Response to My Letter About Fitna in The Star


Come and read this ‘reply’ which is de-facto-not-at-all-a-reply to my letter to The Star about anti-Fitna protests.

MOHD SHAH ABDULLAH completely mischaracterizes the message of Fitna as ‘West vs. Islam’. That is not what Fitna and my letter are about. See his letter below.

To find out what the true message is, see the letter to the Star I sent which has not been printed as of yet. It follows MOHD SHAH ABDULLAH‘s letter, and its contents are not exactly 100% Politically Correct for Malaysia, so no surprise if it never sees print.

And then after that, watch me mock his argument and rip his letter to shreds… Intellectually, of course.

Friends of MOHD SHAH ABDULLAH, make sure to tell him that his letter is on my blog, and I’m busy showing him up for all to see.

—————————————————–

—————————————————–

From MOHD SHAH ABDULLAH to The Star Letters 6 April 2008:

    BlameTheWestAgain1    BlameTheWestAgain2

Vicious cycle must be stopped

I AM having difficulty understanding Scott Thong’s view “Extremists must be taken to task too” (The Star, April 3) that moderate Muslims condone violence because they have never expressed any sense of outrage at the violence committed by the few so-called Muslim terrorists.

Muslims, just like others, do not condone violence committed not only by fellow Muslims but also those committed by others in many parts of the world. The outrage against Geert Wilders, on the other hand, is not by all Muslims because of his propaganda to vilify Islam instead of the terrorists.

The term “moderate Islam” was invented by the West immediately after the Cold War with Russia. Islam suddenly became a new enemy of the West, and a litmus test was set up to establish if a Muslim country or individual could be regarded as moderate.

They are considered moderate if they do not promote or condone violence, do not possess WMDs and adopt a democratic system of government. They know that most Muslim countries could not pass this litmus test, but the same goes for the West.

The term moderate Islam is a convenient jargon to classify Muslims, so that Muslim countries and people are seen to be either with or against them.

Prior to this, I have not heard of this dichotomy of moderate and jihadist and there were no animosities between Muslims and the West. The violence committed by the few extremists in the name of Islam against Western countries was never against Christianity but against Western imperialism.

Radicalisation of Muslims started in the early 19th century in British India when the British imposed their values and religion on Muslims and Hindus.

The British introduced the concept of pre-emptive strike, now adopted by the Americans, against the moderate Mughal and installed a puppet regime, also known as a regime change, which could serve their political and economic ends.

According to William Dalrympl author of The Last Mughal, the jihadists take what they see as an act of self-defence.

It was at about the same period that radicalisation of Muslims also occurred in Egypt, during the construction of the Suez Canal where development was for the benefit of the imperial West.

I believe the most pressing issue now is how to break this vicious cycle, i.e. the provocation by the West and the counteraction by the radical Muslims. The making of Fitna and its circulation do not help matters.

MOHD SHAH ABDULLAH,
Ampang, Kuala Lumpur.

—————————————————–

—————————————————–

Scott’s reply to the above letter:

They would kill mefor who I am
As Mohd Shah Abdullah replied to my letter, I wish to reply to him in turn, in order to clear up some misunderstandings.
 
He seems to have misinterpreted my letter as focusing on what constitutes a ‘moderate’ Muslim, when the clear intent of my letter was simply that those who condemn Geert Wilders for tarnishing Islam with his film Fitna should also condemn the Muslims caught on film tarnishing Islam with their hate-filled rhetoric.
 
I do not wish to argue about whether the West is to blame for stirring up discontent and anger. I do not condone aggression or warmongering by any nation or philosophy.
 
But what I would like to point out is this: The radicals shown calling for war and murder in Fitna would kill me.
 
Me. Scott Thong.
 
Not just Geert Wilders. Not just George W. Bush. Not just Westerners who mock their religion and invade their nations. But me.
 
Why? I am a Malaysian of Chinese ethnicity. I am not a Westerner. I am not an American or a Briton or a Dutchman.
 
What did I ever do to deserve their hatred? I have never taken part in or condoned slander or insult or war or imperialist occupation. I have done nothing to provoke the sentiments of these radicals who call for my murder with full conviction and fervor. Absolutely nothing.
 
Yet the radicals recorded on film in Fitna would still behead me… Simply because I am a Christian. Simply because I do not share their specific beliefs. Simply because I do not submit to their power and control. Simply because I do not join in their jihad against the West.
 
They would kill me, simply because I am not a Muslim.
 
That is what I want Muslim leaders to denounce when they denounce Geert Wilders. That is what I want Muslim groups to protest when they protest Fitna. That is what I want ‘moderates’ to unconditionally condemn and reject.
 
Strifeful, combative and blood-spilling division between Muslims and non-Muslims – that is what I want my peace-loving, tolerant and understanding Muslim friends, neighbours and national leaders to condemn and reject.
 
Moderate or radical? I believe that the distinction is very clear to see, Western-invented classifying jargon or not.
 
Denounce the murderous radicals as well as those who would provoke them. That is all I ask of you.

