– John Wyndham, ‘The Day of the Triffids’

In this first of a two-part article, I discuss how non-Muslims deal with Islamists in this country who attempt to subvert secularism with the agenda of maintaining racial and religious superiority.

The second part (to be published tomorrow) deals with Hindraf’s P Waythamoorthy’s attempts to contextualise Indian preacher Zakir Naik’s venomous interpretation of Islam as a threat to national security. It is merely coincidence that two very different ‘Hindu’ personalities have different approaches to co-existing with Islamists in this country.

Whenever I write about Islam, some folks claim that I am “interfering” with Islam, “mocking” Islam, disrespectful to Muslims, and generally attempting to cause trouble in our multi-religious polity. Apparently by writing about an issue, which I believe – others may not share this – is a clear and present danger to this country, I am the enemy to whatever fragile “peace” there is.

Let me just say this. If Islam never intruded in non-Malay/Muslim lives, if Islam did not shape how we interacted with our fellow citizens, if Islam did not determine national and social policy, if Muslims powerbrokers practiced that odious separate but equal policy that they claim to observe and Islam never touched the lives of non-Muslims in this country, there would never be a need to comment on Islam.

If that were the case and I remained silent, it would perhaps make me a terrible human being because I did not care about how the state treated my fellow citizens merely because by chance of birth, they were subjected to different laws by the state.

Under those circumstances, I may be an odious human being but a law-abiding citizen of that perfect separate but equal Muslim paradise. I am just glad I am not writing in that hypothetical Islamic paradise.

PAS supporters’ wing information chief Dr Balachandran G Krishnan claims not to be “confused” like other non-Muslims about Act 355 because he was “taught” by the PAS leadership, who are different. Oh, they are different all right; different in the sense that they hold every secular idea as anathema to their interpretation of Islam.

Not only does Balachandran claim that non-Muslims who do not support the bill are ignorant, he also went on to say that Muslims who do not support party president Abdul Hadi Awang’s bill are “munafik” – hypocritical. In other words, here is a non-Muslim who not only passes judgment on non-Muslim Malaysians, but also has the temerity to chastise those Muslims who do not support his political party’s Islamic agenda.

So, it would seem it is perfectly acceptable for non-Muslims to interfere in the religious beliefs of other Muslims if it in the service of advancing the religious agenda of PAS and Umno. While I do concede that there are many non-Muslims who are ignorant of exactly what this bill entails, I do not think that this ignorance does not have any relevance to the very real danger this bill poses to eroding the already decaying secular foundations of this country.

Furthermore, non-Muslims politicians have expressed outlier – when it comes to the online non-Muslim rhetoric – views on this subject. Indeed, PSM’s Dr Jeyakumar Devaraj wrote an excellent piece discussing the political motives of Umno and the opposition, but also the role of engagement between Muslim and non-Muslims communities.

Indeed, in an article discussing his views, I wrote – “When we object to certain practices of the state which we deem immoral or corrupt, we do so as citizens of the country. The same principle applies to certain religious practices. We speak for those who cannot, we support those who have been unfairly targeted and who have no choice as to whether they accept or reject religious dogma as defined by the state” – to his question on whether non-Muslims have a right to object to the way how Muslims practice their religion.

Now of course this is Malaysia and to Malaysians like Balachandran, a non-Muslim who speaks out against what he or she perceives to be destabilising to the country is ignorant and those Muslims who do the same are hypocritical. But does this mean that there can be no common ground between Muslims and non-Muslims?

An existential threat

I reproduce here what someone, Islamists in Malaysia have branded a “deviant”, says about the propagation of Islam and Islamic viewpoints – former PAS member and now PKR operative, Wan Ji Wan Hussin:

“I don’t agree that only Islam can be propagated. The Federal Constitution states that, but I don’t agree with it from the viewpoint of religion. Let the law practitioners debate if it’s from the law’s point of view. But as someone who studied religion, that statement is wrong. Non-Muslims should be given the right to give their views, as opposed to only the Muslims who can do so. Maybe that’s why people have accused me of being ‘liberal’.”

So where do we find this common ground? We find this common ground in a secular state.  Anyone who does not support the idea of a secular state has no intention of finding common ground and would rather find “peace” and “stability” in a theocratic state. If you believe that you can co-exist peacefully in a theocratic state, then you are truly ignorant.

This is why I say any Malaysian who supports Hadi’s bill is ignorant. This is not a question about suppressing the religious rights of the majority, it is about making it clear to the state that religion should not be used to divide the Malaysian polity but more importantly, ignore the voices of Muslim Malaysians who do not subscribe to the state’s interpretation of Islam.

This goes beyond partisan politics and is in essence an existential threat to any Malaysian who does not wish to see the day that our country becomes just another statistic in the failed Islamic state index.

While I think dialogue is important, like the proposed forum organised by Dr Ronnie Ooi, I think it is important to remember that forums such as these are normally fait accompli in nature. I doubt forums like these have any effect on the Islamists who propose such bills and they act more as a fig leaf than a serious agenda-changing discourse.

It is ignorant to believe that the Arabisation process crept up on us. It is ignorant to believe that a state-sponsored Islam will not impact us as non-Muslims. It is ignorant to believe that Islamists in this country have no designs on the fragile so-called “Western” rights that have ensured that Malaysia does not slip into an abyss of Islamism, or in the words of Wan Ji – “Secular countries in the West have proven how this has been good when more people convert to Islam. Muslim countries, on the other hand, kill each other, and corruption is rampant. Religion is used as a cover-up to leaders’ weaknesses. We see how it is peaceful in secular countries. The non-Muslims don’t have problems with Muslims. A pro-religion secular country is the best solution.”

The fact is that Hadi’s bill, which is entertained by the Najib regime, has nothing to do with Islam. This has everything to do with maintaining an alliance with PAS. If this is not “munafik”, I have no idea what is. If people continue thinking that the kind of Islam promulgated by the Najib regime is “moderate”, this is the kind of ignorance that will eventually lead us to a failed Islamic state.

Tomorrow: Is Zakir Naik a threat to national security?

S THAYAPARAN is Commander (Rtd) of the Royal Malaysian Navy.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.