire nation, nay plunge and embroil them in a fury of endless raging dispute of the ‘very nature’ of this 50 year-old nation. If it has worked well the first time it was exploited by the then PM in September 2001, it should work equally well this time round. Why? Well, the gullible (read opposition parties, the civil society and some sincere partners of the BN) are still as vulnerable as they were used to be. If the parameters are still the same and kept constant, the same approach should deliver the same result. So he thinks.

For as long as any notion of an ‘Islamic State’ is an anathema to Non-Muslims and a ‘Secular State’ equally an abhorrence or abomination to the Muslims constituency, the Umno-BN regime will continue to exploit this dichotomy as the best ‘bogey’ to keep the nation ‘torn apart’, ‘united’ and ‘subdued’ under the BN’s hegemony. This is the greatest Malaysian paradox. The perpetrators turning saviors, while the citizens of the nation relentlessly mandating them, come every election. This is truly and uniquely Malaysian.

So what should be done?

Precisely this is the reason for writing this piece.

The writer is of the strong opinion that continuing the debate in this manner is in fact totally counter-productive to every effort of reform and change towards the betterment of the nation. Already the DAP is organizing an English Forum entitled “An Islamic State After 50 Years?” parading on the panel everyone else except those representing the most ardent advocate of the ‘Islamic State’. The inclusion of a panelist from them however, will only add to the vigour and rigour of the debate. But will it provide the sanity and intellectual acumen now desperately needed to end this acrimonious contestation? God knows!

The plethora of writings by distinguished columnists and academics now abound, are no less inimical and injurious to the whole cause of reform, to say of the least. Both are waging their ‘jihad’ or ‘crusade’ and equally adamant to be defending their democratic rights as enshrined in the Federal Constitution. The writer could empathise and concur with most of their arguments, be it historical, legalistic, moral or intellectual in nature, from both ‘divides’. That said, he neither thinks it necessary nor finds it fruitful to comment or even prolong it. He would simply side-step the entire debate.

If at this juncture, you think that the writer is merely trying to appease everyone, you are entirely in error. That will be the last thing he intends to do. On the contrary, he is almost at war with everyone, especially those who are advocating or espousing change and reform, yet taking others on the path of self-destruction on a ‘zero-sum’ contest. What could be a greater folly?

Let it be known to all and sundry, that no amount of debate will substantively change anything in the Federal Constitution. It neither secularises nor islamises the Federal Constitution anymore than what it is. We can debate and discourse until the cows come home, but that doesn’t change anything of the very fabric of this much embattled nation. Quite on the reverse, it only deepens the various fault-line, aggravates the prejudices towards the ‘other’ and delays the renewal of a genuine nationhood further.

Let it be reiterated that this nation is a constitutional monarch supposedly practising a constitutional democracy. The Federal Constitution has evolved through the various phases of historical development, dating back to well before independence. It has provided for the various mutually exclusive constraints and demands of our very plural society. The constitutional amendments has come to witness a uniquely dual or parallel implementation of our judiciary not seen anywhere in the world, albeit without its lacuna or shortcomings unforeseen at the point of the amendments. It is far from a perfect document but nonetheless the supreme law of the land (Article 4).

However, what is obviously and grossly wrong is that, this democracy has been relentlessly raped and trampled upon by the power-that-be. It is this crisis that is now most deserving of our focus so as to enable us to redeem our lost opportunity for a genuine democratic reform and change, on the eve of the next general election.

Given the multitude of challenges at hand, from endemic corruption in government machinery to the sky-rocketing of the crime rate and all, we must not be deluded, sidetracked or distracted from standing united in addressing the real issues of the nation and swayed into the alley of self-destruction by unending debate of semantics and rhetoric created by these inept leaders.

The nation on the verge of celebrating her 50th independence, deserves a mutually respecting citizenry celebrating our multi-cultural heritage and our religious plurality, so as to enhance our effort at national unity and integration. Only a vibrant and genuine democratic state will ensure and provide for every citizen to partake and advocate their respective ideological commitments and defend the right of others to exercise theirs be they Secular, Islamic or Agnostic or what have you. That is truly the defining criterion of a democrat. This shall remain our enduring mission that will unite us together.

Will the true democrat please stand up!

Blogger are at fault?

