I have sometime wondered whether my IQ is too low in spite of being a university professor. My confusion is largely because I have difficulty understanding what ‘moderates’ and ‘movement of moderates’ mean. I am, however, beginning to suspect that these terms had entered into the vocabulary of politics without anyone defining and clarifying what they really mean.

For a start, who are the moderates? Is being moderate about embracing Western values and outlook? Is it about being committed to peaceful dialogues and process of change? Can someone have a split personality and be a moderate while being in cahoots with extremists?

For instance, is the United States a moderate nation? It is a country that supposedly champions democracy and liberal values. But at the same time it is often willing to become bedfellows with despotic and undemocratic regimes. It advocates democracy and peaceful change. Yet, it is a country that is willing to use violence and military might to serve its interest.

Conversely, what makes someone an extremist? It is said that when someone kills a person he is murderer. If he kills three people he is a serial killer. And if he kills many people he is a terrorist. Fly airplanes into towers and kill more than 3,000 people  makes the perpetrator terrorist-cum-extremist.

If that is the case, what about the perpetrators of the massacre of more than 3,000 people at Sabra and Chatilla? And what about the perpetrators of the massacre of East Timorese during Indonesia’s occupation of the country?

Closer to home, one must wonder whether organizations like Perkasa and Isma are moderate organisations.  In spite of the PM’s speech at his 2010 UN General Assembly urging all faiths to reject extremists, these organisations has so far escaped his censure. Or is the moderation-extremist categorisation more of political labelling that is used to deride and degrade those who differ with one’s position.

Murtaza Hussain, a Toronto-based writer, made an interesting comparison between how the West treats Malalai Yousafzai and Nabila Rehman. Both are young Pakistani girls and both had been victims of violence. Malalai was shot by the Taliban for standing up for education for girls. Since being shot by the Taliban, she has become somewhat of a celebrity, being invited to address the UN General Assembly and welcomed by many Western countries.

The Western media has treated her as an icon in the fight against extremism. No doubt though, she is a courageous girl with or without Western idolation.

Nabila Rehman, on the other hand, is the victim of a US drone attack that injured her and her family members, including killing her grandmother. According to Amnesty International, Nabila’s grandmother is one of 900 civilians who have been killed by US drone strikes. If the perpetrators of violence against Malalai are considered extremists, what does that make the US?

This raises the question of what the ‘movement of moderates’ is all about. The KL-based Global Movement of Moderates Foundation had in the past invited various speakers to deliver lectures, presumably about the virtues of moderation and how to become ‘a moderate’.

One of the speakers who had delivered a lecture at the foundation was British Prime Minister David Cameron. This is where my IQ is being challenged. Isn’t Britain the staunchest ally of the US and a consistent supporter of US military action? And like the US, it has never hesitated to use violence and military might when it serves its purpose.

And like the US also, Britain has as its allies (and customers for military hardwares) some of the most despotic regimes in the world. Does Britain therefore qualify as a moderate country?

This raises another question as to what is the purpose of this so called Global Movement of Moderates? Is it an instrument of Malaysia’s foreign policy? If it is, who are the non-moderate countries? Besides the likes of North Korea, would the US and its allies like Britain and Israel qualify as non-moderates?

What about despotic regimes in Muslim world?

And what about the various despotic regimes in the Muslim world? What about Burma, a member of Asean that has a long history of persecuting minority groups, most recently the Rohingya Muslims?

Does Malaysia’s advocacy of moderation means it would be willing to take unequivocal stand and distance itself against non-moderate countries? Would Malaysia be willing to actively persuade, if not pressure, non-moderate countries to become moderates? Or is this ‘movement of moderates’ slogan just an attempt to curry favour with Western powers?

On the domestic front, what can we expect from this talk of moderation? Are those who tell fellow Malaysians to leave the country just because of some disagreement moderates? How different are these so-called NGOs from the extremist in Rwanda, Bosnia and Kosovo who initiated ethnic cleansing campaigns?

These so-called NGOs may be somewhat benign in the sense that they have not started to kill their opponents (yet!). But the logic they deploy is just the same. You disagree with us, you therefore have no right to live in this country. Don’t these guys sound like Zionist extremists who would like to expel Arabs from Palestine?

I readily admit that I’m not the smartest guy around. That’s why I have questions but no answers. Though I sometime wonder whether the advocates of ‘moderation’ themselves know the answers. Perhaps ‘moderation’ is an unsolvable puzzle.