“If they agree they can go ahead and no one has the right to stop them. When I questioned further why this was the practice his reply
was short and swift. A man’s belief in his religion is
between him and God and if he choose to sin then he
has to answer to God not to man.” Richard Teoh

This was the situation in Malaysia during the time of Tunku, Razak and Hussein. So what changed?? What changed was when Mahathir and Anwar took over the reins of leadership. Mahathir himself has always been a moderate Muslim. But when he chose to ride the wave of Islamic fundamentalism in the 80s, and recruited Anwar Ibrahim to be his deputy, the course of politics in Malaysia changed forever.

Can future Prime Ministers put the genie back into the bottle??

Jeffrey: “…prime Minister (Badawi) has however, for now, given the right signal. He made it known he disapproved …”

Yes, but notice that he has assumed his position as Chairman of the Board of Directors of Malaysia Inc. – merely giving broad policy guidelines.

We are interested in what he is going to do as CEO. He is a weak CEO. His senior managers are not listening to him. So what do we do with a weak CEO?? We boot him out.

In other words, Jeffrey, the concept of ‘individual’ rights and ‘privacy’ are alien to Islam.

KJ was speaking in defense of Islam Hadhari. The Prime Minister when he took over labeled his ‘version’ of Islam as ‘Islam Hadhari’ as if he had the moral authority to label the fastest growing religion in the world as anything. ‘Islam Hadhari’ is nothing but old wine in a new bottle. The political labeling of the fastest growing religion in the world corrupts the most basic teaching of Islam which is to unite all Mankind. Here it serves to divide and divide Muslims even further.

In a multiracial and multi religious and multiethnic Malaysia, it is said that there can be no room for anything but a’ moderate’ Islam – as if there is a moderate form of any religion. Islam Hadhari is a political rendering of a religion to suit the needs of a political leader and his brand of politics.

The event of 9/11 has forced Muslim cleric all over the world to reconsider and reevaluate and react defensively to what they view as the onslaught of the West against Islam. In Malaysia, Malays as a result have been made painfully aware, conscious as Muslims of their place in the scheme of things and view secularism in the post 9/11 world as not in their best interest if not a threat.

The speech by KJ is nothing more than a self-serving speech, quoting verses from the Holy Koran out of context whenever it suits him. He wrote: “It seems we can’t get enough of moral policing, and more specifically invading and violating people’s privacy, in order to exterminate social ills and make this a better Islamic country.”

People’s privacy?? That seems to be a western concept with its emphasis on ‘individualism’. Islam like Judaism, on the other hand, stresses the importance of the ‘community’ and ‘communal values’ as opposed to the ‘individual’ and ‘individualism’. The ‘individual’ as a concept to Muslims is irrelevant. Hence an Islamic state can easily deteriorate into a totalitarian state and totalitarianism, fascism or some corrupt form of ‘dictatorship of the people’.

The apparent displeasure shown against the activities of Mat Skoding, on moral policing generally appears to be a step in the right of direction. Moral policing is an aberration in the political life of a secular nation which has dedicated itself to uphold the constitutional and fundamental values of democracy. The dangers of moral policing in multi religious and multi ethnic Malaysia are no more demonstrated by the arbitrary manner in which the activities are being carried out.

But to a Muslim is the issue of ‘morality’ an issue outside the realm of politics? A Muslim when asked will not be able to compartmentalize the issues. He would say it is irrelevant – and that is because he is a Muslim.

So let’s not sing, “Kumbaya, my Lord” just yet.