It has been hot news that the police report by MMT has launched a crackdown on all bloggers.
It started with Raja Petra Kamarudin being called to Dang Wangi.
I found it strange that my blog was also blocked!
Why would anybody wanna block a blog? That too a bog that has so far not even received any visitors? It beats me - that's for sure .......
What is this thing they speak about ....... being responsible? Who incited anybody? It is a blog where where I just put up my ideas. I don't advertise it - only a couple of times I did put up the link, coz someone asked for it. It isn't a forum where I put up politically motivated ideas ..... politics isn't my cup of tea, for gottsakes!
What the hell are these people thinking? How can I of all people even think of causing "disharmony"?
It is an online diary where I just don't restrict anybody from taking a peek - what's wrong with that?
If at all anything, the reader will prolly know what kind of a person I am! All my blog contains are discussions that took place at Malaysia Today, and my submissions, and of course some of my own thoughts which I put up.
If they felt that what I had put up was inappropriate, they could've just told me via a comment or e-mail.
There was no need to block it quietly, and act cool!
Come on lah, boss - get real lah ............... I'm not troubling anyone what.

Privilege called citizenship

THE STAR

Columnists > Suhaini Aznam

Monday July 23, 2007

By SUHAINI AZNAM

Citizenship defines the place one calls home for life, where one rests one’s weary head after having travelled the globe. It gives one identity

THE confusion is solved. When earlier this month Home Affairs Minister Datuk Seri Mohd Radzi Sheikh Ahmad told Parliament that 106,003 Malaysians had given up their citizenship to opt for foreign ones, he was referring to statistics dating back to independence.

Since 1996 to last April, some 26,804 non-Malays had surrendered their citizenship while another 5,310 had had their citizenships revoked under the Constitution, he said in a written reply to Batu Gajah MP Fong Po Kuan.

Four days later, his deputy, Datuk Tan Chai Ho, dropped a bombshell. Some 79,000 or 70% of those who had ventured to greener pastures were Malays, he elaborated.

Malaysians gasped. One could throw a stone and find a non-Malay emigrant: a former colleague who had settled in New Zealand, three in Australia, the Punjabi woman heading off to Canada to join her sister. But Malays?

On July 19, Radzi stepped in to clarify the statistics. Only 10,411 Malays had left the country since independence – averaging 200 per year.

“Most were women who migrated to follow their husbands,” said Radzi.

Chinese numbered 86,078, Indians 8,667 and other races 847.

Apart from marriage, non-Malays leave for practical reasons, free education and job opportunities being the most common.

Tan had named the United States, Australia, Taiwan, Singapore and Indonesia as favourite destinations among former Malaysians.

“Some study abroad and just remain,” said Radzi.

“Among the men, job opportunity was a strong reason to leave. They bring their families with them, which doubles the numbers.

“Some countries such as the United States require one to be a citizen to hold jobs in government as well as the private sector. The Green Card (denoting permanent residence) is not enough.”

In the midst of the confusion, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi issued a pointed warning.

“Those who have given up their citizenship cannot get it back if they suddenly want to become Malaysians again.”

This is true.

A Malay woman from Perak who married an Englishman two decades ago gave up her citizenship in the first flush of romance. After a few years, the marriage turned sour and she tried to return to her siblings. Her efforts were in vain.

A similar predicament befell a Muar-born man who had worked as a “mess-boy” for a British admiral in Singapore in the 1950s. When the admiral was posted back to England, he took the youth, then in his late teens, along with him.

There, Pak Long (not his real name) grew up, bought property and assuaged his homesickness by organising summer camps for Malaysian students. He even partially financed a few.

Now in his 70s, Pak Long felt the call of his hometown. He sold his property in England and returned a fairly wealthy man, hoping to have his citizenship reinstated. The doors were shut to him, too.

To many Malaysians, citizenship is entwined with the idea of loyalty. To give up one’s citizenship is seen by both the authorities and society as akin to renouncing one’s love for one’s native land. In their eyes, citizenship is a privilege not to be trifled with.

Malaysia’s neighbours understand this. Unskilled and semi-skilled workers from Indonesia and the Philippines have flooded Malaysia and are busily trying to obtain original or forged permanent residence cards, or the MyKad denoting citizenship, to pass themselves off as Malaysians. Malaysia is their land of honey.

In Sabah alone, 17,308 or more than one in four of the 61,811 Filipino refugees currently holding immigration visit passes (IMM13) have been granted permanent resident status.

But if citizenship is so precious, why do so many give it up seemingly so easily?

