to the New World.
Say what one may about gweilos, but they do have a touch for the philosophical Good life and, to discover it, have the instinctive ability to smooth over its difficulties with exquisite arts and good music. Above, Judith Durham sings to a long, long journey that cannot be traveled alone. Below, in text, some moronic asshole Malaiyoo talks about how to laden and ruin it all with more rules to travel. Yet, before starting off, he is already blaming his problems on gweilos. Sigh…
I’d hold your hand / and be your Someone. 发誓.
On the Origin of Laws, specifically Malaysia’s Penal Code, Aidil Khalid, some lawyer it appears, has this to say:
These are laws imported from India which were taken from the British legal system. Some are based on the principle of morality and under the Christian principle. The Muslims never complained (about them).
But who let them in?
Aidil’s contention was made in a Bebas debate (some debate) on Hadi Awang’s 355 Bill. Present at which were, like Aidil, the lawyering types such as Haris Ibrahim. One would think that Aidil would be easy to crush: ‘Christian and you didn’t complain? No shit! So stupid of your Malaiyoo types to import those laws. Having done so, we are going to make damn sure we won’t make the same mistake twice, importing Arabic laws.’
Instead, all that Haris et al manage to respond was to go on and on with all the yada, yada about 355 religiosity as if Islam is a matter of rational debate. Haris would be better off to try reason with those head-chopping Saudi fascists and their ISIS collaborators.
The like of Aidil didn’t know it then, nor now, still, that cultural genocide — the complete eradication then replacement of a native culture by another — is a Western specialty later took up by Arabs and Muslims. Genocide is what happens when Malays are faced with a much more stronger — and dare one say, superior — force. Malays once lost to the English political system because they had none and they are now losing to the desert camel herders. But, whether they lose in politics or religion, it made for no difference; Malaiyoos are still done in.
If Malays had their own laws, or their own God to begin with, would they have needed to import any?
On the contrary, many of Umno’s apparatchiks even welcome the conversion from their infidel roots. Take that Malay moron and Nusantara supremacist Kadir Jasin. Today, he claims to be Muslim first and only after that is he Malaiyoo. We know why he would say that, of course: like ketuanan, Islam is taboo to touch, cannot be scrutinized, and if you as much as sniff at it, prepare for jail. Above all, it is a better tool than ketuanan to beat up the Chinese. They would say it is the fault of the Chinese if a Malay eats on puasa month. According to Ahirudin Attan (a supposed ‘liberal’) it is the fault of the Chinese girl if, on a puasa month, she wore short pants and the Malay oogling at her has bad, sinful thoughts: ‘Those Chinese are so insensitive,‘ he’d say. Heard that line before? Anywhere?
Now that Ahi’s liberalism and Kadir’s Great Nusantara culture (or what’s left of it) face their final threat of extinction, they have nothing to say. Not one fucking word from these coconut heads who otherwise will have a ready word for anything that concerns Malay existential survival.
Aidil may complain about having to inherit Christian laws but he says nothing about why that should be a bad thing for Malays. Whether the laws in Malaysia are Christian or Islam, they still emanate from a foreign God unless, of course, Aidil now says the two gods aren’t the same. And, if not the same, then the world is ruled not by a single omnipotent Power, the One, but by many, an idea clearly in conflict with Quranic statements or the Bible.
Saying that the Penal Code had Christian origins is not the same as saying the law is inferior because of its gweilo origin, especially since it was passed to an old Malay society that would have had been next to being lawless. Indeed Christian laws might have even delayed the complete subjugation and, thence, annihilation of Malay society. If not for Malaysia’s laws, Aidil et al wouldn’t be Muslim first and then Malay. Nowhere else, not even Saudi Arabia, would today’s Malay life be possible.
Confronted with that argument, Aidil would probably retreat to the only thing left to be said in defense of 355: hudud is only for Muslims. (But Christianity wasn’t; it was for everybody. Which was why Malaysia had it.)
