Moderation, Fanatism & Extremism

The Prime Minister called the moderates to speak up, for if they didn't, the fanatics will occupy centre stage to push their extremist views. And then extremism will be seen as the religious or national approach in our country.

"We have to safeguard all that we had achieved. We must never allow any form of extremism to destroy our nation," PM said.

I totally agree with the PM. But how do the moderates speak up against the extremists who are the executives and most of whom are from UMNOs?

We have plenty of records, videos, newspaper publications of all those extremists where no action had been taken against them. Each time when these extremists, who are MPs, Ministers, UMNO leaders and son-in-laws, created tension and make seditious statements and threats, nothing was acted upon or against them. They were allowed free reins, to continue their bigotry acts with implied consent and concurrence; instead those who voiced out against these extremist views, those who voiced out against factual discrimination and marginalization, these mourners were classified as extremists and were arrested by the police, interrogated, subdued and emasculated, and those hardknockers, they were ISA-ed.

So why call the moderates to speak up? Who are those moderates? Who are allowed to be classified as moderates? The yes man? The conformists? The bodekers? The subdued?

Have we forgotten that there was one ex-chief minister from Melaka who said something about Parangman, "... so do not force us to do so as we will draw our parang (machete) to defend the Ketuanan Melayu (Malay supremacy) in this country.” What action had been taken against this extremist? Did Uthayakumar said such words? He didn't but he is ISA-ed. That ex-CM is going great guns, roaming the streets and calling shots with blessings.

What about the MPs who asked that crosses and statutes in missionary schools be demolished as was done by the Taliban. Wasn't this extremism?

What about the minister who said the word Allah can only be used by Muslim but no one else when the word is universally referred to God the Almighty, the God of Abraham, the God of Moses. Didn't the Quran said that Allah was the same God of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Mary, and that Muhammad did not come to teach of a new God but the same Allah.

The irony is the fact that, Kelantan, being truly an Islamic State, governed by Syariah Law, allowed the construction of Buddhist statutes and temples, and with the blessings from Tok Guru Nik Aziz.

What about the "U tak suka, you boleh keluar."

What about Khairy's statement where he said: “It does not crossed my mind to apologise to those who are hurt by what I said… For me, if we truly fight for our race, one should not apologise.” Hindraf were truly fighting to defend their race and if we can accept Khairy's contention, they did the right thing. If they are wrong, Khairy is wrong too.


What about the: “Datuk Hisham has unsheathed his keris, waved his keris, kissed his keris. We want to ask Datuk Hisham: when is he going to use it?"

Melaka delegate Hasnoor Sidang Hussein said at the UMNO GA: “UMNO is willing to risk lives and bathe in blood in defence of race and religion”.

UMNO Youth Exco member Azimi Daim added that “when tension rises, the blood of Malay warriors will run in our veins”. (Prompting the obvious question: What happens when there is no tension? Whose blood is running in their veins then?)

I'm sure there's a lot more. If we are to cite it here, it could be miles in length.

So, in conclusion, what and who are the moderates and who are the extremists?

UMNO should learn from Tok Guru. In Kelantan, there is no religious issues between the Muslims and the others. There is no calls to demolish statutes or to forbid the construction of temples. But it is an Islamic State, governed by Shariah Law. Everyone respect Islam, the true Islam, not the "had"-type.