Malaysia’s Constitution does not permit dual citizenship. That would account for the numbers who, after a few years of commuting to and fro to keep their papers up to date, allow them to lapse.

With fast-track globalisation, many today are in fact “citizens of the world.” They owe allegiance to no single nation and are confident of gaining employment anywhere.

They are also comfortable retiring in countries far from their lands of birth, not least of which because after having paid high income taxes for the years they have lived there, they stand to benefit from generous social security plans. Of course, many of these countries, too, have stringent citizenship requirements.

Australia’s anti-Asian hype, led by independent MP Pauline Hanson’s One Nation campaign, typified this sentiment. Even in Europe and post-9/11 United States, pockets of racial biases exist.

Citizenship gives a person the right to vote. He pays taxes, may buy land and could be enlisted in its armed forces.

A network of family and friends accentuates his childhood memories and loyalty. Most of all, he has the right to speak out on issues relating to the running of his country, which a foreigner, being a guest, might hesitate to express.

There were Malaysians who at different periods of the nation’s democratic evolution felt constrained to leave for societies which they felt were more “liberal” and provided space for greater “freedom of expression.” But these phases passed.

Pressured by Tan's alarming figures, Umno information chief Tan Sri Muhammad Muhammad Taib put out an exploratory theory that merantau (wanderlust) is in the Malay blood.

Beyond the archipelago, enclaves of Malay descendents live in Sri Lanka and South Africa. But seafaring pre-dated the nation state, when citizenship was an alien concept.

A Malaysian diaspora is exactly what the country needs to build up if it wants to have an edge in the shrinking world. Overseas Chinese have proven their worth to the land of their ancestors; the Indian diaspora is following suit, notably in IT.

The importance of citizenship is encapsulated in the concept of jus soli. During the independence struggle, Malays had objected to the Malayan Union proposal because they saw it as “giving in” to British demands that non-Malays be given citizenship.

Meanwhile, founding fathers such as Tun Tan Cheng Lock saw inculcating Malayan loyalty among the local Chinese population as the only way to build up support for the Malayan Chinese Association which he led and whose focus was to get citizenship rights in an independent Malaya.

The Federation of Malaya Agreement (1948) citizenship clauses were so stringent that in 1951, Chinese citizens of Malaya numbered only 12%.

Race has always been the cornerstone of Malaysian politics.

Singapore’s acute transient nationalism is an example not to follow. In its attempts to draw as many professionals as possible to boost its economy, the city-state has found that the foreign talents do not see the super-efficient island as home.

Meanwhile, homegrown Singaporeans resent the exemption for foreigners from the two-year compulsory national service, followed by 10 years of reservist duty, pointed out columnist Seah Cheang Nee.

Malaysia has to strike a balance between sending its citizens out and imbuing them with a sense of belonging. This is what the tanah tumpahnya darah ku (this land I would die for) is all about in the first line of the national anthem.

Citizenship defines the place one calls home for life, where one rests one’s weary head after having travelled the globe. It gives one identity. It is the place to live out one’s twilight years. Ideally, it is “the best place on earth.”

Terrorist Islamist apologists

Here is my rebuttal to shahidan on the same thread on Islamist terrorism.

cruzeiro wrote:

Shahidan wrote:
My point very simply was to show that Zionists too committ terrorism in the name of God. Golda Meir and the Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu, former Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel and key spiritual guide for Israeli settlers in Palestinian territory also uses the name of god to advance state terrorism.

Why then do you assert that 'nobody else screams for blood in the name of God'? You are being selective in your condemnation because you do not acknowledge extremists from other religions do the same, but you are being Islamophobic when you single out only this group. I won't go into the Christian and Hindu sources to also produce the extremist versions of these religions as I do not consider these extremists to be representative of their religions.
...........................

