Malaysian Jihadist attack began with Islamisation – a rebuttal

Islamophobic writers in MM (or stands for Malaymail Mules) such as Zuhairi and Peru contine to spew their hatred towards muslims and Islam in Malaysia. We don’t need another Fox News and the likes of Donald Trump having their presence here. The latest is from Peru, who claims that 40 years of Islamization and the tudung wore by muslim women, contributed to terrorism. We hope that Mr. Peru has milligrams of intelligence left to read what actually happened 40 years ago in Malaysia. More people died from gun shots and bomb blast from the Communist insurgency then. Communism was a materialist ideology and the followers did not subscribe to any religion, their adherents did not wear the tudung, like muslim women, Jewish and Christian nuns. There were few Malay Communist members such as Musa Ahmad and Shamsiah Fakeh, and the whole process of Islamization has prevented muslims from joining the Communist movement. Mr. Peru claims that the threat of terrorism started 40 years ago when muslim women started wearing tudung, but muslim women started wearing the tudung Islam started 1400 years ago. When the Communist threat ended in the late 80s, people mostly died from gang violence, drive-by shootings, armed robbery, drug related violence, while bombs were used to blow-up ATM, and none died from religiously motivated violence. BTW, the photos two IS members which PDRM said were responsible for the Puchong attack didn’t wore tudung at all. The ISIS did not start 40 years ago in Malaysia but in 2014 in Iraq when the two war criminals, Bush and Blair invaded Iraq and set loose the cycle of terror. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 did not remove the threat of terror, but increased it, and paved the way for the formation of ISIS in 2014, not 40 years ago.

 http://m.themalaymailonline.com/opinion/farouk-a.-peru/article/malaysian-jihadist-attack-began-with-islamisation

Hypocrisy of liberals

Liberal standard of non-liberals

A muslim is a one who follows the Quran and Sunnah (Q&S) of Rasulullah (SAW) and not the liberal standard when judging his own actions. Me and my fellow muslims who follow the Q&S standard will never claim to be liberal.

“Now whenever God and His Apostle have decided a matter, it is not for a believing man or a believing woman to claim freedom of choice insofar as they themselves are concerned: for he who [thus] rebels against God and His Apostle has already, most obviously, gone astray. [TMQ: al-Ahzab, 36].

If a muslim who claims to be muslim, but the actions are contrary to the Q&S, then they are hypocrites (munafiqeen). There is a chapter on these hypocrites in the Quran itself (surah al-munafiqeen), and many verses which describes the actions of these group of people, who are doomed in the Hereafter. The word “liberal muslim” is a misnomer, one cannot claim to be a muslim who follows the Q&S standard, but at the same time hold on the liberal standard.

Islam encourages conversion of non-muslims but punishes apostasy, the laws punish alcoholism and adultery.  While the liberal standard which claims the freedom of choice and actions; conversion and apostasy shall not be punished. Using this standard, then muslim can be accused of being hypocritical, but this liberal standard is NOT the standard to judge the actions of muslims. But do they not know that John Locke, the classical Libertarian philosopher had called for the killing of apostates?

Some individuals, groups, newspapers and news media outlets here claim to encourage liberal ideas, but only publish articles which suit their own “liberal” agenda, and ban others which are unsuitable, yet claim to hold on to the liberal standard, by right are hypocrites themselves. Because they never practice the liberal standard which they claim to hold on to.

Similarly, liberté, égalité, fraternité in French stands for "liberty, equality, fraternity", is the national slogan of the Republic of France but this Republic went on a colonial mission in Africa, enslaving millions of people, killing and beheading other people, and robbing their wealth.

The current French Prime Minister, Francois Hollande, acknowledged the suffering his country had inflicted on Algeria, during an official visit to the Algerian parliament in 2012. Speaking to the Algerian parliament, Hollande admitted that 132 years colonial rule had been a brutal affair. He spoke about the war of independence, which took place over eight years up until 1962 and claimed around 1.5 million Algerian lives. Torture was frequently used by the French military and security services as the war spread from the North African country to mainland France itself. Mr Hollande said: 'What Algeria was subjected to for 132 years was profoundly brutal and unfair. That system had a name - colonialism - and I recognize here the suffering that colonialism inflicted on the Algerian people. There is a duty to tell the truth about the violence, the injustices, the massacres and the torture”.

“Liberal” people may not kill or enslave other people, but they may unite and form political parties, run for elections and if they win, form their own foreign policies which enslave, kill other people, and robbing their wealth, like the Republic of France. Intellectual discourses on the validity of the Holocaust is banned in several countries in “liberal” Europe, therefore on top of that, the liberals, anywhere they might exist, will always ban others from holding their views in public.

The article below was taken from Abdullah Andalusi’s “Liberal Intolerance: John Locke’s Dark Secret”, from The Muslim Debate Initiative (MDI):

Start:

If Liberalism had a prophet, it would be the classical Libertarian philosopher, John Locke. He is credited with giving form to the enlightenment ideas pervading Europe, and collecting them, nay coalescing them into a formal system of thought that was called ‘Libertarianism’, which would later be called Liberalism (known euphemistically today as ‘freedom’, or ‘liberty’). In fact, I would dare say John Locke is Liberalism’s foundational lawgiver, who revealed what he thought was human ‘natural law’, which then helped lead the Western nations into the ‘promised land’ of life, liberty and the “possession of outward things, such as money, lands, houses, furniture, and the like”.

