S Thayaparan
“Those who say they are fighting for religion and race but don’t align themselves with Muslims. They are so angry with the kafir harbi, yet finally align themselves with the kafir harbi.”
COMMENT | Make no mistake, whenever any Malay uber alles political operative attacks the DAP, they are in reality attacking the non-Malay voting demographic.
They neither consider Malay politicians in DAP nor Malays who support the DAP as “genuine” Muslims. This also means anyone working with the DAP is not a genuine Muslim either.
When Mujahid Yusof Rawa was Pakatan Harapan’s religious czar, he attempted some pushback on the terms kafir harbi and kafir zimmi as unrealistic within the context of constitutional citizenship.
Mujahid argued that the violent implications and servitude did not reflect the reality of tax-paying citizens. He, of course, received pushback from PAS - which argued that the terms were a reflection of how non-believers were defined by how they viewed the religion which in essence means how they viewed Islamic dogma.
In this instance, PAS was correct. When the party’s president, Abdul Hadi Awang, said non-Muslims must be “Pak Turut”, this is exactly in line with his religious dogma. If you can offer no counter-narrative, you do not get to claim that Hadi is wrong about his interpretation of Islam.
“Those who say they are fighting for religion and race but don’t align themselves with Muslims. They are so angry with the kafir harbi, yet finally align themselves with the kafir harbi.”
- Shahrir Long
COMMENT | Make no mistake, whenever any Malay uber alles political operative attacks the DAP, they are in reality attacking the non-Malay voting demographic.
They neither consider Malay politicians in DAP nor Malays who support the DAP as “genuine” Muslims. This also means anyone working with the DAP is not a genuine Muslim either.
When Mujahid Yusof Rawa was Pakatan Harapan’s religious czar, he attempted some pushback on the terms kafir harbi and kafir zimmi as unrealistic within the context of constitutional citizenship.
Mujahid argued that the violent implications and servitude did not reflect the reality of tax-paying citizens. He, of course, received pushback from PAS - which argued that the terms were a reflection of how non-believers were defined by how they viewed the religion which in essence means how they viewed Islamic dogma.
In this instance, PAS was correct. When the party’s president, Abdul Hadi Awang, said non-Muslims must be “Pak Turut”, this is exactly in line with his religious dogma. If you can offer no counter-narrative, you do not get to claim that Hadi is wrong about his interpretation of Islam.
PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang
In a democratic state, people have the right to dissent. For instance, PAS and Perikatan Nasional use their right to dissent vigorously, often at the expense of other democratic norms.
However, if you object to the aims, agendas, and policies of PAS/PN, you are essentially going against Islam, which means the religious state can and should inflict sanctions against transgressors.
This means that, according to PAS/PN, not only are the political operatives in the DAP “kafir harbi” but also anyone who votes for them. Because if the DAP stands up against what they consider racial and religious extremism, the party and anyone who support them are also kafir harbi.
Take the proposed amendments to the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act (Act 355), for instance. When PAS was going around touting this as a major step for the agenda of Islamisation in this country, it received pushback from Harapan and the DAP.
PAS not only vilified the DAP for this but also questioned the Islamic credentials of any Malay political operative who opposed this policy. Indeed, so vehement were the objections from the DAP, PAS had a field day attacking Malay political operatives who are now their allies.
In a democratic state, people have the right to dissent. For instance, PAS and Perikatan Nasional use their right to dissent vigorously, often at the expense of other democratic norms.
However, if you object to the aims, agendas, and policies of PAS/PN, you are essentially going against Islam, which means the religious state can and should inflict sanctions against transgressors.
This means that, according to PAS/PN, not only are the political operatives in the DAP “kafir harbi” but also anyone who votes for them. Because if the DAP stands up against what they consider racial and religious extremism, the party and anyone who support them are also kafir harbi.
Take the proposed amendments to the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act (Act 355), for instance. When PAS was going around touting this as a major step for the agenda of Islamisation in this country, it received pushback from Harapan and the DAP.
PAS not only vilified the DAP for this but also questioned the Islamic credentials of any Malay political operative who opposed this policy. Indeed, so vehement were the objections from the DAP, PAS had a field day attacking Malay political operatives who are now their allies.
The decision of this current government to table Act 355 after it passes cabinet approval and the silence of the DAP is exactly the kind of theocratic endgame that serves the forces of extremism in this country, and is also indicative of how non-Malay political operatives have sublimated Hadi’s “pak turut” rejoinder.
So, where does that leave us? Well, if it is only acceptable for PAS/PN if non-Malays voted for them or people who PAS/PN have cleared for voting, this means it is pointless for non-Malays to even vote, right?