Yes, there are fringe sects and groups with political motives who do scream for blood - but I don't recall any that have such a worldwide appeal as seen among Islamist apologists.
Shahidan - it is you who have equated Islam with terror, and then have resorted to calling me an Islamophobe!
Zionism isn't a religion - it is a Jewish nationalist ideology.
I have a phobia for terrorists, more so for those who do it in the name of God - no matter which religion - not Islam per se. If that makes me an Islamophobe, I'm guilty as charged, and I wouldn't apologize.
Why has this blackened the face of Islam only, you may ask.
It appears to me that in no other religion, do they garner such widespread, worldwide support. In Islam, violence has become a worldwide phenomenon, unlike in other ideologies.
Then you label those who abhor these violence, "Islamophobes"!
You choose to drive a wedge between those professing Islam and other Ideologies with violence, then blame them for not understanding the peace of Islam?
Nobody said what the "neo-colonialists" that you call the Empire, isn't doing things wrong. But at least the good that they have done is out there for all to see, and it outweighs the bad.
Now, what good have these terrorists done to demand equal stature as the "Empire" as you put it? Zilch.
If at all anything, they use the resources, technology and science of the "Empire", to send any nation that they dominate to the middle ages, while hating and envying them for their prosperity!
So, they have been persecuted and injustices have been committed against them - yes, they can fight on a political platform. There is no need for them to justify their evils (they are not immune to it, you know) by hijacking a religion (or deen). It simply is not justifiable, just becos the other guy is doing it!
It is good that you have come out to say that you do condemn terrorism - I appreciate that.
I do hope you understand also that the Palestinian conflict has nothing to do with Islam.
As things are you guys have become sitting ducks to negative media publicity that you get from the "Empire" - in fact, I'm quite aware (as are many of your critics) that not all acts of terror publicised are the doings of Muslim "terrorists".
Unfortunately, these mosquitoes are so many, that even you can't deny it, if it (reports) were untrue - hence, you play into the hands of the "enemy", and destroy the kind face of Islam that you try so hard to build.
==========================
You wrote:
My own view is that throughout history, political movements have hijacked religions to advance political agendas for territorial conquests as well as for mobilising against invaders for self defence. The latter may be less pernicious than the former.
................

So, are you saying it is justified?
Are you really saying that every Islamist rebellion, anger, bombing, atrocity and anti-establishment action worldwide in the name of God is justified?

For God's sake, if not Islam's, I hope not.

Bottom line is, Shahidan, it is wrong to hijack a religion for a political cause, Period - no buts, ifs or why nots.

You(meaning all apologists for terrorists - not you only Shahidan), as I see it are actually trying to defend Islam (not terror), but have got it confused with political agendas.
When Islamist terrorists are condemned, you jump to their defense, thinking that you are defending Islam (as intended by these terrorists). If you (meaning all apologists for terrorists - not you specifically) do not support them, you fear being ostracised in some way for being "unIslamic", or feel that you betray your God.

That is why, the image of Islam has been tarnished worldwide.

Draw a line between the politics and the "deen" - and all will be fine again.

Peace.

01/07 23:07:51

Why Islamic Terrorists are above criticism

Category: General >

Posted by: Raja Petra

> By the Anti Jihadist

News about Islamic terrorism is impossible to avoid these days, even in the sanitised Malaysian media. Unfortunately, it's highly unusual for Muslims in Malaysia to ever criticise their co-religionists, no matter how outrageous their actions are. Muslim terrorists regularly murder women, children, civilians, and non-combatants alike. They execute captured prisoners after the most vicious torture. Terrorists acting in the name of Islam also blow up mosques, murder imams, and even violate oaths taken on the Quran, such as when the Taliban captured the Afghan village of Qala Mussa earlier this year, after having sworn on the Quran to engage in negotiations with the local elders. And yet, there is rarely a hint of outrage in the Muslim world. Malaysia is no exception to this pattern.

For a Malaysian example of this bizarre behaviour, let’s review the Malaysian reactions to the recent (2005) passing of Dr. Azahari Husin, the notorious Malaysian terrorist, committed jihadist, and chief bombmaker for terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah. Dr. Azahari, as you may recall, was directly implicated in the Bali bombings (both 2002 and 2005), the Australian embassy bombing in Jakarta, and the JW Mariott hotel bombing also in Jakarta. Azahari was in fact an unrepentant mass murderer, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of innocent people. But, as his family and the Malaysian media would have it, he was also supposedly a ‘genuinely warm and caring kind of guy’.

Here is the kind of spin his family put on their ‘fondly remembered’ Doctor Azahari, as was published verbatim in a Malaysian newspaper at the time:

…in his family, he was a respected big brother whose skills in Maths and zest for sports were a source of inspiration to his nine siblings. Azahari Husin’s sister, Suraya, 45, recalled that her brother loved cowboy movies and thought girls were "soppy".

He loved the outdoors and once hitchhiked on a lorry from the premier Malay College (in) Kuala Kangsar, where he studied, to his home in Jasin as a teenager. When he studied in Australia, he took motorcycle excursions across the desert. He loved orchids and sports cars.

