Who caused the confusion about the forum, and why? (2)

Signatures to the petition to His Majesty to intervene in the matter of further appointments of judges to the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court, as at 2.08pm, stands at 5,411. If you have not as yet signed the petition, you may access the same HERE.

_______________________________________

In November, 2006, I launched my website, The Truth Of The Matter.

It contains a paper entitled ‘The curse of God on those who lie’.

That paper was my attempt to narrate the truth about the Article 11 forums and thereby expose the lies by several people who, to serve their own agenda, sought to portray the Article 11coalition as being an anti-Islam agenda and / or to further the civil society effort earlier to establish the Interfaith Commission (IFC).

I also sought to present what I thought was the motivation of these liars.

I have, in that website, accused both Salahudin Ayub and Zulkifli Nordin of falsehood.

Of Salahudin, I accused him of falsely claiming that Article 11 forums were being used as a platform to establish the IFC.

Of Zulkifli Nordin, I had accused him of giving false testimony in claiming that Article 11, through its forums, was urging that children should have no religion until they reach the age of 18 after which they should have the right to choose their own religion.

Given the role that these two men played in the protest on Saturday leading to the abrupt closure of the Bar Council forum, I repeat again that Zulkifli Nordin and Salahuddin Ayub are lying, deceiving and manipulative politicians.

I will justify these strong condemnations in the next post.

For now, allow me to quote excerpts from the concluding chapter in that paper entitled ‘Why the lies?’, It might help to shed some light on the motivations of some of the key players who instigated the protest on Saturday.

_________________________________________

…I had alluded earlier to the difficulty faced by MCCBCHS in attempting to raise grievances of a religious nature with the Islamic religious authorities. These grievances invariably involved a complaint of some individual or some religious organisation being adversely impacted by the subtle ongoing ‘Islamisation’. Conversion of minor non-Muslims to Islam and detention by Islamic religious authorities of apostates from Islam were some of the more common problems.

I have been told by those within the MCCBCHS leadership that at first instance, it was near impossible to get an appointment with the highest authorities within the Islamic religious authorities to discuss such grievances.

Sometimes, though, appointments would be fixed on a Friday at 11.45 in the morning. Before problems could be discussed, officers from the side of the Islamic religious authorities would indicate that it was time for Friday prayers so that nothing really got discussed.

If a real meeting was finally secured, the ‘sensitive issue’, ‘involves Muslims only’ and ‘anti-Islam’ arguments were invariably thrown at MCCBCHS making the prospect of addressing religious problems non-existent. If the issue was apostasy, MCCBCHS would be told that this was a serious crime in Islam and would have to be dealt with by Muslims according to Syariah law. No entry signs would be put up in respect of all such issues.

As long as the Islamic religious authorities had to deal with MCCBCHS or any other non-Muslim organisation only, they were invariably able to get away with the ‘sensitive issue’, ‘involves Muslims only’ and ‘anti-Islam’ arguments. The Islamic religious authorities and the likes of ACCIN, BADAI, PAS and Teras could count on this continuing as long as non-Muslims generally regarded the ‘Islamisation’ process as involving the Muslims only, staying away from any discussion on the same save and except when some non-Muslim was impacted by that process, in which event efforts would be made by the likes of MCCBCHS through the ‘diplomatic channels’ to find a solution on a ‘case by case’ basis.

As for the Muslims, rarely was there any attempt to question where this ‘Islamisation’ process was leading to.

…this began to change. Muslims began to question and challenge this ‘Islamisation’ process.

Perhaps the earliest efforts were begun by Sisters in Islam…

…How many Muslims who make up the silent majority favour constitutionalism?

How many Muslims who make up the silent majority share concerns but remain silent about the loss, for Muslims, of the democratic space afforded them in Islam and recognised constitutionally, in the wake of the ‘Islamisation’ process unfolding in this country?

Do ACCIN and their like truly represent the majority of Muslims in this country on every conceivable issue, as they claim?

What might encourage or embolden Muslims who make up the silent majority to enter the public fray and raise their concerns?

In my view, the more Muslims are seen and heard questioning the ‘Islamisation’ process that ACCIN, Teras and their likes are pushing, the more Muslims who make up the silent majority will be encouraged, emboldened and empowered to speak up…

…ACCIN claims they represent the majority of Muslims in this country. The last thing they want is to have this claim tested. The last thing they want is to have more and more Muslims raising questions about the ‘Islamisation’ process, thereby also encouraging the non-Muslims to do likewise…

…And to neutralise the Muslim factor in this emerging civil society movement, key Muslim players were demonised as ‘deviant’, ‘pseudo-Muslim’, ‘secular Muslim’, ‘hyper-liberal Muslim’ ‘apostate lovers’.

…Why the lies? Anyone sincerely concerned with where the ‘Islamisation’ process is taking our country and wants to check the erosion of civil rights as a direct consequence of that process must fully understand this question.

BADAI, PAS, Teras and ACCIN and their cohorts are a long way from their hope of establishing their model of an Islamic state. They are a long way from winning the psychological battle over the non-Muslims and the Muslims who are distrustful of their ‘Islamisation’.

They have lost the ‘blank cheque’ they once had in the implementation of their ‘Islamisation’ process and they do not relish the prospect of having more and more Muslims and non-Muslims scrutinising their plans.

BADAI, PAS, Teras, ACCIN and their cohorts lied to create the spectre of Islam being under siege to create a diversion so that the focus of the silent majority of Muslims might not turn to how un-Islamic their ‘Islamisation process really was. I will deal with the un-Islamicness of the ongoing ‘Islamisation process in detail in the Second Paper.

BADAI, PAS, Teras, ACCIN and their cohorts lied to create the spectre of this nation being on the brink of a civil war so that the non-Muslims might be bullied into returning to their previous silent suffering of the erosion of rights.

BADAI, PAS, Teras, ACCIN and their cohorts lied to divide and break the emerging civil society that does not care for their envisioned way of life.

Time will tell if they have succeeded.

Posted in: Free the people