"What sluggards, what cowards have I brought up in my court, who care nothing for their allegiance to their lord. Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?" - King Henry II
Last year Perak's Chief Mufti claimed that Malays are ‘special’ because they are related to Islam, unlike the Arabs, some of whom are Christians. Presumably his 'Malays' are thus superior to the Arabs.
In other words, according to this man, the Malays could be considered as The Chosen Race of Allah swt, in the same way Jews believe they are of YWVH, while Japanese consider themselves even more superior, having descended from Amaterasu, the Sun Goddess.
Not wanting to be left out from The Chosen Race category, some bible-toting Yanks and Brits believe for centuries they are in fact descendants of the ancient Hebrews and thus God’s Chosen Race.
However, Harussani was a ‘reasonable’ man (wakakaka) in conceding (perhaps grudgingly, but who knows?) that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was an Arab. Hmmm, I wonder whether Harussani had wished the Prophet (pbuh) was also a Malay?
Harussani’s assertion that all Malays are Muslims is in fact supported by the Malayan Constitution, which defines who’s a Malay (e.g. Ridhuan Tee Abdullah and Zambry Abdul Kadir) and who’s not (e.g. kaytee wakakaka). Incidentally my Uncle knew a ‘Malay’ military person who’s not a Muslim (by his own choice), but admittedly this was during the days when Malays were not yet ‘Arabized’ (thanks to Anwar) and more tolerant.
But if we step outside the Malayan Constitution and its definition of a ‘Malay’, there are lots of Malays who aren’t Muslims.
Wikipedia has this to say:
In his 1775 doctoral dissertation titled De generis humani varietate nativa (On the Natural Varieties of Mankind), Blumenbach outlined four main human races by skin color, namely Caucasian (white), Ethiopian (black), Native American (red), and Mongolian (yellow).
By 1795, Blumenbach added another race called 'Malay' which he considered to be a subcategory of both the Ethiopian and Mongoloid races. The Malay race were those of a "brown color, from olive and a clear mahogany to the darkest clove or chestnut brown."
Blumenbach expanded the term "Malay" to include the native inhabitants of the Marianas, the Philippines, the Malukus, Sundas, Indochina, as well as Pacific Islands such as Tahitians. He considered a Tahitian skull he had received to be the missing link; showing the transition between the "primary" race, the Caucasians, and the "degenerate" race, the Negroids.
‘Degenerate’ race eh? No doubt he was a racist arsehole.
Sometimes I have heard of 'Malays' belonging to the 'Polynesian' ethnic group. Nevertheless, even today the term ‘Malays’ would loosely embrace Filipinos, Polynesians, Maoris, and Indonesians of various ethnicities. I'm sure we are all aware not all are Muslims, even if we consider only Indonesians.
But in Malaya/Malaysia, the Constitution is probably the only one of its kind in the world to legislate who is a ‘Malay’. I wonder what ethnicity a person born a Malay but subsequently decides he/she isn’t a Muslim (like the person my Uncle knew), can claim?
In a previous post on 04 April 2008 titled Religious overstepping of boundaries where I blogged on a Star Online article which reported Syariah Court of Appeal Judge (Mohd Asri Abdullah) and his "Proposal to prosecute non-Muslims for khalwat", I wrote:
By the by, as I blogged in The ‘Bumiputera’ in the Malay identity, Dr Syed Ali Tawfik Al-Attas was the bloke who once told us:
“The Melayu is defined as first being a Muslim and because he’s a Muslim, he follows the customs and traditions of the Malays which are derived from Islam, followed by the language of the Malays which (also) derives from Islam.”
Malay language was derived from Islam? ;-) ke ke ke ke ke!
Then he committed a greater error in letting us know of his abysmal lack of knowledge about Buddhism.
He had once recklessly ascribed roadside shrines to Buddhist practice, stating: “Look at every other corner or tree and you’ll see a little red Buddhist shrine. People don’t disturb it, they respect it. We don’t go and break it, for heaven’s sakes!”.
He even had the temerity (of ignorance) to chide the Buddhists with “I think sometimes these people are also stepping over their boundaries, the ones who demand too much. There already is freedom of worship, you’re free to worship anywhere.”
Man, he knows diddly f*-all squat about Buddhism. To voice his opinion in public that 'there is a red little Buddhist shrine at every corner or tree' indicated an irresponsibility reflecting unworthily on his stature as director general of the Institute of Islamic Understanding.
As I blogged before in Sneaky Buddhists, Scary Buddhists!, Buddhists don’t give two hoots about the mercy or goodwill of god or gods. Unlike the Abrahamic religions, Buddhism does not subscribe to belief, faith or obedience in an Almighty God. It's virtually a godless religion.
In fact I would say his remarks were insulting to Buddhists
Thus in that incident, Dr Syed had demonstrated his abysmal ignorance on Buddhism in exactly the same way he had condemned non-Muslims as people ignorant of Islam who ought not to interfere with matters Islamic.
Well, we see this gross ignorance again in Harussani. Today, The Malaysian Insider reported in its news article Harussani says Malays must defend their land where he played the jingoistic game, once again.
He called on Malays to defend their race and rights to the land, and to give some weight to his words, he dropped a Big name, though a non-Malay one, namely Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), arguing that the prophet also spoke about his race. Harussani sure as hell has no shame or sense of sin in misusing the name of the Prophet (pbuh) for racist purposes.
As I wrote on 19 July 2010 in my post Perak Mufti ain't no Saladin
Hundreds of years ago, maybe even a thousand or more, many Indians on the subcontinent, especially those from the lower caste became Muslims because Islam freed them from society’s iniquitous shackles. As Muslims they could give the bird to human imposed social barriers.
For them, for justice, for humanity, Islam was the great social equalizer.
But wait, read The Malaysian Insider’s Perak PAS Youth calls Harussani a racist, which says (extracts):
Perak PAS Youth also rejects Tan Sri Harussani’s racist attitude and his responsibility as a Mufti. While abroad especially in Australia in June 2010 Tan Sri Harussani revealed his hate against other races during his ceramah with Malaysian students there.
Hmmm, what brand of Islam is he practicing? Surely not the Islamic Great Equalizer!
If Perak PAS Youth’s accusation has been correct, then the Mufti’s unique brand of Islam has somehow accommodated his bigoted hate of ‘other races’, presumably non-Malays. Within the Malaysian context, the Mufti must have also included Chinese and Indian Muslims? Or worse, Arab Muslims?
Subsequently, my prediction was in a way proven correct, when he placed the Malays as above the Arabs in Islam.
Like the religion of the Hebrews-Israelis, his too has a ‘chosen race’ where other races are goyims (kaffirs) to be destroyed.
“When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations ... then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy." - Deuteronomy 7:1-2, NIV.
"... do not leave alive anything that breaths. Completely destroy them ... as the Lord your God has commanded you ..." - Deuteronomy 20:16, NIV.
Hmmm, charming people ... and in the Mufti's revelation to Malaysian students in Australia he showed his thinking were/are not different from those biblical Hebrews-Israelis.
Incidentally, HTF did he became a Tan Sri when he was the man responsible for nearly causing religious-racial violence through a seditious SMS in 2006 ...
... and worse, when the sh*t hit the fan he blamed the whole seditious crime on a woman. F* pathetic!