“States that are built on a religious foundation limit their own people in a circle of faith and fear.”

- Raif Badawi, ‘1,000 Lashes: Because I Say What I Think’

I have wanted to use this particular Raif Badawi quote for some time now. For those who do not know who Raif Badawi is, here is a primer from Amnesty International UK:

“It’s been one year since Raif Badawi was flogged 50 times for championing free speech and encouraging debate about reform on his blog, Saudi Arabian Liberals. That flogging was the first in a sentence of 1,000 lashes that still hangs over him – alongside a decade in prison, a fine of 1 million riyal (over a quarter of a million US dollars), and an outright ban on using media or travelling abroad for 10 years following his decade in prison.

“Raif’s flogging took place just days after the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris, when the world’s media was focused on the issue of free speech. And Raif’s flogging on the streets of Jeddah was bookended by gross hypocrisy from the Saudi Arabian regime, who had been quick to condemn the Paris attacks; that weekend saw the Saudi Arabian ambassador to France took to the streets of Paris to show solidarity with the victims of the Hebdo attacks at a march that celebrated free speech.

“Meanwhile, the vicious cruelty of Raif’s punishment for the ‘crime’ of speaking out propelled his case into headlines around the world, and put the repressive tactics of authorities in Saudi Arabia under the spotlight.”

Raif is one type of dissident that a theocratic Islamic state creates. The better-known types are the ones who behead people and claim that they are freedom fighters of some sort. Of course, ultimately it comes back to the kind of Islam that the House of Saud exports. The kind of Islam that nurtures corrupt kleptocratic regimes, which in turn chokes their citizens until a breaking point is reached. Then numerous terrorist cells claim jihad for a better tomorrow under a “true” Islamic state.

I quote Raif because in time when things get bad, I hope there are more Raifs in our failed state than the other types of dissidents. Of course, condemning young people to the fate of Raif is a horrible thought but the only rational outcome for those who truly wish to be free from the shackles of a religious state.

Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Jamil Khir Baharom’s intention for the Umno state to crack down on religious pluralism because of late “there were numerous organised efforts being carried out to challenge the freedom allowed in Islam” should get folks worried but will probably end up lost in the throwaway news cycle of social media. Apparently, there are easier things to be outraged at.

What exactly does “freedom allowed in Islam” mean? My own thinking is that the way Islam is defined by the Umno state, “freedom” means freedom to curtail the rights enshrined in our constitution. “Freedom” means the freedom to not enforce secular laws when it comes to conflict with Islamic laws. Freedom means the freedom to impose religious edicts on non-Muslims because the religious sensitivities of Muslims are paramount. Freedom means the freedom to restrict laws that make it easier for the citizenry of this country to express their opinions and dissent in a very public manner.

Religion and race

Moreover, what exactly are those challenges to the “noble teachings of Islam”? As usual, the minister lets the cat out of the bag when he says these challenges include promoting “the culture of extreme freedom in the name of human rights and anti-discrimination”, and those international standards that promote freedoms that are anathema to a state which places racial and religious supremacy over any kind of egalitarian principles.

And when the minister says “the cultures of our multi-racial people, and the spirit of the federal constitution”, what he really means is the so-called social contract where non-Muslim keep their mouths shut. And we do so because we should be grateful because we are, after all, “pendatangs”. 

The spirit of the Federal Constitution relates to that particular clause that enshrines “Malay” special rights, and which over the decades has been interpreted to mean Malay supremacy.

This is the culture that Umno wants to protect and uses Islam as a weapon against any who choose to dissent in a peaceful manner and in a manner which is supposedly guaranteed by the Malaysian constitution.

What does all this mean in practical terms? How does one “set limits” on religious pluralism? Does setting limits mean a crackdown on non-Muslim religious personalities who have publicly campaigned free and fair elections and campaigned for a government free of corruption and against proposed laws that restrict freedom and liberty?

When an Umno potentate or any Muslim Malaysian defends his religion, there is always that add on of race. Defend Islam and the Malays is always the rallying cry. This way by “defending” the religion, you also have to defend the “race”. Umno has apparently made the “Malays” the chosen people of Islam.

In my piece about how the Umno state uses a weaponised Islam against its non-Muslims citizens, I wrote - “We are constantly told not to interfere in the affairs of Muslims even though these issues affect us as Malaysians. (PAS president Abdul) Hadi (Awang) and most Muslims politicians in this country will never sign a document that pledges that non-Muslims will not be affected by Islamic law. They will never moot such legislation. They will never debate such legislation and they will most probably use the security apparatus of the system to crack down on such speech or proposals.”

Umno has already declared war on every organisation that promotes freedoms that would jeopardise the hegemony of the Umno state. It has declared war on every organisation that has attempted to hold the government accountable for its actions. It has declared war on every organisation that promotes values that the Umno state promotes internationally as a so-called “moderate” Muslim country.

This latest piece of news from Putrajaya is perhaps the most dangerous thing that the government has planned for Malaysia. They just do not get it. A country can recover from a corruption scandal.  A country cannot recover when it is destroyed by Islamic agendas meant to sustain political hegemony but in the end only results in a civil war, with competing sects of virulent Islamic cults all fighting against a corrupt Islamic regime.

As always, the real target of all these types of laws are not the non-Muslims, but the fear that Muslims will be inspired by ideas other than those sanctioned by the Umno state. The great irony is that kleptocratic theocratic regimes are always destroyed by their own hands.

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