The remainder of this media puff piece continues on in the same insufferable vein. And while the family finds plenty of wonderful memories to share with the all-too-willing Malaysian media, there is nary a trace of condemnation of the late doctor's multi-year murder spree.

Azahari's family eventually had this to say about the terrorist Dr. Azahari:

“… our family and friends never interfered with what my brother did. That’s the integrity of our family,” said (a younger sister of Dr Azahari Husin.)

“People can say what they want, but I know my brother,” she said when pressed for comments by newsmen at her house in Jalan Chin Chin here yesterday.

The woman, who lives a few kilometres from her parent’s house, said her father Husin Yaakob, 78, had left home for the time being, to live with one of her siblings, in anticipation of media interest in Dr Azahari’s family.

Azahari also received a hero’s send-off at his funeral in his hometown of Jasin in Malacca state. The ceremony attracted some 600 well wishers, who repeatedly screamed ‘Allahu akbar’ as his coffin was lowered into the ground. Many present at the funeral also voiced scepticism of Azahari’s role as a top terrorist. “Azahari will always have friends here. We shouldn't be asked to believe what is written about him in the newspapers,” said one man who identified himself to reporters only as Yusri.

These are very curious reactions all around, at the very least. Given the multiple opportunities to condemn terrorism, and to pronounce how un-Islamic all this terrorism supposedly is, Azahari’s family, friends and neighbours all refused to so state. Rather the opposite, actually—in particular, Azahari’s sister said for the record that family and friends “…never interfered with what my brother did”. This is a disturbingly noncommittal thing to say about a man intimately involved in carrying out mass murder, and for conspiring to commit even more mass murder. Indeed, it could even be construed as approval.

Compare the (at best) tepid response of the Azahari family to the response of another family that had one of its own become a mass murderer—the family of Cho Seung Hui. Cho, as many no doubt remember, was a Korean American who murdered 32 people just a few months ago at a university in Virginia before taking his own life. In the aftermath of this devastating tragedy, the family issued a powerful and eloquent statement to the world and to the relatives of the victims. This statement reads, in part:

On behalf of our family, we are so deeply sorry for the devastation my brother has caused. No words can express our sadness that 32 innocent people lost their lives this week in such a terrible, senseless tragedy. We are heartbroken.

…

We pray for their families and loved ones who are experiencing so much excruciating grief. And we pray for those who were injured and for those whose lives are changed forever because of what they witnessed and experienced.

Despite their shock, grief and unimaginable horror, the Cho family managed to compose and release this brief, but articulate public statement. In no uncertain terms, it makes it clear how the Cho family felt about the actions of their loved one, a loved one who, like Azahari Husin, mercilessly slaughtered so many. And still, this one simple statement is light years ahead of anything ever spoken by any of the family or friends of Dr. Azahari.

Why, indeed, did the Azahari family choose to not say anything even remotely similar to this? And for another example, why didn’t any of the families of the 9-11 hijackers issue statements like the Cho family? Why do all of these Muslim families to this day steadfastly refuse to denounce the unspeakable crimes of their loved ones?

It’s not hard to understand why. While a lot of Muslims may talk of peaceful co-existence, they tacitly approve of Islamic terrorists killing non-Muslims. More often than Muslims like to admit, these terrorists, either living or dead, are lionized as heroes in the Islamic world.

Many Muslims know that these attitudes will not play well in the West. Thus, the official policy of Muslim countries like Malaysia is to condemn Islamic terrorism. When need be (often right after a spectacular Muslim terrorist attack), Muslim countries and organisations are quick to release generalised, pro-forma, and mealy-mouthed condemnations of ‘all kinds of terrorism’. Strangely enough, however, they can never get around to disavowing Hamas, Hizbullah, Al Qaeda, etc. specifically and by name. Yet all the while, the mass media and much of the general public in Muslim nations, as seen in the Malaysian media coverage of Azahari’s death, are rather sympathetic to these cold-blooded killers.

Many Westerners believe that all this pro-terrorist talk will go away once economic prosperity comes to the Islamic world. Perhaps. However, it’s important to point out that many, if not most middle and upper class Muslims, share these pro-terrorist attitudes. So let’s just face the fact that, if you are a kafir (and most people on the planet are), a whole lot of Muslims want you dead or converted to Islam.....unless you're Jewish, in which case, only dead will do.

But don’t just take my word for it. You can look it up.....in the Muslim media.