Apartheid

COMMENT | Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi claims that preacher Zamihan Mat Zin is an asset of the state for rehabilitating terrorists. Yet, while claims are made that this preacher is an expert at rehabilitating terrorists using a manual (in four languages no less) of deradicalisation that the Umno state has come up with, there is no evidence that this particular Muslim preacher has the welfare of the diverse Malaysian polity in his heart or mind.

While I make no claims that I have seen these manuals or understand the methodology of rehabilitating these extremists, what I do understand is that there is a difference between (1) rehabilitating elements hostile to the interests and security of the state, and (2) deradicalising Muslims who believe that their religion supersedes all other religions and that violence is the means to achieve religious superiority.

In (1) the welfare of the ruling hegemon is paramount, and in (2) the diverse religious and ethnic character of Malaysian society is emphasised as opposed to the myopic vision of Islam these extremists propagate in the name of an Islamic state.

I have said that we have an extremely effective security apparatus when it comes to ferreting out Islamic extremists but that the security and intelligence establishment is compromised by politicians and the sub rosa Islamists within the power structures of this country with agendas of their own.
How can a preacher like Zamihan be an asset to the state when it comes to rehabilitating extremists when his own ideas of Islam are anathema to a functional democracy and a pluralistic society? Here is Muslim preacher who advocates “Muslim only” establishments, rails against the so-called enemies of Islam - Wahabi, Syiah, liberals and other deviant teachings – and constructs a Manichean view of Islam that goes against the so-called “moderate” Islam advocated – in word but rarely in deed – by the mainstream political establishment of this country.

The question everyone should be asking is, are Malaysian Muslims radicalised by state propaganda mechanism like the Biro Tata Negara (BTN) courses and the rhetoric of mainstream Malay politics? If you believe that these are anathema to racial and religious solidarity then you have to question what kind of rehabilitation is going on and who this rehabilitation benefits when the likes of Zamihan are considered assets of the Umno state.

Zamihan, like most religious fanatics, does not want to engage in a discourse. For people like him, their interpretation of their holy texts is the “truth” and everyone else is deviating when they question or in some cases choose not to believe. Muslims are either beset by enemies on all sides or are provoked by external stimuli to war amongst themselves.

So, I ask again, how can a preacher whose belief system is anchored in the kind of myopic worldview most Islamic terrorists subscribe to manage to rehabilitate these men so they can function in a diverse ethnic and religious society, which is what Malaysia is? In other words, a preacher like Zamihan displays a hostility towards other people and religions in his words, like those of the extremists he is supposedly rehabilitating.

So-called Western foreign policy

To extremists, Muslim solidarity is in essence Muslim fascism. This is why we get extremists claiming that people would rejoice when Muslims fight amongst themselves. Look at what is happening in the Middle East today. Most Muslims fixate on so-called Western foreign policy but rarely want to acknowledge the religious schisms within their own communities which have caused more death and destruction than anything the West has ever done in recent history.

Does anyone really believe that the House of Saud is reforming for the better or is it because the Kingdom realises that after years of waging war on Muslims all over the war through petrodollars, the chickens are coming home to roost in the guise of their unjust war in Yemen or the terrorist attacks against Saudi interests by criminal organisations like the Islamic state and their affiliates.

Muslim opposition politicians in this country are routinely demonised for deviating from the state’s script of what is an acceptable form of Islam. In this country, certain words are deemed verboten to non-Muslims. The former IGP has claimed that he would not carry out the orders of the civil courts because they were in conflict with the sharia courts even though there was no conflict in law. Non-Muslims are warned not to interfere in Islam when the religion of the state constantly interferes in our lives.

So, when the deputy prime minister claims that someone like Zamihan is an asset to the establishment, where does that leave us when it comes to the credibility of these so-called rehabilitation programs?

If anyone is interested, I have written about changing the discourse in another article.

“Shmuel outlines the argument that many Malaysians can relate to in the section titled ‘Fighting hellfire with hellfire’, where he writes, in essence, the radical narrative, which promises paradise to those who perpetrate acts of terrorism, must be met by an equally legitimate religious force which guarantees hellfire for the same acts. Some elements of such rulings should be, inter alia: A call for renewal of ijtihad as the basis to reform Islamic dogmas and to relegate old dogmas to historic contexts.

That there exists no state of jihad between Islam and the rest of the world (hence, jihad is not a personal duty). That the violation of the physical safety of a non-Muslim in a Muslim country is prohibited (haram). That suicide bombings are clear acts of suicide, and therefore, their perpetrators are condemned to eternal hellfire. That moral or financial support of acts of terrorism is also haram.
That a legal ruling claiming jihad is a duty derived from the roots of Islam is a falsification of the roots of Islam, and therefore, those who make such statements have performed acts of heresy.”