The Pak Turuts And Self Censorship

---

 



"I always read about Islam, but I have learnt my lesson. I will keep away from Islam and not write anything about Islam in the future, that would be the best."
- Uthaya Sankar SB (above) said here
Uthaya Sankar SB’s self-censorship is a lesson that every non-Malay citizen of this country has learnt.
The state has done an extremely good job in reminding non-Malays that there are consequences for “provoking” the majority when it comes to racial and religious issues.
In newsrooms across the country non-Malay journalists, dilettantes, and the non-Malay corporate interests that control them impose self-censorship whenever it comes to issues that may touch upon race and religion.
As someone who has unfairly earned a reputation for being anti-Islam and anti-Malay in my depictions of race relations in this country – I am supposedly also anti-DAP – it should surprise nobody that I too practice self-censorship.
I do this because the livelihoods of people I work with are dependent on how the state reacts to words we put on paper.
Of course, this has been going on for decades. Only now with social media and the anonymity the internet provides, more and more the state has to come down on speech it deems offensive to the majority.
Meanwhile, Malay religious operatives, political operatives and provocateurs get to use their free speech to attack, vilify and propagandise minorities and the religions they subscribe to.
This has been going on for decades, too.
PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang gets to say that non-Malays/Muslims must be followers (pak turut) and he gets away with it. Preacher Zakir Naik gets to say that the Bible is pornographic and he gets away with it. The mufti of Perlis and his acolytes insult Hinduism and Indians and they get away with it. There is a litany but why bother reciting it.
The issue here is not about insulting religion. I could care less if people insult any religion or discuss any religion.
The issue here is the consequences by the state. Just last year a slew of police reports were made against preacher Syakir Nasoha for insulting non-Muslims.
Please keep in mind that what he was preaching was merely religious doctrine in his opinion and indeed the opinion of the state.
This means classifying non-Muslims as kafir harbi (infidels who oppose Islam), not kafir zimmi (infidels who are not opposed to Islam).
Think about this for a moment. This means that in an Islamic society, the engagement with kafir is not defined by any objective paradigms but rather the subjective and pernicious belief system as defined by religion and sanctioned by the state.
What this means is that minorities are dehumanised or targeted not because of anything they did, but rather because the holy text defines how such interactions should occur.
PAS president Abdul Hadi AwangReligion and fascism
Indeed, what this demonstrates is that the idea of kafir is used by the religious class to divide and rule, and enabled by the political class to do the same.
There is no basis in reality for such divisions, but rather, it is a convenient political and religious tool to keep marginalising the majority from minorities.
However, in this interpretation of the doctrine, we came to understand what exactly kafir zimmi means.
Being not opposed to Islam means self-censoring. It also means that religious operatives get to say anything they want about other religions, but the kafir zimmi sublimates his or her feelings about those insults because it is part of the social contract between the “pak turuts” and the religious ruling class, to borrow an idea from Hadi. This is the definition of fascism.
The heady taste of Malay/Muslim rule has got so intoxicating that a PAS political operative stated in March this year that the party with the help of its allies (Bersatu and Umno) needed to win a two-thirds majority and “... the electoral boundaries need to be changed to benefit Muslims. We also need to increase the number of parliamentary seats in Malay-majority areas."
In a political terrain such as this, is it any wonder why some folks could be termed “Islamophobic”?
Mind you, if there was a strict separation between policies which affect Muslims and non-Muslims, and there was empirical evidence to support such a position, then non-Malays would not have a fear of Islam.
Instead, the rules that apply to Muslims "only" have always touched non-Muslims and defined our economic, social and political realities.
And religious operatives have no problem when it comes to using Western liberal ideas like freedom of religion when it comes to justifying their doctrine and ditching it when it is convenient.
Take the donning of the hijab for instance. When it comes to donning the hijab in the workplace, religious operatives grab the loudspeaker and chant about freedom of religion.
But when it comes to the choice of not wearing the hijab, religious operatives clamp down on any idea supportive of this choice.
You read all these comments from the average rakyat and political operatives about how non-Muslims should not comment about Islam but nary a word when it comes to religious provocations by Muslims.
What does it say about the state of religious freedom in this country, when someone like Hadi can be dismissed by other Malay political operatives as “extreme” but the reality is that the state and the religious apparatus of this country conform to Hadi’s narrative of Islam?
The real danger in any kind of theocracy is that sooner rather than later, self-censorship for the pak turuts will not be enough. - Mkini
S THAYAPARAN is Commander (Rtd) of the Royal Malaysian Navy. Fīat jūstitia ruat cælum - “Let justice be done though the heavens fall.”
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.

---