Art Harun blasts religious fanatic Ridhuan Tee
ART HARUN is a
prominent Muslim activist and a lawyer by profession. What a scintillating
reply to the pseudo Malay Chinese convert
Ridhuan Tee Abdullah
An open reply to Dr Mohd Ridhuan Tee Abdullah
Dear Doctor,
I refer to your
article "Accused as criminals better than being evil."
Before I join issue
with you on several matters in your article, allow me to state some
disclaimers. This is to prevent me from being labeled anti this and that or pro
this and that.
First and foremost I
am just an ordinary citizen of this country of ours who is just concerned with
the well being of our country. Although I have my own political views, I am not
affiliated to nor am I associated with any political party at all. I am a Malay
and a Muslim. I am not anti-Malay or anti-Islam. Nor am I pro non-Malays or
non-Muslims.
Now that I have made
that clear, I shall address some of the issues raised.
Firstly, the
"social contract". These two words have become a cliche in Malaysia.
Whenever somebody or some parties raise some sensitive issues which the
Government does not wish to address, they will be referred to the "social
contract". Soon, I suppose when a thief snatches a handbag from a poor
woman, he will shout to the woman, "social contract"!
What is the
"social contract"? I will not repeat what it is as I have written
about ithere. The first thing to note about it is that
any social contract is not cast in stone. It may change as the society and
state change and the need of the two parties to the contract evolve with time.
What was deemed good 52 years ago may not be good anymore now, and vice versa.
If we take our Federal
Constitution as an example, there have been hundreds of amendments made to it.
That is the nature of it. It is a breathing and living contract which
changes or ought to change according to the time.
Being so, questioning
the provisions of the social contact is not a blasphemous act. Nor is it an act
of treason. It is in fact a necessity for our society and our state to evolve
into a progressive one. With all due respect, for you to label a certain party
as "ultra kiasu" just because it apparently questions - if at all
they did that - the "social contract" is unbefitting of your stature
as a respectable ulamak and a well known senior lecturer. It is like labeling
your own students "kiasu" for asking too many questions.
Why can't we be
positive about things? Are we so used to be told what to do, what to hear and
what to say all these while that we have forgotten to engage with each other
properly without any ill feeling? If an ulamak and academician like yourself
can't engage properly and without emotion, I shudder to think of the prospect
of this nation of ours. Have we all closed our heart and soul to any opposite
views?
The second thing to
note about the social contract is the fact that this contract, like any other
contract, has two parties to it. The first party is the people. The second
party is the State (or the government). It runs two ways. The people say
"I give you, the government, some of my rights in exchange of you giving
me certain benefits". So, the obligations exist on both side of the fence.
Not only one.
That means both side
must conform to the social contract. Both sides have their own respective
obligations to perform. Nowadays, we talk as if only the people are supposed to
perform the social contract. We talk as if the government does not have any
obligation to perform under the social contract. That is an obvious
misconception.
The thing is this. The
government is powerful because it holds the power. If the people do not perform
the social contract, the government would come with all its might and prosecute
him or her. I ask you, what can the people do if the government does not
perform its side of the bargain? Do you expect the people to keep quiet?
Thirdly, it is to be
noted that as a living document, the terms of the social contract may be
renegotiated from time to time. Among others, John Locke posits as such. Locke
even posits the rights of rebellion in the event the social contracts lead to
tyranny.
Of course I am not
advocating a rebellion here. I
am stating that the people have every right to question about the social
contract and to scrutinise the performance of its terms by the government. And
the people have every right - in fact it is arguable that it is the people's
duty - to prevent a tyranny or an act of tyranny.
Being so, I am sure it is not such a sin as made out by
you for any party to question the social contract. That is within his or her right as a party to the social
contract.
The next issue which I
wish to address is the misstatement of the real issues in contemporary
Malaysia. I have to state this because when the issues are misstated, the
arguments in support would also go wrong. Emotions can seep in and everything
will turn ugly.
The issues at hand, in
my opinion, are not the status of Islam as the
religion of the Federation or the special positions enjoyed by the Malays and
the natives of Borneo. Those are entrenched in the Federal Constitution.