Today, Liberals greatly revere John Locke for the pivotal and central role his works played in systematically formulating the ideology of Liberalism, and his justification of a separation of church and state, positing a set of ‘universal’ set of human rights and values for a new human society. One of his famous writings, A Letter Concerning Toleration, is held as a seminal text for the alleged Liberal value of toleration.

However, what most people don’t know, is in the very same hallowed documents written by Locke, which Liberalism praises so fiercely, lies a dark and terrible secret that Liberals would find horrifying. Namely, John Locke negates the universality of Liberal values by affirming that there is a time when apostates ought to be killed, and there is justification for the fundamental intolerance towards Atheists and Muslims.

In the case of the Apostate, John Locke writes in his famous document A Letter Concerning Toleration:

The case of idolaters, in respect of the Jewish commonwealth [i.e. the Kingdom of Ancient Israel], falls under a double consideration. The first is of those who, being initiated in the Mosaical rites, and made citizens of that commonwealth, did afterwards apostatise from the worship of the God of Israel. These were proceeded against as traitors and rebels, guilty of no less than high treason. For the commonwealth of the Jews, different in that from all others, was an absolute theocracy; nor was there, or could there be, any difference between that commonwealth and the Church [i.e. the Jewish religion]. The laws established there concerning the worship of One Invisible Deity were the civil laws of that people and a part of their political government, in which God Himself was the legislator. Now, if anyone can show me where there is a commonwealth at this time, constituted upon that foundation, I will acknowledge that the ecclesiastical laws do there unavoidably become a part of the civil, and that the subjects of that government both may and ought to be kept in strict conformity with that Church by the civil power.

Of course, John Locke does not advocate such a punishment for all societies. But the question we must ask ourselves is why? Is it because Locke believes in freedom of conscience? or the natural right of all humans to believe and profess whatever they desire? No, here is his reason:

But it may be urged farther that, by the law of Moses, idolaters were to be rooted out. True, indeed, by the law of Moses; but that is not obligatory to us Christians. Nobody pretends that everything generally enjoined by the law of Moses ought to be practised by Christians; but there is nothing more frivolous than that common distinction of moral, judicial, and ceremonial law, which men ordinarily make use of. For no positive law whatsoever can oblige any people but those to whom it is given. “Hear, O Israel,” sufficiently restrains the obligations of the law of Moses only to that people. And this consideration alone is answer enough unto those that urge the authority of the law of Moses for the inflicting of capital punishment upon idolaters. But, however, I will examine this argument a little more particularly.

In regards to Muslims, John Locke says:

That Church [i.e. religion] can have no right to be tolerated by the magistrate [government] which is constituted upon such a bottom [i.e. foundation] that all those who enter into it do thereby ipso facto deliver themselves up to the protection and service of another prince [i.e. a foreign ruler]…It is ridiculous for anyone to profess himself to be a Mahometan [i.e. Muslim] only in his religion, but in everything else a faithful subject to a Christian magistrate [government], whilst at the same time he acknowledges himself bound to yield blind obedience to the Mufti of Constantinople, who himself is entirely obedient to the Ottoman Emperor [i.e. Caliph] and frames the feigned oracles of that religion according to his pleasure.

Locke then continues from Muslims to Atheists:

“Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all; besides also, those that by their atheism undermine and destroy all religion, can have no pretence of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of a toleration”.

Atheists only became tolerated with the decline on Christianity in Europe, and the rise of Atheism and secular morality as an inevitable result of the secular and materialist trajectory of Liberalism. However, it seems that the intolerance against Islam and the mistrust of Muslims seems to be an age old problem with Liberalism. A problem as palpable today, as it was in 1689.

All quotes in this document were taken from John Locke’s writing: A Letter Concerning Toleration

End.

Muslims must be judged how much they adhere to the Quran and the Sunnah. Muslims cannot be judged on how much they follow liberal ideas. Also, someone who claims to be a liberalist must be judged on how much his adherence on liberal ideas. If you want to judge the performance of a land predator such as a lion, you have to judge how good the lion in catching land creatures, and not how good is it in catching aquatic creatures. The whole argument of accusing muslims as hypocrites because of not adhering to liberal ideas is totally wrong. There is little doubt that the so-called liberals here really adhere their own liberal values, they are the real hypocrites.

The liberal system does not punish anyone consuming alcohol, while Islam punishes muslims who consume alcoholic drinks. Then when you judge the muslim who drinks alcohol, the person is a bad muslim, but must not be judged as a liberal muslim. Also, if someone who proclaims himself as a liberal, but does not hold to liberal ideas, then he is a bad liberalist, or a hypocrite. Liberals must judge muslims how much they adhere to their own religion and not how much they obey liberal ideas. Because muslims will always judge the liberalist on how much they obey their own liberal ideas. The National Fatwa Council has declared Islam Liberal as a deviationist movement, like Al-Arqam in the 1990s.