Why don't you embrace Islam, you do not know what you are missing".  I actually yearn to say, "Fcuk you, sir".

- Former Türkiye president Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

COMMENT | In 2014, current ambassador to the United States Nazri Aziz said this about the kidnapping of S Deepa’s children: “It is a civil law marriage, it is the civil court, we must respect the civil court’s ruling. They have the jurisdiction. The High Court judge’s ruling was correct. The police shouldn’t allow him to get away with kidnapping the child.”  

In 2022, while debating the King’s Address, Nazri highlighted the kidnapping of children from two mothers, Loh Siew Hong and M Indira Gandhi and said this: “As a Muslim, I am not proud of this. For me, Islam is about being fair. And it’s not fair if one of the parents changes the religion of their child without the other parent’s permission. Don’t do to others what you don’t want others to do to you.”

Don’t do to others what you don’t want others to do to you. This is the key. Former prime minister and convicted felon Najib Abdul Razak in 2015, when addressing the United Nations General Assembly, said this when calling on the Israeli government to live up to the highest aspirations of Judaism:

“The essential message of the Torah, as succinctly expressed by the first century BC sage Hillel. When asked to describe the Torah in a soundbite, he said, ‘That which is hateful to you, don’t do to your fellow human being.’ This dictum, known universally in all religions as the Golden Rule, could herald the dawn of a much-needed revised relationship between Muslims and Jews.” 

The golden rule

When Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim said that “Laïcité secularism” has no place in Malaysia, he is wilfully mischaracterising the struggle against religious fascism in this country. Nobody is demanding or has ever demanded orthodox laïcité secularism. Rational people in this country, and this includes Muslims who are appalled at the way how their religion is used to justify the most abhorrent behaviour and policies, just want the state to practise the golden rule.

This means we do not want our children unilaterally converted and kidnapped, with the state security apparatus colluding with the religious bureaucracy to undermine civil law.

We do not want to be prohibited from using certain words deemed appropriate only for Muslims. We do not want to be told who can and cannot enter our religious places of worship. We do not want our economic livelihoods threatened by religious policy, because our business is deemed haram. We do not want religious vigilantes walking around shopping malls demanding we submit to their sensitivities.

We do not want our school-going children subjected to religious enticement by teachers. We do not want our religious texts vilified by foreign or local preachers. We do not want our places of worship to be subjected to the scrutiny of provocateurs who claim we are secretly converting Muslims. We do not want our religions to be demonised by the political establishment to secure votes. 

We do not want our religious personalities kidnapped. We do not want to be told that our religious beliefs are a threat to Muslims. We do not want to be told to dress decently as though we are, by nature, indecent people. We do not want to be told that we are the cause of corruption in this country.

We do not want our economic livelihood determined by religious dogma. We do not want to be threatened because we engage in the political process. What I am writing about is baseline decency. The golden rule, the numero uno, religious rule if you so desire. This has nothing to do with wanting a secular state. However, what we are really talking about here, is not secularism but religious superiority. This is about religious extremism.

Religious extremism

So you ask, how do I define religious extremism? The answer to that is simple. If you believe that the state should legislate on behalf of your religious beliefs and impose such laws on non-believers, then you are a religious extremist.

Secularism is what divides non-Muslims (and those Muslims who are demonised for thinking the same way as the “nons”) and the theocratic political mainstream Malay power structures. This is an important point and one that our prime minister wants to gloss over. Why do religious extremists fear secularism? Simple. Because they know that it protects everyone from the corrosive aspects of religious beliefs.

This is not about non-Muslims. This is about Muslims. Religious extremists do not want people to think for themselves. To accept and reject dogma as they see fit, which is what secularism encourages. Far from turning people into atheists, secularism encourages a plurality of religious thought. This is anathema to a theocratic state.

I do not blame the majority for wanting their Islamic lifestyle (or should that be Arabic lifestyle?). But why am I resisting? Why am I fighting this? Because I remember a time when it was not like this. I remember a time when religion did not divide us, and my Malay friends were not so afraid – not afraid of their religion and certainly not afraid that their religion would be conquered by the non-Muslims.

I am not fighting for some sort of utopia, but for a past where one could make a credible argument that we were a secular country. But more importantly, a theocratic state would mean failed statehood for Malaysia. But I may be on the losing side. It may be too late. Everything the current prime minister does reeks of the government’s fear of spooking the Malays. The opposition is hell-bent on turning this country into a theocratic state. We are in an epochal moment in Malaysia’s destiny. My advice to non-Muslims, especially young people - have an exit strategy.

GreenKijang7359 : Those belonging to the cult have their own law and as such, why would they even bother let alone respect the law of the land. No wonder chaos ensues wherever they exist. How can a country be governed by two separate systems?