I have chosen
the words in the preceding paragraph deliberately. Nowadays, when the arguments for
"equality" are raised, the other side quickly jump and say "you
are questioning the status of Islam" or "you are questioning the
special rights of the Malays" or worse still, "you are questioning
the position of the Malay rulers".
Notice how the issues
have been misstated to suit their purpose. What are in existence are not "special rights" but
"special positions" and the parties which enjoy these positions are
not only the Malays but also the natives of Sabah and Sarawak. Please
read this article for further explanation on this issue.
On the position of
Islam, I don't think anybody in their right mind would question the status of
Islam as the religion of the Federation. But dear Doctor, you must be wise enough to discern between
official religion and the law of the country. These are two different things.
Similarly, you must also be unemotional enough to discern the difference
between Bahasa Malaysia as the official language and the rights of the people
to speak whatever language they wish.
What have been raised
in contemporary Malaysia is not the status of Islam as the religion of the
Federation. Many events have taken place so far in relation to inter-faith
integration that would call for a closer look at the freedom of religion as
enshrined in our Constitution in order to find solutions. These events were
perhaps not within the foresight of the fathers of our nation when the
Constitution was being drafted.
It is then left to us,
the children of today, to take the bull by the proverbial horn and try to
find acceptable solutions to everybody in accordance with the common
standard of fairness and civility.
Among others, these
problems are:
· the controversy surrounding inter-faith
marriages between Muslims and non-Muslims where a non-Muslim would convert to
Islam to marry a Muslim but later re-convert to his or her original faith;
· the controversy surrounding the forced
indoctrination of a certain faith - whether Islam or other faith - on children
who are below the age of majority;
· the controversy surrounding the issue of
apostasy in Islam;
· the controversy surrounding the unfair
allocation of budget for the erection of temples or churches as compared to the
mosques and suraus;
· the controversy surrounding the right to
practise Islam by Muslims in accordance with their sectarian beliefs;
· the controversy surrounding some fatwas issued
by some body of ulamaks;
· the controversy surrounding the usage of the
word "Allah" to signify God;
· the controversy surrounding the publication of
Bible in Bahasa Malaysia;
· the controversy surrounding moral policing.
These are issues which
are being raised. They have nothing to do with the status of Islam under the
Constitution or the status of the Malay rulers. Like it or not, these issues
exist and will persist so long as we huddle ourselves in our dark caves, secure
in our belief that those people who raise these issues are ultra kiasu and they
have treasonous tendency.
This nation is built,
from day one, by one strength and that strength is the unity of her people,
regardless of race or religion. There is no such thing as this is
"our" nation and not "theirs". In fact, may I respectfully point
out that you, as a Chinese Muslim, are contradicting yourself when you refer to
this land as "our own land" if what you meant by "our own land" is that this
land is the land of the Malays. Please dear Doctor. Be more sensitive to the
feelings of all Malaysians. You are after all an influential ustaz or teacher
whose views are respected by many.
Now, as this nation of
ours go into adulthood, it must confronts issues which naturally arise in the
course of nation building. It must confront these issues unemotionally and with
great respect to everybody involved. Lest the very basis of this nation,
namely, the unity of her people, would just fade away and we can bet our last
dime that destruction would be on its way. I fear for my children. I fear for
this nation if we continue to count "our rights" as opposed to
"theirs". There is no "opposite parties" mind you. We are
in this together.
Now you have come up
with a rather ingenious formula. It is based on the entitlement to more rights
for the majority. It is numerical power, which many argue is the direct result
of democracy. Jeremy Bentham postulates the utilitarian principle under which
it is said that whatever brings the most happiness to the greatest number of
people would be good. It would appear that you have managed to reduce the
utilitarian principle into a science by reducing the yardstick of happiness and
greatest number of people into a mathematical formula.
But with respect, you are
threading on a dangerous path. Stretched to its logical conclusion, you are
validating the might of the majority over the helplessness of the minority. In
the end, finally, what matters in your equation is the numbers involved. What
if, in the future, the non-Muslims become the majority in this country, may I
ask you? Would you accept their lording
over you as a minority then?