Making non-Muslim political power inconsequential
This is not such a controversial proposition. Keep in mind that Hadi said on record that the whole goal of hooking up with Umno was securing a supermajority in Dewan Rakyat so they could game the electoral map and make the non-Malay vote irrelevant.
By making the non-Malay vote irrelevant, what they are actually doing is making non-Malay political power inconsequential. Making non-Muslim political power inconsequential is the very definition of “pak turut”.
By denying non-Muslims the right to vote or defining who they could vote for, the term kafir harbi would be dropped because there would not be any opposition to any kind of religious policy and because dissent is only meaningful when it affects consequences.
This is why PN chairperson Muhyddin Yassin, who if you remember was given everything by the DAP, said the below on the hustings regarding the “Allah” issue.
“Do you (the audience) know who caused this decision to be made? Yes, he is (Prime Minister) Anwar (Ibrahim), but behind Anwar are DAP members, who I know, when I was the (home) minister, also pressured to not appeal (the Jill Ireland case).”
PN chairperson Muhyiddin Yassin
In other words, the DAP and the people who vote for them subscribing to the principles the DAP claims to have, were pushing back against an unjust religious diktat.
It would be so much easier, then, if PAS/PN would just write into their manifesto that the right to vote should be taken away from non-Muslims. We would not have to go through all this racial and religious manure where the democratic rights of non-Muslims are defined as something going against Islam.
We would just not have any democratic rights, which according to PAS/PN is “just” because non-Muslims have to be “pak turut” if they do not want to be defined as kafir harbi.
Just get it over with
So, if PAS/PN really believed that the non-Muslim demographic really was such a threat to Islam, or if they really believed that non-Muslims should be “pak turut” because their dogma defines anyone exercising their democratic rights as kafir harbi, then why not draw up legislation which would give legal validity to all those fears and grievances of the Islamic community when it comes to non-Muslims voting in this country.
Why not make this part of their election manifesto? If PAS/PN really were really the defenders of Islam in this country and really believed that non-Muslims could either be kafir harbi or kafir zimmi, why not legislate on this issue to ensure that the sanctity and supremacy of Islam are defended?
After all, non-Malay political operatives and Malay liberals are always warned not to spook the Malays or not trespass into territories that are supposedly exclusively “Muslim”.
In other words, the DAP and the people who vote for them subscribing to the principles the DAP claims to have, were pushing back against an unjust religious diktat.
It would be so much easier, then, if PAS/PN would just write into their manifesto that the right to vote should be taken away from non-Muslims. We would not have to go through all this racial and religious manure where the democratic rights of non-Muslims are defined as something going against Islam.
We would just not have any democratic rights, which according to PAS/PN is “just” because non-Muslims have to be “pak turut” if they do not want to be defined as kafir harbi.
Just get it over with
So, if PAS/PN really believed that the non-Muslim demographic really was such a threat to Islam, or if they really believed that non-Muslims should be “pak turut” because their dogma defines anyone exercising their democratic rights as kafir harbi, then why not draw up legislation which would give legal validity to all those fears and grievances of the Islamic community when it comes to non-Muslims voting in this country.
Why not make this part of their election manifesto? If PAS/PN really were really the defenders of Islam in this country and really believed that non-Muslims could either be kafir harbi or kafir zimmi, why not legislate on this issue to ensure that the sanctity and supremacy of Islam are defended?
After all, non-Malay political operatives and Malay liberals are always warned not to spook the Malays or not trespass into territories that are supposedly exclusively “Muslim”.
For years, we were fed the narrative that the government was supposed to be a bastion of Malay leadership and privilege, and what this Madani government has proven is that the non-Malay voting demographic is more than willing to sublimate whatever desires they have for a progressive Malaysia if it means holding on to whatever meagre rights they still can exercise including voting.
Having said that, you have to wonder about the people who vote for PAS/PN. Just as PAS/PN demonise the DAP and the people who vote for them, what is important to understand is that with all that Hadi, Muhyiddin, and the various political operatives said about the non-Malays, people still vote for them.
At best, democracy and secularism are fragile concepts. The question is, does anyone really believe that Malaysia is a secular, multi-ethnic nation?
S THAYAPARAN is Commander (Rtd) of the Royal Malaysian Navy. Fīat jūstitia ruat cælum - “Let justice be done though the heavens fall.”
The joke of course is that Malaysia is a member on the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC)
ReplyDeleteThat does not say much of the UNHRC, does it?
Good. Remove the right to vote by the "pendatang"😁
ReplyDelete