SCOTT THONG YU YUEN

—————————————————–

—————————————————–

And now, the pwnage:

1) MOHD SHAH ABDULLAH totally misses the very simple, straightforward and clear message of my letter:

If you’re going to denounce Geert Wilders for his film Fitna, you should be also denouncing the Muslims calling for war on all non-Muslims. – Scott Thong, right here and right now

Instead, he goes off on a red-herring tangent about his skewed view of West-Islam history. Which I dissect below.

————————–

2) He says that:

They are considered moderate if they do not promote or condone violence, do not possess WMDs and adopt a democratic system of government. They know that most Muslim countries could not pass this litmus test, but the same goes for the West.

I say that in my understanding, anyone of any religion or culture is considered ‘moderate’ if they don’t want to kill me for offending them, for not submitting to them, for not converting to their religion.

THAT is the core issue here, MOHD SHAH ABDULLAH. Not what the West chooses to label a Muslim nation, but whether a Muslim wants to cut off my head just because of the fact that I am not a Muslim.

————————–

3) He says that:

Prior to this, I have not heard of this dichotomy of moderate and jihadist and there were no animosities between Muslims and the West. The violence committed by the few extremists in the name of Islam against Western countries was never against Christianity but against Western imperialism.

I would kindly point him to the following animosities which all happened without just cause on the part of the Muslim aggressors, long before any such notion of ‘Western imperialism’ existed, but during a time when Christians were considered kaffirs (infidels) :

And these animosities also happened way before the Crusades (First Crusade began 1095 A.D., so he can’t blame it on ‘provocation of the West‘)… Which by the way, were restricted to reconquering territories that had formerly been Christian before the Muslim imperialist conquerors came along.

See full list at Christianity vs Islam – Who Started This Whole Mess?.

————————–

4) He says that:

Radicalisation of Muslims started in the early 19th century in British India when the British imposed their values and religion on Muslims and Hindus.

I say: What about the Muslims who carried out the invasions I just mentioned in Point 3? Were they radical, or non-radical?

If radical, then how are the 19th-century British to blame for 7th-century ‘radicalization’ of some Muslims?

If not radical, then what are you yourself implying about Islam as a whole?

——————————

5) He says that:

According to William Dalrympl author of The Last Mughal, the jihadists take what they see as an act of self-defence.

I say that, according to the Crusaders, their invasion of Jerusalem was ‘just an act of self-defense’ after 400 years of Muslim invasions of the previously Christian Middle East, Asia, Africa and Europe.

——————————

6) Strangely enough, after dismissing the classifying term ‘moderate’ by saying:

The term moderate Islam is a convenient jargon to classify Muslims, so that Muslim countries and people are seen to be either with or against them.

…He finishes his letter by classifying some Muslims as ‘radical’:

I believe the most pressing issue now is how to break this vicious cycle, i.e. the provocation by the West and the counteraction by the radical Muslims. The making of Fitna and its circulation do not help matters.

And need I point out, to these ‘jargon classified as radical’ Muslims, the rest of the world is already seen to be ‘either with them or against them’. Or haven’t you as a learned Muslim heard of Dar al-Islam vs Dar al-Harb? (Territory of Islam vs Territory of War. The latter includes all non-Muslims, including non-Western me.)

—————————

7) He still manages to not condemn the kill-all-non-Muslims-terror-mongers featured in Fitna. Congrats on that, Mr. Moderate (except that according to yourself, Moderate is just a false label).

——————————- 

PRE-CONCLUSION

MOHD SHAH ABDULLAH is the typical one-side-of-the-story wannabe historian who thinks that the West is basically to blame for every problem in the world.

Never mind that if you want to play the ‘Who is first imperialist to blame’ game, expansionism-by-the-sword Islam is clearly the culprit. (Muslims invasions in 632 A.D. Middle East and in 711 A.D. Europe versus 1095 A.D. First Crusade, it’s basic maths, sir).

Never mind that if you go far back enough in history, all these ‘Muslim lands’ that the jihadists use to claim ‘self-defense against the Western imperialists’ were once non-Muslim lands that failed to defend themselves from the imperialistic, warmongering, proto-colonial caliphates of Islam.

Just like Abdullah Badawi, MOHD SHAH ABDULLAH cannot comprehend that the West is not always to blame for everything… And that sometimes, you really should start taking responsibility for a change.

Start taking responsibility now, good sir. Denounce unconditionally the Muslims who call for the death of all Christians, Jews, atheists, polytheists, Muslims of a different sect, Muslims who are insufficiently pious, Muslims who even associate with the former groups…

…You get the picture.

—————————————————–

—————————————————–

CONCLUSION

Fitna is not about the West versus Islam. It is about Muslims who claim to follow the Koran and Hadith, and use those scriptures to justify killing me.

Me. Scott Thong. 

Not Geert Wilders. Not Tony Blair. Not G.W. Bush. Not Ariel Sharon. Not the Americans and the Zionists and the Jews.

But me… And all my family and friends. Why?

I am a Chinese Malaysian. I have nothing to do with the West, with America or Britain or the Dutch or Zionist Israel or the Crusaders.

