When religion means taboo

I even once joked that God sent down Islam to the Arabs because they are an extremely stubborn and quarrelsome race and hence would be able to Islamise the whole region. If Islam had been sent down to the Malays instead, the Malays would have gone to Thailand to try to Islamise the Thais but would have returned to Malaysia as Buddhists. (In other words, the Malays are too weak compared to the very ‘tough’ Arabs).

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Whether it is in the west or in the east, it is more or less the same. Once we invoke the word ‘religion’, ‘faith’, ‘religious belief’, and so on, it becomes taboo for you to contradict me or comment adversely or even comment at all.

You may say the law says this or the law says that. But if I were to say that that particular law goes against my religious belief, I can then seek an exemption from this law. This, no doubt, may not always be the case but it would be so in most situations.

In some cases, extremely secular governments, mainly in the west, would still pass certain laws (say, in the name of security) that may be opposed by those of a certain religious belief. However, that would be the exception rather than the rule and due to pressure from those citing freedom of religion certain flexibilities would be allowed.

For example, the law might say I must wear a crash helmet when riding my motorcycle. However, if my religion says that I must wear a turban, I can actually ride my motorcycle wearing a turban instead of a crash helmet — although if I crash my motorcycle the turban is not going to save me from head injuries since it is not really ‘fastened’ to my head.

The same with the case of the hijab where certain police forces around the world allow the wearing of the hijab for Muslim female police officers due to religious reasons. However, if you were not Muslim, you would be denied that liberty because you would be considered ‘out of uniform’.

The west is still trying to define the boundaries of freedom of speech, expression, opinion, etc. The fact that we are already in the year 2014 and yet we are still painfully grappling with this definition shows how sensitive and dicey this issue is. This is mainly because the definition of freedom or liberty changes from one place/country to another and from one culture/community to another.

For example, if I were to publish a picture of Muslims prostrated (sujud) in prayer with the caption ‘helping to look for the imam’s contact lenses’ how would you view this ‘joke’? Is this joke in good taste or bad? The propagators of freedom of expression may actually find it quite funny while Muslims may feel insulted.

However, if I were to publish a picture of a (non-Muslim) footballer prostrated and kissing the ground after scoring the winning goal with the caption ‘oops, I dropped my contact lenses’ this would not be a problem since no religion is involved here.

So it appears like that very elusive boundary is religion. Whatever that makes fun of or ‘insults’ religion is a no-no while everything else is allowed.

During the height of the Obama campaign I said there is no way Obama can win because the Americans will never agree to change the name ‘White House’ to ‘Black House’. No one appeared offended by that joke. So even ‘racial’ jokes are tolerated to some extent as long as they are not too insulting in nature (and I feel the White House-Black House joke is not in bad taste).

I even once joked that God sent down Islam to the Arabs because they are an extremely stubborn and quarrelsome race and hence would be able to Islamise the whole region. If Islam had been sent down to the Malays instead, the Malays would have gone to Thailand to try to Islamise the Thais but would have returned to Malaysia as Buddhists. (In other words, the Malays are too weak compared to the very ‘tough’ Arabs).

But is this not in a way true? The Malays were Hindus and Buddhists back in the past. All it needed was for one Sultan to convert to Islam and the entire Malay race became Muslims. What if the Sultan had become a Christian instead? Well, no prize for the right guess.

Yes, you are right, then all the Malays would have become deviant Jews instead and the Malay language Bible would not need to use Allah because none of the Malay Christians would be able to speak Arabic anyway.

Okay, and before you Christians and Muslims get all excited, that was meant as a joke although jokes about religion are taboo. But then you know me: I care two hoots about taboo and the more taboo it is the more I will do it.

I can criticise the Malaysian Constitution. I can criticise the New Economic Policy. I can criticise the attitude of the Malays, Chinese, Indians, natives, etc. I can criticise Malaysia’s education system — including Chinese and Tamil schools. I can criticise the Prime Minister, Umno, Barisan Nasional, the entire Malaysian Cabinet, etc., (as long as I do not criticise Anwar Ibrahim and/or Pakatan Rakyat).

In short, there is very little that I cannot criticise. However, if I were to criticise Jesus Christ, Prophet Muhammad, the Bible, the Qur’an/Hadith, and whatnot, I will be asking for trouble. The Christians and Muslims will for once stand united in condemning me.

But why is that? Why do we have ‘List A’ and ‘List B’ and one list is kosher while the other list is haram? Well, simple, one list concerns secular matters while the other list concerns theological matters. And in matters of theology you may not criticise, insult, oppose or make fun of.

Aren’t humans strange? Why can we disagree with secular matters but not in matters involving theology? Why is it okay to offend you as long as it does not involve God?

Let me put it another way. You cannot even prove to me that your God exists or that your ‘holy book’ is the word of God. Yet it is taboo to disagree with you. I must ‘respect’ your religious beliefs and not make fun of it or criticise it.

So let me try to understand this better. What cannot be proven is off-limits while you are free to whack anything that can be proven.

I suppose this is why the most brilliant people in the world over more than 10,000 years were/are those who did not accept anything that cannot be proven. Now tell me, which category do you think you are in?