If Aidil were to be true to his word that hudud is only for Muslims then Malaysia is in danger of being a corrupting influence on Islam because in ‘Holy Land’ Saudi Arabia, its Sharia is made applicable to all, Muslims and Christians alike. This is where Aidil lies through his teeth. His is the sort of lie advocated by their ustaz and imams who would consider hypocrisy and pretense as acceptable, even preferred value practices in their dealings with infidels in mixed, plural populations and settings.
Behind the For-Muslims-Only theory is the Quranic injunction that Muslims ought to live out their lives in Islamic fullness, that fullness being decided beforehand by coconut heads like Aidil and Hadi. The injunction is a minefield. Such a life, once made specific to another era and geography, had to draw support from the pre-Islamic traditions that were pagan, Jewish and Christian in their origins. Characteristically, today’s so-called Islamic laws produce the precise opposite of present standards of conduct; it reproduced the barbarity of the past (think also of the Inquisition). Such results implied that Allah’s omnipotent power has had messy consequences. It further infers that proper, socially acceptable conduct is impossible by individual acts of internal volition and so must coerced or forced out, by death and whipping if necessary. Just as Alice of Wonderland has seen and heard: ‘Off with his head’. It is very medieval Christian.
Small wonder, therefore, the like of Aidil have been endlessly offering justifications when promoting 355 — and justifications offered not to the Malays though, their primarily target audience, but to the Chinese. Which, if one were think it through, would be completely absurd: If indeed 355 is sanctioned by God, then there is no problem; passage into law is assured by the Omnipotent. And, if indeed 355 is so good and useful, why even bother placating other people, infidels in particular; its holiness ought to be self evident.
All of which suggests that Aidil et al knew beforehand that 355 isn’t merely an aberration in modern society. Rather, their proposed so-called Islamic laws are so completely deranged that they are left with only two means of ensuring its passage in Parliament: (1) force Malays into acceptance on the pain of being denounced then ostracized and, (2) tell the Chinese this is none of their business.
In telling the Chinese that Muslims have been tolerating Christian-based laws, Aidil is also offering the justification should Malays in future apply their religious rules on the Chinese. That is, they would say, infidels have no right to complain since this is all so holy and since Muslims have to put up with Jesus before, so can you with our Allah. To further strengthen those arguments, Hadi and Umno could even throw in this other piece of poppycock. Which is that, since more than half of Parliament, the majority, had brought about the law the minority must accept the decision: ‘It is the essence of democracy, you see. The majority prevails. So shut up or we will cut off your tongue.‘
Well, to Hadi, Aidil, Mah & Muh, their fellow Umno/Pakatan travelers, their Arabian tribe and their kafir apologists (think Helen ‘Aku Cina’ Ang) let this be said on the outset in case these towel heads still don’t get it: You want hudud? Fuck you.
Aidil’s inane attempt to segregate Malaysian laws on the basis of their Christian and Islam origins (even though they are rooted in the same past) also reveal an undercurrent in the secular (liberalism) versus religious (Islam) struggle within Malay society, a struggle forced now into the open by 355.
It is an old problem, pre-dating even Socrates and Islam certainly but peculiar to Western societies before, Malaysia today because of its late existence, its coming into being. (Ever hear about this fight in Japan, Korea or China?)
At the heart of which is the notional struggle that people can have only one God and He won’t tolerate a substitute, a replacement ideology much less. And, He must be obeyed. He is like the ghost haunting Malaiyoos since the day some unthinking pirate chief, who, too, must be obeyed, was hoodwinked by some Arab camel trader and Indian Muslim money changer. Exorcise Him from Malaysian life and everyone would be free. Imagine: Freedom!
Fold a straight line, what you’d get is the above. Consider, thus, the Islamists (PAS, Sabri Ismail) occupying the right end of the spectrum line and on the far left the liberals, of course. Fold that line, they meet. This is no coincidence. Liberalism and God run along the same track and share the same End, the same ultimate intention, and both possessing the same proselytizing zeal and eclipse qualities. Yet, both were made up by gweilos, beginning with Plato and Anselm of Canterbury and, after them, copied by Arabs.