Recognising the Enemy in Camouflage

(Mingguan Malaysia, 11 October)
Dr. Mohd Ridhuan Tee Abdullah, Senior Lecturer, National Defence University Malaysia

It is fine with me that all my descendants and ancestors and me were condemned. I have an inbuilt resistance already. However, sometimes my siblings and relatives who were not involved with my writings were affected instead. They were 'attacked' by this ultra kiasu group with all kinds of accusations. My grandparents and parents were blamed for not educating me well to be Chinese, uncaring the descendants, more Malay than the Malays, traitor to the race and all sorts of accusations that were beyond unacceptable.


I have no difficulties with this ultra kiasu group for I understand perfectly their characters as we are from the same kind. I stand on the principle to be brave enough to tell the truth and to fear of telling lies. Even to face my own family members. I don't care because they do not understand. Let alone to understand Islam as a way of life. Never assume that life is simple. The struggle to defend the truth is very challenging. Anyway, it is reassuring enough that Allah SWT is always with the truth seeker. Therefore, always put Allah priority above everything else.


After embracing Islam, I studied and was taught that in the event of a clash between the interests of Islam with other interests including the interests of the race, ancestors and so forth, then the interests of Muslims must be given the priority. A never will always be a never. Similarly a clash between the interests of the ummah and self interest, then preferences will be the ummah. This is because the ummah interest has great implications on Islam as a whole. These rights belong to Allah SWT, the eternal one. Other interest is only temporary for the world is only a temporary place for us to live.


Therefore, I cannot agree with my own race that stated property can be replaced but language, ethnicity, identity and ancestral heritage must be preserved. There is no compulsion and must be defended at all cost whenever they are being threatened. Is that correct? What I do understand is that self-interest, ethnicity, political parties and ancestors should be ignored when encountered with the interests of Allah SWT. Similarly, human rights should be ignored when encountered with the interests of Allah SWT.


In other words, whatever interests when faced with Allah's interest, then we should forget the rest as they are not permanent being temporary in nature. This does not mean we should ignore everything around us. What is the use of being noble in this world, in the eyes of others, but instead was despised by Allah SWT. We should understand this matter as well as the ultra kiasu group.


The best is being noble both in this world and with Allah. If there are no other choices, then let it be less noble in this world but be noble with Allah. This is my faith as a humble person that had accepted Islam. I am not sure how others will perceive.


In my writings, I only want the Muslims to realize that others have long been advancing themselves and became powerful and therefore it's hard for us to pursue. Do we want to continue to be left behind? See how others are taking care of their interests. They have reached the clouds, while we are busy quarrelling among ourselves. We are always divided in politics and the least we should be united in other things. Instead, we continue to split in other things as well.


The latest issue was on the caning punishment of Kartika Dewi Shukarno. I am impressed and respected her family and herself for accepting the punishment who requested that the caning punishments to be implemented. The question whether the sentence is appropriate or not is another issue. Essentially, the highest legal institution has decided. Honor that decision. Why are the Muslims among themselves that are not being punished nor involve in the punishment became so involved in this case? Have we not realized that people are shouting with joy because they do not have to speak as we have indirectly been representing them?


Kiasu


Those ultra kiasu do not have to interfere nor question the sharia's court decisions because we ourselves have enemies in camouflage. We among ourselves cannot even agree on a basic issue relating to religion and our own affairs which has been our flesh and blood. Imagine how are we coping with other issues?


I have never heard of non-Muslims going against the decision of Buddhist monks, Hindu or their priests on their religious actions even though they are sometimes quite extreme. For example, issue on covering 'aurat'. For those who do not want to cover their 'aurat', it is better to be silent. There is no need to criticize those who wants to cover their 'aurat' or those turning a new leaf (depending on their intention). Don't tease them nor criticize them.


I have never heard of my own race criticizing the clothing of Buddhist monks, Hindu or Christian priests which are well covered as Islam. There are monks who are willing to have their head bald (whether male or female), walking around without slippers and others in accordance with the teachings of their religion to deliver their religious duties. I noticed that they are being honored in the public or when they go from house to house. They are being welcome and charity or alms are given to them. Their arrival is considered to bring sustenance and good luck to the host. In other words, the non-Muslim honor their religious leaders, even they look to be extreme.


Why are we not 'acting' like them? Be united to defend the teachings of the ancestors. Be silently united even though from the external it looks as if it is divided. Today, let's ignore about silently united as we are divided internally and externally. We intentionally hang our dirty linings in the open. We adhere to the human rights more than the rights of Allah. Unfortunately, we opposed the good and silent the bad. Those sentenced drinking alcohol are opposed, those who drink alcohol are not opposed. Those not covering their 'aurat' revealing what not to be seen and should be hidden (being sexy), were not ask to cover up, but for those who really cover up were instead teased, "why are you covering up!" What is so derogatory when words like this being hurled up, "no use covering up if your heart is not sincere, closed behavior is worst then not covering up, therefore better don't cover up".


Remember, we are just ordinary people. It is not necessarily for those who try to practice their religion, their morals are better than those who do not, although that is what should happen. We need to distinguish between the human rights with the rights of Allah. There are those following the teachings of religion, but when they are being tested, eventually strayed away. There are also people who do not have the least desire to follow the religious teachings or the teachings of Allah, but yet they only see the good, reflecting as if those not practicing are better.


Therefore, my question is whether those who do not practice are better than those who actually practice? What if an imam or monk or priest was involved in a rape case, can we conclude that it is useless to have faith in the teachings of God? Why should we blame the teachings of God in this matter rather than ourselves who has corrupted the human faith? This is the ultra kiasu attitude that can corrupt the human faith. Thus, emphasizing human rights over the rights of the Creator. Besides, debate on the issue to strengthen a wet thread. Portraying as if the people do not need religion for it restrict the human rights.


If that's the case, there is no need to build so many places of worship until building at places which are not suitable. If the presence of God is not necessary, there is no need to have faith. It is better to follow our passions based on human rights. Do whatever you like even though it is prohibited by God's teachings such as drinking, gambling, casino, fooling around, adultery and so forth. Perhaps those who are against the punishment on Kartika will agree with these prohibitions? Is the existence of religion itself is viewed as a threat to restrict the freedom of human rights?