Hindus are not agressive enough

By Mohd Firdaus

Today i want to be like Zakir Naik.

But i am not going to make comparision but rather i am going to whack Hindus directly. So if you are not happy, go and report me. I dont care. I speak what i want and i dont fear anyone except GOD.

Hindus are not agressive enough .

They believe in their scriptures and they pray accordingly. They dont preach to others neither do they claim theirs is the only true religion. They dont talk about salvation. They welcome anyone who want to join them and they dont stop anyone who wants to leave. They respect everyone's GOD and religion and some even have multiple GOD statues of other religions in their home.

They pass a temple, they put their hand on the chest as respect. They pass a church also same. They pass a mosque also same. To them, there is only one GOD but in different form. Yes ah?

They dont even tell you what to do and what not to do. Always its between you and GOD. The best part is they say Hinduism is not a religion but its a way of life. They dont even condemn and insult other religion unless someone insult theirs.

But maybe, they dont have to be aggressive right.

Vernacular schools and national unity

By Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman

I was once racist, a by-product of a system which celebrates the segregation of race during one’s formative years. I lived in my own echo chamber, free from the liberating influence of racial diversity.

This radically changed when I enrolled myself into the Royal Military College, Malaysia’s most diverse boarding school.

Division is a seed best planted in earliest years. After the turn of the millennium, it was reported that more than 25 percent of Malaysian students are enrolled into vernacular schools. These schools were part of a system that allows parents to decide that race defines their children’s education.

In a country where racial segregation happens in numerous levels, vernacular schools have become dearly held and gleefully internalised. Granted, racial unity is not only formed in school; however, it plays a critical role in the formation of one’s identity and beliefs. Often social circles are created at schools, if for no other reason than the sheer amount of time spent there.

The more diverse schools are, the more likely that these social circles will reflect that diversity.

One reason some people believe we should not oppose vernacular schools is because they perform well. I find this argument problematic in that it presumes the teaching of particular languages and cultures lead to a superior level of thinking.

Does this also mean that all the UiTM’s across Malaysia are substandard due to its espousal of Malay culture? These universities also educate a small number of non-Malay bumiputra, similar to how vernacular schools host a fragment of Malays. If we are against the existence of universities like UiTM, then why are we not also against vernacular schools?

These two examples may be looking at different levels of education but I feel that they are both structured on race-based models.

If we are to truly combat a race-based education model, the best place to start is at school - a place which incubates a person’s moral compass which will then be carried forward to the years in university. But our education system is broken and every single stream has its own gaping discrepancies.

My opposition of vernacular schools is not an unwavering endorsement of national schools by any means. Instead it actually places immense pressure on the government to better the unified school system since all parties are affected. It becomes a national issue, and one no longer divided along racial lines.

A matter of making a better curriculum

Another reason people believe in vernacular schools is in learning of languages. I personally do not understand why we need exclusive schools to acquire proficient level of one or more languages. It is a matter of making a better curriculum and offering those options in national schools.

I feel it is critical that Malaysians from all races have an opportunity to master the national language as one to unite us all.

The intersectionality of races is what sets our country apart from others. However, the ability to choose what elements of a race one wishes to have and what elements of other races one wishes to acquire is what would make us multicultural. Boxing our dreams in schools only drifts us apart.

Thirdly, people also believe they ought to protect vernacular schools because it protects a certain culture. Malaysia needs to extend more opportunity for learning about all of the cultures and realise that we are not just about one or three races.

To some extent, all of these identities must influence the Malaysian identity. There needs to be stronger institutions. The institutions need to be empowered and funded in ways to ensure that history, progress, elements of non-Malay, such as the Chinese and Indian cultures, continue to be spread.

These are some of the oldest and richest cultures in the world and the whole nation needs to learn about them. There is no reason to restrict such priorities to particular schools.

According to the Malaysia Education Blueprint (MEB), bumiputera students now make up 94 percent of enrollment in national primary schools. This means that national schools are no longer ‘national’. A wall has been created to separate our children by race.

I find it hypocritical of those who advocate against race-based politics to oppose a non-race based education system. Similarly, I find it hypocritical for those who advocate against vernacular schools to champion Malay-exclusive schools or religious schools. A compromise must be made by both sides.

Politics can be a divisive force, but that division is constructed and incubated by an education system which divides us from young. Once you move beyond the claims we have gotten used to making because we have gotten used to conforming and making do with substandard political gamesmanship; you realise that the alternative is perhaps in a new system.

I hope that this system is one that we have to voice out for and that will provide STEM education in English. One to inspire our children to learn and not cram and that will prepare Malaysians for the world stage. One that will make us all multilingual, multicultural and proud Malaysians.

There is a wall separating our children today and we need to tear down this wall.

Mahathir: Saudi minister aware, but doesn't mean he agrees

Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir saying he is aware of Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak's claims that monies deposited into Najib's private accounts are donations, does not mean that he agrees it is true, said former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

"In case Najib’s supporters failed to note, the question is whether al-Jubeir is aware of the background and details about the donation.

"Accordingly, the Saudi foreign minister replied, 'We are aware of the donation and it is a genuine donation with nothing expected in return'," Mahathir wrote in his blog today.

Najib's arch-enemy also noted that al-Jubeir had said he was aware that attorney-general Mohamed Apandi Ali had found no wrongdoing in Najib receiving the donation.

"Being aware of the statements of the A-G does not mean he agreed with the statement," Mahathir said, adding that al-Jubeir also did not retract or negate his previous remarks doubting the RM2.6 billion donation's origins.

"It is the Malaysian media which interpreted his awareness as a negation of his previous statement," he said.

