Rudyard Kipling"
“When you're left wounded on Afganistan's plains and
the women come out to cut up what remains, Just roll to your rifle
and blow out your brains,
And go to your God like a soldier”
General Douglas MacArthur"
“We are not retreating. We are advancing in another direction.”
“It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it.” “Old soldiers never die; they just fade away.
“The soldier, above all other people, prays for peace, for he must suffer and be the deepest wounds and scars of war.”
“May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't .” “The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.
“Nobody ever defended, there is only attack and attack and attack some more.
“It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.
The Soldier stood and faced God
Which must always come to pass
He hoped his shoes were shining
Just as bright as his brass
"Step forward you Soldier,
How shall I deal with you?
Have you always turned the other cheek?
To My Church have you been true?"
"No, Lord, I guess I ain't
Because those of us who carry guns
Can't always be a saint."
I've had to work on Sundays
And at times my talk was tough,
And sometimes I've been violent,
Because the world is awfully rough.
But, I never took a penny
That wasn't mine to keep.
Though I worked a lot of overtime
When the bills got just too steep,
The Soldier squared his shoulders and said
And I never passed a cry for help
Though at times I shook with fear,
And sometimes, God forgive me,
I've wept unmanly tears.
I know I don't deserve a place
Among the people here.
They never wanted me around
Except to calm their fears.
If you've a place for me here,
Lord, It needn't be so grand,
I never expected or had too much,
But if you don't, I'll understand."
There was silence all around the throne
Where the saints had often trod
As the Soldier waited quietly,
For the judgment of his God.
"Step forward now, you Soldier,
You've borne your burden well.
Walk peacefully on Heaven's streets,
You've done your time in Hell."
Will DAP support FT Mufti Bill? By Commander S THAYAPARAN (Retired) Royal Malaysian Navy
Monday, October 14, 2024
Malaysiakini : The always vocal (why this woman is unelected is, I dare say,
criminal) Siti Kasim, who knows a thing or two about religious
malfeasances and how it affects the majority community, reminded
non-Muslims in this country in a Facebook post.
Siti Kasim
“Don’t
think you’ll escape, for eventually there’s bound to be a domino effect
… If the bill gets through, it’ll be difficult to turn back; I hope MPs
in Parliament will take notice by not letting the bill through.”
Passing the buck, as usual
Communications
Minister Fahmi Fadzil, in defending the legitimacy of this bill, pushed
a disingenuous Madani narrative that needs to be debunked. These four
talking points are typical Madani deflections.
1. The first involves the rather wonky claim that this bill mirrors the Sabah Fatwa enactment.
Notice
how Fahmi does not elaborate on the similarities or the similarities in
civil and religious standings between the proposed bill and the Sabah
fatwa but merely makes a general claim as to the similarity between the
two.
Furthermore, unlike Sabah, religious disruption between the
various communities emanates from the federal government. For example,
the recent backtracking of the mandatory halal certification for non-Muslims came from Putrajaya.
2.
Fahmi claimed - “At the same time, there is no increase in the mufti’s
powers; it remains the same as now. The difference is that we want to
bring it as a parliamentary Act to clarify its jurisdiction, so there
are no claims or disputes about the mufti’s authority,”
The
question we should ask is if the powers of the mufti are the same, then
why is there a need for clarification of jurisdiction? For any rational
person, I think the answer is obvious, right?
So
what the Madani state wants is this - “….the mufti’s position will have
more constitutional and legal order in our country,” which is the
objective of the “Green Wave”.
3.
“Do not view this matter with prejudice; we need to be legally aware.”
cautioned Fahmi, which is strange because the personalities offering the
most vocal criticisms are all lawyers.
4. And finally, this gem.
Fahmi also pointed out that the group’s definition of an Islamic state
has a negative connotation, implying a transformation similar to that in
the Middle East or other regions.
Here it is, the charge of
Islamophobia when it comes to dissent against religious laws or agendas.
This is the play of the Madani state and the “Green Wave” whenever
anyone dares to dissent against the theocratic agendas of power brokers.
It
is not enough that you believe in the position of Islam in the state;
you must be complicit in the strengthening of its scope and powers as
well. Otherwise, you are labelled ignorant or Islamophobic.
Islamisation agenda
I
would argue that this proposed bill is the Madani version of PAS’ Act
355 bill to enhance syariah punishments, and it is being used by the
Madani state as a test case for how far they can push the state’s
religious agenda.
And what did the DAP think of this proposed Act 355? Well, then DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng said it best
in 2021 when he stated - “Malaysians remain unconvinced with Idris
Ahmad’s assurances in Parliament yesterday that the religious rights of
freedom of non-Muslims will not be affected by the proposed Act 355 and
the bill to restrict the propagation of non-Islamic religions.”
So,
when DAP’s Bangi MP Syahredzan Johan said, “The provision relating to a
fatwa in the mufti bill is not novel. Many provisions in state
enactment relating to mufti’s fatwa bind Muslims,” this lends credence
to the idea that this really is a test case for the Madani regime and
how they intend to shape religious policies in the states they run and
on a federal level.
Bangi MP Syahredzan Johan
Let
me be very clear. There is not one shred of empirical evidence that the
religion of the state and policies from religious laws do not affect
non-Muslims in this country.
Whenever a religious and racial
bully warns non-Muslims not to trespass into Islamic domains, it is with
the understanding that religious laws do affect non-Muslims. That is
the whole point of the bullying.
Mariam Mokhtar wondered if the
recent controversies involving the Umno youth leader and DAP were merely
bully-boy tactics to subdue opposition to this bill.
Who knows,
which is why the title of this piece is “Will the DAP support the mufti
bill?” and not “Will the DAP oppose the mufti bill?”
DAP must stand fast
The
DAP should object to this proposed bill, and they should do it because
the people who vote for them would be affected by this proposed bill.
Keep in mind that the DAP is supposed to have a secular agenda, and it
is hardwired in its party’s constitution.
DAP secretary-general
Anthony Loke not only reaffirmed the party’s secular agenda but also
noted that all parties in the coalition understood this agenda and had
agreed to play nice.
As reported in the press - “…..the DAP secretary-general said his party need not drop the secular nation agenda and its slogan ‘Malaysian Malaysia’ merely to reap support from other ethnic groups.”
Loke
also said - “Before forming the unity government, all parties agreed
not to touch on each party’s principles and constitutions.”
DAP secretary-general Anthony Loke
So
this is the perfect opportunity to test these ideas. The DAP not only
has to object to this bill but this should not come as a surprise to its
coalition partners.
The state wants its non-Muslim partners to be
complicit in the formation of religious laws. Why? Because it not only
gives a fig leaf of democratic legitimacy but also demonstrates
religious and racial superiority over its partners.
Any kind of religious law - no matter the religion - is, in reality, a suicide pact.
We
are constantly told not to interfere in the affairs of Muslims even
though these issues affect us as Malaysians. Do you think that Muslim
politicians in this country will ever sign a document that pledges that
non-Muslims will not be affected by Islamic law?
They will never
even moot such legislation or debate it; they would instead use the
system’s security apparatus to crack down on such speech or proposals.
What
they will do is create legislation like this proposed bill, which they
say only affects Muslims but has far-reaching consequences for all
Malaysians.
The prime minister has asked the religious minister to
explain this bill, but we have to remember that it is the same minister
who caused problems
within the coalition with his proposed mandatory halal certification
for businesses not serving pork and alcohol, and this reeks of passing
the buck.
If you are a non-Muslim in this country, you only have
to answer one question. Do you believe that laws affecting the majority
will not affect the minority?
