Non-Muslims demand the right to attack Islam

By MT Webmaster Last updated May 26, 2016

Okay, let me withdraw that sentence and use another analogy instead. France allows sex between two consenting adults. And France is a democracy or democratic country. So Anwar Ibrahim is not guilty of sodomy because France is a democracy or democratic country and since Malaysia is also a democracy or democratic country then he should be allowed sex with another man as long as both are consenting adults.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

I did not publish quite a number of comments in my previous article (Why Malaysia is NOT a democratic country) because if I did then it might make the Muslims angry. And this would not contribute towards race relations in Malaysia.

Actually, the article was not about Islam but about whether Malaysia is or is not a democracy or democratic country. And if we want Malaysia to be a democracy or democratic country then what would be required? But then many readers commented on Islam instead of what the article was addressing.

My argument was basically centred on how could we argue about Malaysia’s form of democracy when in the first place Malaysia does not qualify to be called a democracy or a democratic country in the full sense of the word. There are certain requirements if we want to be a democracy or a democratic country.

And I gave examples as to what makes a country a democracy.

The article came in 15 paragraphs. However, many focused on just one paragraph and start arguing about that.

As I said, first become a Muslim and then argue that as a Muslim this is what I am allowed to do. It sounds extremely stupid when a Christian, Hindu or Buddhist starts arguing that as a Muslim this is what I am allowed to do. In that same spirit it is stupid to argue that in a democracy or a democratic country one must be able to criticise, oppose and disagree without suffering the consequences when Malaysia is NOT a democracy or a democratic country in the full sense of the word, say like France.

Many found that paragraph offensive and one non-Muslim demanded to know why even if they are not Muslims they cannot teach Muslims about Islam. Another non-Muslim said that he does not need to be a politician to be able to teach a politician about politics.

That is the trouble with non-Muslims. The minute we use Islam or Muslims as an example they fly off the handle and foam at the mouth without reading properly what was written.

My point was: In that same spirit it is stupid to argue that in a democracy or a democratic country one must be able to criticise, oppose and disagree without suffering the consequences when Malaysia is NOT a democracy or a democratic country in the full sense of the word, say like France.

And the analogy I used (which made many people unhappy) is: As I said, first become a Muslim and then argue that as a Muslim this is what I am allowed to do. It sounds extremely stupid when a Christian, Hindu or Buddhist starts arguing that as a Muslim this is what I am allowed to do.

Now, if you were to read the paragraph before that, I said: I mean this is just like a Christian arguing that Islam allows four wives so he is free to marry four wives. Yes, Islam allows four wives. But you are not Muslim. You are Christian. You must first become a Muslim before arguing what Islam does and does not allow.

The point I am making is you are a Christian and yet you demand to be allowed to marry four wives because Islam allows one to marry four wives.

So tell me, where in that sentence did I say non-Muslims must not teach Muslims about Islam, as many of you non-Muslim readers have commented?

Is that a better analogy than the four wives for Muslims analogy?

Raja Petra Kamarudin RPK