I will debate Najib and Anwar on the subject of Islam

ARCHIVES 2012

By MT Webmaster On Mar 22, 2012

Can Islam be insulted? Therefore, can you be detained without trial for insulting Islam? What is Islam? Are Barisan Nasional’s and Pakatan Rakyat’s interpretation of Islam correct or mere folklore and old wives’ tales? If a Muslim leaves Islam to become an Atheist will this be allowed in Malaysia under both the Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat governments?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

First read the news reports by Malaysiakini and The Malaysian Insider plus the two e-mails from Wikileaks below.

Malaysiakini said: Anwar said that the Wikileaks founder Assange had initially contacted him for an interview on Twitter, and he had agreed. However, RPK then protested and butted into the deal, with Najib supporting him.

That is a distortion of facts of the highest degree. Malaysiakini should not become the Chinese version of Utusan Malaysia or be seen as a non-independent opposition mouthpiece. “However, RPK then protested and butted into the deal, with Najib supporting him” is a blatant lie.

Note what Wikileaks said in its e-mail.

1. We are putting together a new ten-part series of interviews, called ‘The World Tomorrow’.

2. The format of the programme is a free-flowing, frank conversation where we discuss with our guests what they imagine are the ‘worst-case’ (dystopian) and ‘best-case’ (utopian) scenarios for the world in the 21st century.

At first I declined the invitation because, as I told them, I am not an expert on the global situation and am more focused on the local Malaysian scene. They then sent me a second e-mail the following day that said:

3. I had a chat with Julian Assange last night, and he is very keen for you to appear on the programme. Julian thought it would be an interesting combination to interview you and Benny Wenda on the programme.

4. The main focus of the discussion would be the use of international law enforcement mechanisms for political purposes.

So you see, first of all it is a not a debate but a discussion. Secondly, it is not about Malaysia but about the global situation. Thirdly, it is to discuss the use of international law enforcement mechanisms for political purposes.

The key here is the use of international law enforcement mechanisms for political purposes. Got that? INTERNATIONAL LAW and the use (or abuse) of it for POLITICAL PURPOSES!

However, politicians being what they are, they do not like to discuss matters of mutual concern. They only want to run down the other side, mainly on personal issues rather than national issues (or international issues as in the case of what Wikileaks had planned). Hence the discussion or interviews that is supposed to feature a broad range of figures related to global power in the 21st century was turned into a debate between Anwar and me.

The latest development appears to be that this is now a debate between Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak, Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim, and I. And it appears that Anwar has accepted while Najib and I are yet to confirm acceptance to the debate.

But what is the subject and format of this debate that they are now talking about? Are we going to debate the Altantuya Shaaribuu murder? Are we going to debate the allegations of sexual misconduct against Anwar? Are we going to debate whether the New Economic Policy (NEP) should be extended or should end? Are we going to debate whether Malaysia should be turned into a Republic and the Constitutional Monarchy be abolished? Are we going to debate lowering the voting age to 18 since at 18 you can marry and drive a car but can only vote at 21? Are we going to debate the rights of all Malaysians who are registered to vote but can’t go back to Malaysia to vote to vote at Malaysian Embassies and High Commissions all over the world?

What is the subject and format of this debate that is now being proposed?

Anwar has accepted the invitation to the debate and he is now waiting for Najib and me to confirm acceptance. Does Anwar already know the subject and format of the debate? Or is Anwar prepared to debate anything under the sun?

Malaysians do not want a debate involving personal issues. Who the hell cares about who is bonking whom and what are the sexual preferences of all these people? Will these issues give Malaysians a better future? Can the life of Malaysians improve?

What do you remember about the Lim Guan Eng and Chua Soi Lek debate? Can you point out the salient points of that debate? What I remember is DAP accusing MCA of being Umno’s running dog while MCA accuses DAP of being PAS’s running dog. In other words, it is about which Chinese grouping is more or lesser the running dog of the Malays.

Is this the national issue that we need to resolve? Since that Lim Guan Eng and Chua Soi Lek debate has the life of Malaysians improved? Has the economy improved? Has corruption been reduced? Have we seen better governance and more transparency and accountability?

The bottom line is politicians want to use debates not for resolving issues that need resolving but to try to outdo each other. No doubt the government supporters will declare that Chua Soi Lek won the debate while the opposition supporters will declare that Lim Guan Eng won the debate. I honestly do not know who won, whether Lim Guan Eng or Chua Soi Lek. In fact, I do not even know the grading system to determine who won and who lost.

If I agree to debate both Anwar and Najib and if I choose Islam as the subject to be debated would these two personalities agree to the debate? Islam is certainly a matter of concern for most Malaysians, in particular to the non-Muslims, although many Muslims are also concerned about the issue.

Umno claims to be the largest Islamic party in the world, at least according to Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. PAS has said it will not compromise on Islam or drop the issue of Islamic laws. Hence, both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat appear to be defenders of the faith and this is of concern to many Malaysians.

The debate can’t be a rojak debate. If not then we will end up with what happened in the Lim Guan Eng and Chua Soi Lek debate, a contest to see who can outdo the other and who can win the shouting match.

Yes, I will certainly agree to debate both Najib and Anwar. And because I was detained under the Internal Security Act on the allegation that I had insulted Islam, and was threatened with a third detention which forced me to leave the country, I want to debate Islam.

I am in exile because I was said to have insulted Islam (at least that was what was written on my Detention Order). Hence I want to debate Islam so that we can argue whether I did or did not insult Islam. I will then raise points about how Islam came about and whether Islam, as it is perceived and practiced now, is a fact or fallacy.

You can’t insult something that doesn’t exist. So Najib and Anwar can defend both Barisan Nasional’s and Pakatan Rakyat’s version or interpretation of Islam. I will then rip to shreds their interpretation of Islam and argue my views on the real Islam.

Note that Anwar protested Salman Rushdie’s presence in his forum in India because the latter was accused of insulting Islam. So both Najib and Anwar hold the view that Islam can be insulted. Both are equally guilty of interpreting Islam according to their own viewpoint.

Yes, I have been waiting for more than three years for this, ever since they threw me into Kamunting for ‘insulting Islam’. I will challenge both Najib and Anwar to defend their understanding of Islam. Then I will rip to shreds the traditional view of Islam with the facts of my own research.

This certainly dovetails with what Wikileaks wants to discuss: ‘The World Tomorrow‘. And is not Islam viewed as a global problem by most countries? And is not Islam also a problem for Malaysia as well? And will not ‘The World Tomorrow’ be affected by what happens with the way Islam is being interpreted and practiced?

Najib can take the position of a liberal Muslim. Anwar can take the position of a fundamentalist Muslim. And I shall take the position of an Atheist. So let the debate begin.

****************************************

Anwar willing to take on both RPK and Najib in debate

Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim has agreed to go toe to toe with his most ardent critics, self-exiled blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin, popularly known as RPK, and Premier Najib Abdul Razak in an upcoming debate.

“Julian Assange has agreed to host the debate between Najib, RPK and me and I have said yes,” the Permatang Pauh MP told reporter at a press conference in the parliament lobby today.

Anwar said that the Wikileaks founder Assange had initially contacted him for an interview on Twitter, and he had agreed.

However, RPK then protested and butted into the deal, with Najib supporting him.

Looking at the exchange, Assange then said that he is prepared to organise a three-corner debate between the contentious trio.

RPK and Najib have yet to confirm, though Anwar said he is willing to take them both on. — Malaysiakini

***************************************

Anwar accepts Wikileaks’ offer to debate Najib, RPK

Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim said today he has accepted an offer from Wikileaks founder Julian Assange to debate Datuk Seri Najib Razak and maverick blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin.

Raja Petra had recently accused the opposition leader of forcing him out of an interview, leading Najib to accuse Anwar, who has repeatedly challenged the prime minister to a debate, of being inconsistent.

“Assange said he wants to organise the debate. It could be a three-cornered debate. I told him I agreed,” Anwar told a press conference today.

The whistleblower website said in a press statement yesterday “we now extend our invitation to Mr Najib to debate Mr Raja Petra and Mr Ibrahim together, or in isolation.”

“We have formally invited Prime Minister Najib Razak to discuss the future of Malaysia together with Mr Ibrahim, moderated by Mr Assange. If accepted, the filmed discussion will be seen by up to 600 million people and will be available online,” it said.

A survey by Merdeka Center last month found that 54 per cent of voters in Peninsular Malaysia want to see regular debates between Najib and Anwar, with over three-quarters of young Malays backing a debate between the Barisan Nasional (BN) and Pakatan Rakyat (PR) chiefs.

In contrast, only 39 per cent of Malays — who make up the majority of the electorate — aged over 60 want to see Najib take on Anwar.

The former deputy prime minister has repeatedly challenged the PM to a public debate on national policies and the country’s direction.

Umno president Najib has so far refused to take on PKR de facto leader Anwar in a debate.

But BN secretary-general Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor appeared to open the door for such a debate, indicating last month the ruling coalition’s “readiness” to meet any such challenge.

His PKR counterpart, Saifuddin Nasution, responded by saying he would reach out to the Putrajaya MP to arrange the clash between their party leaders.

Tengku Adnan then said Anwar should instead debate Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, the opposition leader’s former aide who accused the Permatang Pauh MP of sodomising him.

Last month’s clash between MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek and DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng drew a full house of 800 and was screened on Astro in Mandarin as well as with a Malay translation.

This followed a debate between PKR strategic director Rafizi Ramli and Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin in London.

Anwar’s previous calls for an open debate have so far been answered only once, in July 2008 by then-Information Minister Datuk Ahmad Shabery Cheek, an event broadcast live on national television. — The Malaysian Insider

****************************************

This was the first e-mail from Wikileaks:

Dear Raja Petra Kamarudin,

I work for a UK Production Company called Quick Roll Productions. We are putting together a new ten-part series of interviews, called ‘The World Tomorrow’, which will be hosted by journalist and Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange. I’m writing to enquire if you would like to take part in the programme.

The interviews will feature a broad range of figures who relate to global power in the 21st century from ‘insider’ as well as ‘outsider’ perspectives. The format of the programme is a free-flowing, frank conversation where we discuss with our guests what they imagine are the ‘worst-case’ (dystopian) and ‘best-case’ (utopian) scenarios for the world in the 21st century. The interviews will broadcast toward the end of March/beginning of April via several media networks including Russia Today, a global channel with a reach of over 600 million viewers.

The interviews can either be conducted on location near London (if you happen to be in the UK), or by satellite video-link or Skype and will last in the region of 30 – 45 minutes. We would be looking at a record date around 8th March.

I’m happy to provide further details about the programme, but wanted to send a quick note in the first instance. Be great to hear if this is of interest and something you would like to take part in.

****************************************

At first I declined the invitation but promised I would consider it. Then they sent me this second e-mail:

Dear Raja,

I wanted to send a quick note to follow up on my email yesterday. I had a chat with Julian Assange last night, and he is very keen for you to appear on the programme.

Julian thought it would be an interesting combination to interview you and Benny Wenda on the programme (Benny is confirmed to appear on Thursday, 8th March). The main focus of the discussion would be the use of international law enforcement mechanisms for political purposes. I’m sure you are aware that Benny Wenda is currently under an Interpol Red Notice, and Julian experienced the same back in 2010. He thought this would make for a very interesting conversation between the three of you, and wondered if you might be available and keen to take part in this discussion?

I hope this helps to clarify the subject of the programme, but do let me know if you have any questions.