A narrative of hate and prejudice

I refer to Dennis Ignatius‘s column piece published by FMT, accusing Dr Zakir Naik of having radicalised the Malaysian public.

The article is written with sentiments of hate and prejudices towards Muslims.

At the early part of his prejudiced thinking, he gave a picture of Malaysia becoming a haven for foreign militants. He generalised his narrative as though Malaysian authorities are naive in detecting terrorists.

His claim is unfounded, and he has only exposed his prejudice towards Muslims. He is trapped in the Islamophobic narrative that any voice to bring Islam into Muslim lives should be seen as “radicalising the public”.

Mr Ignatius thinks he knows more than the security forces on the militant operations in Malaysia.

He wrote about the police chief’s warning of a possible terrorist attack by religious extremists that “did not appear to have evoked much concern”.

While the security needs to be careful in identifying so-called radical extremists, the rule of law must be applied to avoid high handedness in dealing with the allegations.

His claim that the authorities are not acting is false.

He claimed that Malaysia has long been a favourite destination for international terrorism. Without a shred of proof, he claims some of the al-Qaeda operatives who planned the 9/11 attacks met in Kuala Lumpur!

On what basis is he making the claim? What he did is to paint a picture of reality based on very vague perceptions.

He even went on to say that terrorist activities of “bomb-making and weapons smuggling to recruitment and fundraising” are on the rise, all because, as he said, the Malaysian public is tolerant of foreign jihadis.

Again, without evidence, he claimed “Wahhabi theology is now the dominant force in the country and is being vigorously promoted in every school, every university and every government department, not to mention every religious establishment with predictable results”.

He said “our education system has become a major precursor of religious extremism”.

He did not give details how this is so.

Then he concluded: “The whole country is slowly being radicalised”, adding that Putrajaya has been unable or unwilling to provide the kind of decisive leadership”.

Finally, his real intention of writing the piece was laid bare, by pointing to Dr Naik, blaming him as the culprit behind all the radical extremists that had emerged in this country.

By claiming Dr Naik as a controversial Wahhabi ideologue, he only shows his utter ignorance of the message of what the scholar has been preaching.

Naik has never promoted extremism in his speeches.

Likewise, saying Naik “inspires jihadis including the ones who carried out attacks in Bangladesh and Sri Lanka” is hearsay.

Just because Naik could convince millions of people through his Islamic arguments to the various questions posed to him, does not mean he promotes division, and social and religious strife.

The inability to rebut his arguments is a problem of those who are against him. How is it that he was wrong for debating with non-Muslims during his lectures?

The government’s decision to allow Dr Naik to reside in Malaysia is legitimate. He entered Malaysia legally and there has been no evidence of his alleged wrongdoings presented by the Indian authorities to justify his deportation.

The Malaysian Muslim public welcomes his scholarly deliberations and his call for peaceful coexistence in multiracial Malaysia.

On what basis is this writer demanding for Naik’s removal from Malaysia?

What is clear is the attacks on Muslims in India through a nationwide anti-Muslim campaign is worse than any religious radicalism that is said to exist in Malaysia.

The writer further claimed that non-Muslims and their places of worship are the targets of Dr Naik as well as jihadists and local extremists. Where is the evidence?

Such broad accusations are simply provocation, to sow tension between religious followers.

Mohd Azmi Abdul Hamid is president of the Malaysian Consultative Council of Islamic Organization (Mapim). - FMT