What about the ban of
the Islamic minarets in Switzerland? Do you, as a Muslim, accept that because
after all Christians are the majority in Switzerland? What about the ban of the
hijab and head scarf in France? Do you accept that on the same basis, ie, that
Christians are the majority in France? What about the killing of Muslims
Bosnians by the Serbs and Croats? You accept that too? After all Christians are
the majority in that region. What if the Israelis manage to forcefully fill
Gaza with Israelis leaving the Palestinians to be the minority, would you
accept the desecration of everything that is Islam in Gaza?
What you are
preaching, in my humble opinion, is political expediency suited for the current
moment and nothing else. You are not seeing the bigger picture. With respect,
you fail to look into ourselves as Muslims and spot our weaknesses as an
Ummah against the backdrop of globalisation and openness. You pay scant regard
to spirituality and our ability as Muslims, to face this new aged world on any
ground other than the strength in numbers and loudness of our voice.
You mentioned Ibn
Khaldun in your article. Can you point out the existence of what Ibn Khaldun
termed in his "Muqadimmah" as the spirit of "assabiya" in
our contemporary Muslim society? Do we have "assabiya" nowadays? Or
is it a matter of whatever is mine is mine and yours is yours? In your
mathematical formula, you are in fact preaching against Ibn Khaldun's
"assabiya." The communal spirit, comradeship and camaraderie are
obviously not important in your formula.
What about the
numerical superiority of the non-Muslims in education for instance? Non-Muslims
do get 9As or 10As in the examinations. Based on your numerical formula,
wouldn't they have the right to be in our public university? If so, why don't
they get what they are entitled to?
What about the
numerical superiority in the non-Muslims' contribution to our national coffers
through the payment of taxes, duties and investments made? If your numerical
superiority formula is applied, wouldn't the non-Muslims then have more rights
to build churches and temples compared to Muslims?
Don't get me wrong. I
am not saying they are so entitled. But I am just applying your formula to real
situations.
Non-Muslims'
festivities should be limited to the percentage of their numbers. Sorry Doctor,
I am laughing at the suggestion. Is that what matters? Festivities? Public
holidays? They should have
less number of temples and churches and we should have more mosques and suraus?
(You seem to suggest that there are far too many churches and temples in
Malaysia but have you seen the state of these churches and temples? Some are by
the side of the road and in shop lots. Some are just housed in a small doggie
house.) How much space we occupy on our way to our graves? And how big our
graves are? Good God, who is kiasu? What have we, the good people of Malaysia, become? And why have
we descended into this deep pit of triviality? Oh my goodness.
Sometime I find your
reasoning inconsistent Doctor. While you preach goodness and high morality and
you make such huge outcry against the evil of living immorally as
practised by some politicians and the likes, at the same time you don't really mind a newspaper which sometime
write obvious lies and spread hatred. This is because, according to you, this newspaper is being
frank. Well, is it okay to be bad as long as we are frank about it? You view
with contempt the act of living together outside marriage by some non-Muslims
but you can accept the act of lying and spreading hatred because the
perpetrator is being frank? The last time I checked Doctor, even Hitler was
being frank in wanting to kill all the Jews that ever walked the Earth. Was
that okay?
The only way out of
this racial and religious time bomb which is ticking fast in contemporary
Malaysia to my mind is for all of us to confront all the issues in an
unemotional manner. We should list them all out in the open. We should accept
that those issues constitute problems and acknowledge that fact. We cannot deny
their existence. We should stop assigning
guilt. We should avoid pointing fingers. We should
not adopt the my-religion-is-more-righteous-than-yours attitude.
After we manage to do
that, we should then sit down and find the solutions as best as we can.
And we better do it
fast. Because the longer we delay it, the more insidious and deep they will
become. Soon more people will misuse those issues for whatever personal purpose
which they may have. The situation may then become irreversible.
May God give all of us
the wisdom.
Salam.