Read more: https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/338280

Gobala apologises to Saravanan, defamation case settled

M Saravanan against N Gobalakrishnan was settled after the former Padang Serai MP made a public apology in the High Court in Kuala Lumpur today.

The suit was filed following Gobalakrishnan's statement in a press conference at the Sri Pacific Hotel in Kuala Lumpur on July 7 last year, alleging, among others, that the MIC vice-president was a liar.

The suit was deemed settled after Gobalakrishnan, as the defendant, read the apology to Saravanan before Judge S Nantha Balan.

"I, Gobalakrishnan, the defendant named in this action, do hereby admit having called for a press conference on July 7, 2015, at the Sri Pacific Hotel Kuala Lumpur and causing words to be published and/or caused to be published matters in relation to the Saravanan based on a poison-pen letter that I had received on June 30, 2015," he read.

http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/338286

What kind of justice is this?

The hypocrisy of Malay Muslims

By Shafiqah Othman Hamzah

Zakir Naik is a world-renowned Islamic scholar. Love him or hate him, you cannot deny that his name has travelled across continents and countries.

He’s also an extremely controversial figure. Known to many as an authority in comparative religion, while to some others, as a charlatan who holds no regard for people of other faith.

This Sunday, April 17, Zakir Naik was scheduled to have a talk at UTeM titled “Similarities between Hinduism and Islam.” However, the talk got cancelled after it raised uneasiness within the Hindu community. Sensitivities were touched and eventually, IGP Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar released a statement regarding its cancellation.

Immediately after, there was an uproar in the Malay Muslim community. People started talking about how this was an infringement of freedom of speech, and that Hindus were probably just afraid that their adherents would convert en masse during the talk.

People started talking as though Zakir Naik was denied entry into the country, like how he is barred from UK and Canada. They started talking as though all his talks were cancelled when that was just one out of the many other events he has here. The rest of his talks are carried out as per normal.

Zakir Naik released a statement about how he was upset that such a small matter was blown out of proportion to the extent that Malay Muslims were fighting amongst themselves. He said that some Muslims even had the audacity to call another Muslim “kafir” just because of different opinions.

However, amidst the hustle and bustle of the controversy, I cannot help but feel appalled; not by Zakir Naik, but by the hypocrisy of Malay Muslims. The Malay Muslim community of Malaysia has such jarring double standards, and it’s even more obvious now than ever.
The Malay Muslims who get upset when people talk bad about Islam or when Muslims present a version of Islam that is unfamiliar to them are the same Malay Muslims who shout “It’s freedom of speech!” when Muslims belittle other religions or when an Islamic scholar says something that is potentially inflammatory but is parallel to their beliefs.

But where were you when Dr Ulil Abshar Abdalla was denied entry into Malaysia in 2014 for supposedly being a deviant? Zakir Naik is notorious for his support of al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden while Ulil was denied entry to “defend Malaysia’s brand of Islam” despite wanting to speak against terrorism. What does this say about our brand of Islam then?

The Malay Muslims who say that freedom of religion is mutually exclusive from Islam, disallowing the propagation or profession of other faiths while discriminating against converts from Islam or apostates, are the same Malay Muslims who use that term to justify the propagation of Islam, to fight back cases of Islamophobia, to encourage adherents of other religions to join Islam and to defend converts into Islam who are attacked by their family or friends.

But where were you when Lina Joy wanted to get her religion changed legally? Where is your outrage regarding the Raif Badawi case? Did you try to defend Juli Jalaluddin when she was deported out of Malaysia?

The Malay Muslims who are against pluralism and expect religious minorities to respect the needs and wants of the Muslim majority are the same Malay Muslims who would be appalled at the news of abuse or killings of Muslim minorities in foreign countries, saying, “We should respect other religions! We have to learn to live in peace and harmony!”

But where were you when protests were held against the construction of a Hindu temple? Or when Molotov cocktails were thrown at a church? Where were you when a church was forced to take down their cross?

The Malay Muslims who rallied behind Zakir Naik’s statement against excommunications of other Muslims are the same Malay Muslims who so very easily label others “kafir” for unorthodox opinions.

But where were you when progressive Muslims get told to leave Islam because of their opinions? Where were you when organisations like Sisters In Islam are labelled “deviant” and accused of infidelity? Did you try to stop any acts of takfir (excommunication of another Muslim) when you see it happen? Or did you jump on the bandwagon because the thoughts of these unorthodox Muslims didn’t mirror yours?

Obviously, I know that not all Malay Muslims think like this. But a huge group of us do and it can be seen everywhere. These Malay Muslims that I am talking about only support certain values when it benefits them, or wherever it is convenient for them. They don’t apply these values across the spectrum and immediately take back these “privileges” when someone does not share the same thoughts and opinions as they do.

Their “freedom of speech” means “freedom of speech only for my group.” Their “freedom of religion” means “freedom to only practise Islam.” Their disagreement on takfir means “as long as you think like me, you’re still a Muslim.”

If you don’t agree with the limitation of Zakir Naik’s freedom of speech, you shouldn’t agree with the limitation of other Muslims’ freedom of speech. If you don’t agree with the belittling of Islam, you shouldn’t agree with the belittling of other religions. If you don’t agree with the excommunication of Zakir Naik, you should not agree with the excommunication of other Muslims.

The problem now is not with Zakir Naik, but with the hypocrisy of our Malay Muslims. Like what is written in the Qur’an, “Do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just.” Thinking back, have we really been just to the rest of Malaysians? I wonder.
*This is the personal opinion of the columnist.

Post from Latheefa Koya