Yet the Muslims shown preaching, chanting, mobbing, killing in the footage of Fitna would still kill me… Because I am a Christian. Because I do not partake of their jihad against whoever their enemies may be. Because I do not bow down and submit to them.

Those Muslims will kill me, because I am not a Muslim.

That is the crux of the argument. That is the point here. That is the message of Fitna (have you even watched it?).

So, MOHD SHAH ABDULLAH , how would you justify the ‘self-defence’ of the jihadis who would kill non-Western, non-imperialist Scott Thong?


Tags: , , , , , , , ,

5 Responses to “Response to My Letter About Fitna in The Star”

  1. hutchrun Says:

    Moh Shah Abdullah is a bad muslim, he doesn`t understand the koran despite his many readings of it. Now, these chaps show he lies:

    Muslim sex offenders are asking to be let off a prison treatment programme on religious grounds.

    Rapists, paedophiles and other dangerous attackers are expected to discuss their crimes with other inmates as a condition of release.

    But Muslim prisoners complain that criminals should not have to talk about their offences – a “legitimate Islamic position”, according to Ahtsham Ali, the Prison Service’s Muslim adviser.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=558091&in_page_id=1770

  2. hutchrun Says:

    Wednesday April 9, 2008

    PENANG: A police report has been lodged against an Islamic Information and Services Foundation officer for allegedly condemning Hinduism during a recent closed-door ceramah in Alor Star, Kedah.

    Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) co-ordinator R.S. Thanenthiran said the ceramah was recorded and 11 clips were uploaded onto YouTube.

    “We did our own checks and discovered that he had also put down other religions.

    “He should stop before he causes religious unrest in our peaceful country,” Thanenthiran said yesterday.
    [ ]
    In Malacca, several Indian non-governmental groups and an individual have lodged police reports against the manager of a company in Setiawangsa, Kuala Lumpur, over alleged derogatory remarks made by him against Hinduism.

    Malacca Hindu Sangam leaders of the Kota Melaka, Bukit Katil, Tangga Batu and Jasin MIC divisions, including an individual, lodged the report at the Central Malacca police station yesterday.

    In their report, they claimed that the culprit had been making derogatory remarks in talks and in a website about Hinduism over the last several years.

    His remarks are also in YouTube.

    http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/4/9/nation/20894464&sec=nation

  3. hutchrun Says:

    What the Hindus say:

    The venomous video on Hinduism by a Malaysian Indian muslim (In Malay language)
    http://www.youtube.com/user/umnosucks

    Whereas Malaysian religious council slams Fitna video as insult to Islam and the former prime minister Mahathir has called for for boycott of Dutch products.

    But the same people propagate hatred towards other religions in their own back yard.
    A Mr Shah Kirit Bin Kakulal Govindji also known as Shah Kirit Kumar Da’wa , Officer of IIS is propagating hatred towards Hinduism in the video

    His personal blog is here: personal blog http://www.shahkirit.com/
    http://www.iis.org.my/

    So Fitna appears to be justified. Muslims have no respect for other religions.

  4. Scott Thong Says:

    Huh. I remember going for TITAS (Tamadun Islam dan Asia) classes in Universiti Sains Malaysia. Obligatory for all courses.

    The lecturer began his lecture to the hundreds of students by putting down every religion apart from Islam. Example:

    “Jika kamu ikyt agame Buddha, kepercayaan kamu adalah salah. Ini bukan opinion, ini fakta.”

    If we had phone cameras an YouTube back then, he’d be out of a job today.

    As for Fitna double standards… Arabic papers are saturated with articles and cartoons and ‘factual enws reports’ demonizing and insulting Jewish people and believers, and I bet Christians and every other religion as well.

    Maybe it’s time the Zionists ‘protested’ by burning flags and cars… Only using Hellfire missiles instead of gasoline.

  5. hutchrun Says:

    Why they hate Zionism:

    The rise of Jewish nationalism—Zionism—posed a predictable, if completely unacceptable challenge to the Islamic order—jihad-imposed chronic dhimmitude for Jews—of apocalyptic magnitude. As Bat Ye’or has explained,

    “…because divine will dooms Jews to wandering and misery, the Jewish state appears to Muslims as an unbearable affront and a sin against Allah. Therefore it must be destroyed by Jihad.”

    Historian Saul S. Friedman, also citing the emergence of Zionism (as an ideology anathema to the Islamic system of dhimmitude for Jews), concluded that this modern movement, and the creation of the Jewish State of Israel has, not surprisingly, unleashed a torrent of annihilationist Islamic antisemitism, “the brew of thirteen centuries of intolerance”:

    “Since 1896, the development of modern, political Zionism has placed new tension on, and even destroyed, the traditional master-serf relationship that existed between Arab and Jew in the Middle East. An Arab world that could not tolerate the presence of a single, “arrogant” Jewish vizier in its history was now confronted by a modern state staffed with self-confident Jewish ministers.”
    http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2008/04/06/richard-the-reconciliation-hearted/#comments

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: