Who are you calling extremist?
So you see, if we use our own yardstick or standards in coming to a conclusion then even the existence of Jesus is questionable while there is no doubt that Muhammad did exist. To the Catholics, however, there is no question that Jesus did exist.
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
Since the revelation that one PAS leader is amongst an estimated 100 Malays-Muslims (they say 100 but it could even be more) who have gone to Syria and/or Iraq to fight in the civil war there we are reading many statements by Muslims and non-Muslims alike about these ‘extremists’ or ‘terrorists’.
Why do you call them extremists (or terrorists)? Is it because they are allegedly fighting for Islam? Why is it when they fight for Islam they are labelled extremists but when they fight for other causes they are not extremists (or terrorists)?
Have you not heard the saying that one man’s terrorist is another man’s patriot?
The Americans who fought the British in 1775 are also terrorists as far as the British at that time were concerned. In fact, it is called the American Revolutionary War, which means it was a revolution rather than a war of independence, although the Americans would call it the War of Independence.
Okay, I know what many are now going to say. The war of 1775 was not about religion. It was about freedom. Freedom from what? Freedom from Britain? But wasn’t the new world ‘owned’ by the British anyway?
What about the Middle East ‘war of independence’ of 100 years ago that the British engineered, which saw the breakup of the Middle East? Was that not the British working with extremists and terrorists and which is the cause of all the present trouble in the Middle East?
Saddam Hussein was an extremist and terrorist. But the west did not see him as that and that is why they supported him in Iraq’s war with Iran. He was then a hero who was instrumental in keeping Shia Islam in check. Only when the west no longer had any use for him did they label him an extremist and terrorist and invade Iraq to get rid of him.
Fidel Castro is an extremist and terrorist although he ousted a most evil, draconian and corrupt government, but one that was friendly to the United States. If Castro had been pro-United States he would be a patriot and hero and not an extremist and terrorist.
Adolf Hitler was an extremist and terrorist and Stalin was a patriot and hero, until he turned on the west. Then Stalin, too, became an extremist and terrorist but only because he was no longer America’s friend.
Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak is a good man to the United States, Britain, Singapore, etc., because he is pro-American. Because of Najib the United States has a secret defence treaty with Malaysia and they conduct secret joint-trainings.
The day that Najib becomes pro-China and condemns America will be the day he becomes a bad man and the United States will give Bersih and the other anti-government NGOs plenty of money to support their effort in trying to topple the Barisan Nasional government and replace it with a Pakatan Rakyat government.
Good/bad, extremist/terrorist and patriot/hero are mainly a matter of opinion. Was Chin Peng a good man or a bad man? A Muslim who dares fight in the jihad against an evil government is not a bad person or an extremist/terrorist in the eyes of a fundamentalist Muslim. He would be seen as a true Muslim, just like how many Chinese view Chin Peng, a patriot.
But what is the meaning of ‘evil government’?
Well, evil government, to Muslims, is a government that refuses to implement God’s laws or follow God’s commandments. Evil means defiance to God. Anyone who defies God is evil. And zalim or cruelty in the Islamic context is denying Muslims their right to God’s laws.
If you deny citizens their right to a decent living, that is zalim. If you deny citizens their right to a good education, that is zalim. If you deny citizens their right to proper healthcare, that is zalim. If you deny citizens their right to justice and a fair trial, that is zalim. And if you deny citizens their right to come under an Islamic system of government that, to Muslims, is also zalim.
So you see, you are looking at this in the perspective of your value system. So you make declarations and label people this, that or the other based on your value system.
The liberals would say that it is zalim to not allow gay unions. Men should be allowed to marry men and women to marry women. Others may not view this as zalim. And if the gay community was to launch a war to fight for their rights would you declare this a just war or a silly war? If you were gay you would support this as a just war.
You might say that these Muslims who join the civil war are misguided or sesat. You might say that these Muslims do not understand Islam and have misunderstood the Qur’an or have misinterpreted what the Qur’an says.
That, again, is a matter of opinion. Others can say the same about the Catholics. They would also say that the Catholics are misguided or sesat and that the Catholics have misunderstood the teachings of Jesus and have misinterpreted what Jesus said.
In fact, if you go by what many western scholars say, they even question whether Jesus really did exist or whether there could actually be two Jesuses, one historical Jesus and one mythical Jesus. After all, argue these people, the stories about Jesus are based on secondary evidence while the stories about Muhammad are based on primary evidence.
Hence while there is no question regarding whether Muhammad did exist there is doubt as to the existence of Jesus.
So you see, if we use our own yardstick or standards in coming to a conclusion then even the existence of Jesus is questionable while there is no doubt that Muhammad did exist. To the Catholics, however, there is no question that Jesus did exist.
In the same spirit, when you label this Muslim or that Muslim an extremist or terrorist this is how you see things and only because you are not a Muslim or not a fundamentalist Muslim. To the fundamentalist Muslim, these jihadists are true Muslims, heroes and patriots who are fighting for Islam.
