原题∶No Hold Barred∶When good is bad and bad is good
作者∶拉惹柏特拉
发表日期∶31-12-07
翻译∶CC LIEW
It is not that Islam is violent or that Islam teaches violence. It is that all religions are violent and all religions teach violence. The only difference is, Muslims are good Muslims and they follow their religious teachings whereas those of other religions are bad Jews, Christians, etc., in that they do not follow what their religion teaches them.12月30日的马新社报道蕉赖巫统区部主席拿督威拉沙益阿里（Syed Ali Al-Habshee）的说话「颠覆分子不应该被允许发言，因为他们对国家有威胁。」他告诉马新社说，「我们要政府采取严厉的行动，甚至不惜利用内安法令。」
假如你不知道的话，在这里就跟大家说明一下「Syed」这个字的意思是父亲的先祖是来自先知的土地。「Al-Habshee」，却是表示他的先祖来自埃塞俄比亚。这也许是当回教大军征战阿拉伯半岛时，那些抵抗或打输的，不是被杀，就是被掳；那些漂亮的就被X。沙益的先祖可能就是在那个时候，从埃塞俄比亚被带回阿拉伯当个照顾骆驼生活起居的奴隶，直到骆驼或奴隶其中一个死去为止。
不过，思想单纯的马来人，身为一个对那些所有来自先知土地的都奉为上品的民族，也会看重这一个虽然先祖是一个埃塞俄比亚奴隶的话语。就不说他也有一个「Syed」。那些名字有「Syed」或「Sharifah」的，表示他们是特别的，是先知的后代，或，至少是为先知的骆驼擦屁股的后代。
是的，我还记得，在二三十年前，还有些父母会奉献自己女儿的初夜给那些「Tok Syed」，以求蒙福。最重要的是，自己的女儿能够得到先知后代的「种」。
我说的都是真的！没有假话。本来我也要把自己的名字，从「Raja」换去「Syed」的，不过看到送上门来的都没几个是漂亮的，所以作罢。我想，那些「Tok Syeds」的眼光也是一般而已。
不过，这并不是我今天想要说的。我想说说贝纳姬的暗杀事件。当我接到有关的短讯时，我实在是吓了一跳。我想不透为何他们要这么做。我潜意识地马上希望不是回教徒干的。不过，后来再想，是回教徒的话也许会比较好。因为如果是兴都人做的话，你可以想象得到，他们整个民族会受到怎样的逼害。要知道，由于印巴的冲突，已有超过一百万人的性命葬送。
事实上，说是印巴冲突也不太对。应该是兴都和回教的冲突。这也是导致巴基斯坦从印度里分出的原因。尽管如此，冲突却从因分离而停止过。
无论如何，贝纳姬的暗杀事件，已经令我们忘记去年的同样时候，沙达姆被吊死。我对他们如何处死沙达姆也有点失望。虽然我不会认同沙达姆的所作所为。不过我认为无论任何人都应该死得有尊严。
过去的50年，我们都看到了许多回教徒行使的暴力。实际上，也不是这50年而已。因为收音机和电视机的风行，如今是互联网，资讯的流传的限制越来越少。我们有幸比这期间以前知道得更多。我们今天虽然能够即时知道事情的发生，但是暴力却在先知死后从未停过。我们不知道只因为消息未曾达到我们的耳中。许多回教的领袖都因暴力致死，甚至是那些先知的后代们。
回教徒是天生暴力的吗？还是回教本来就是个暴力宗教？所以回教的追随者都是暴力的？
不！回教徒不是天生暴力的。很多都是很好的人来的。包括我。（不过假如你惹到我的话，我是不会对你客气的。）所以回教也不是暴力的。我知道很多人，特别是那些有「回教恐惧症」的人，都会说回教是暴力的，回教教导暴力，可兰经叫回教徒变残暴，如此之类的。
这些人只是对一些而已。不是回教教导暴力，而是其他的宗教都在教导暴力。不同的是，回教徒是好的回教徒因为他们完全遵从回教教导他们的。而那些犹太教徒，基督教徒都没有好好地遵从他们宗教所教导他们的。所以他们都不是好的教徒。
所以，回教徒是好的教徒，而犹太教徒和基督教徒都不是好的教徒。假如他们都是好的教徒，他们今天一定会像回教徒那样。因为犹太教和基督教所教的都是和回教一样的。只是，回教徒引经据典遵循十足所有教导。而犹太教和基督教的，就很随便。所以，坏的回教徒都是好人，而好的基督教徒和犹太教徒都是坏人。很混淆？你应该会！
好吧。我们来看看先知和可兰经是怎么说的。先知说，他并没有到来介绍一个新宗教。可兰经证实这一点，也说这是亚伯拉罕的宗教，和那些追随摩西和耶稣的宗教是一样的。
马太福音第五章第十七和第十八节说，“莫想我來要廢掉律法和先知。我來不是要廢掉，乃是要成全。我實在告訴你們，就是到天地都廢去了，律法的一點一畫也不能廢去，都要成全。”
可兰经也证实先知之前的律法都不能废除。好。那么对那叛教的人，要使用丢掷石块致死的刑法又如何说？这被有回教恐惧症的人称作是塔利班最野蛮的刑罚，却不是回教独有的。而是回教向犹太教和基督教借来的。
“Subversives should not be allowed to voice out ideas, says Syed Ali,” screamed the headlines of this Bernama news items yesterday.
KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 30 (Bernama) -- Subversives and radicals should not be given opportunities to voice out their ideas and views because they pose a threat to the country's peace and stability, said Cheras Umno chief, Senator Datuk Syed Ali Alhabshee.
"We want the government to take stern action, if there is a need to use the ISA (Internal Security Act), then so be it," he told Bernama.
He was commenting on the remarks by Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak in Keningau, Sabah, yesterday that the government would take stern action against any group bent on creating chaos in the country to gain power.
Earlier, Syed Ali had presented clothes and schooling materials to 50 orphans from Al-Qadim Organisation donated by the Jalan Peel Umno branch and local people's associations.
That was what Bernama reported Syed Ali Alhabshee as saying. In case many of you don't know, 'Syed' means his forefathers (not 'four fathers') came from the land of the Prophet Muhammad. 'Alhabshee', in turn, means his ancestors originally came from Ethiopia. This probably happened in the days when Islam was expanding and the Muslim army was conquering the areas surrounding the Arabian Peninsular. Those who resisted the Muslim army and lost the war would either be killed or captured and taken as slaves (while the beautiful women would become your plaything). So Syed Ali's ancestors were probably Ethiopian prisoners brought back to the Arabian Peninsular as slaves to look after the camels and clean out their shit every morning until the day either they or the camels died.
But Malays, being the simple-minded people that they are and a race that is always awed by anything and everything that allegedly comes from the land of the Prophet, would certainly treat what this descendant of a slave from Ethiopia has to say with great importance (hell, they even made him a Senator). After all, he does carry a 'Syed' in front of his name and all those with a 'Syed' or 'Sharifah' in front of their names are 'special' people because they are supposed to be descendants of the Prophet (or at least descendants of those who cleaned the shit from the Prophet's camels).
Yes, I remember 20 or 30 years ago when parents would offer their anak dara (virgin daughters) to a 'Tok Syed' for the night so that their daughter can 'terima berkat' (receive blessings). This would involve the 'Tok Syed' impregnating the virgin daughter who would then be blessed with the sperm of a descendant of the Prophet. Hey, this is true, no bullshit, and I almost changed my name from 'Raja' to 'Syed' but then I did not see many beauties on offer so it would have been a total waste of time as far as I was concerned (I suppose 'Tok Syeds' are not too fussy and have set lower standards for themselves).
But that is really not what I want to talk about today. What I want to talk about is the recent tragic assassination of Benazir Bhutto. I was shocked when I first received that SMS informing me about the assassination. I just couldn't understand why they would want to do something like that. My immediate and unthinking response was I hope it was not a Muslim who did this. On second thoughts, maybe it is better after all if a Muslim did carry out the assassination because if a Hindu had done it I just can't imagine the ethnic cleansing that would follow. As it is, the India-Pakistan conflict has already claimed more than one million lives.
Actually, calling it an Indian-Pakistani conflict is not quite right. It was actually a Hindu-Muslim conflict that resulted in India being partitioned into separate regions for Hindus and Muslims to keep them from each other's throats. The conflict of course continued even after the partitioning of India and it thereafter became known as the India-Pakistan conflict when it should really have been called the Hindu-Islam conflict.
Anyway, the brouhaha of the Benazir assassination made us forget the first anniversary of Saddam Hussein's hanging on 30 December last year. I was also very upset when I saw the manner in how they killed Saddam. I of course do not condone what Saddam did but if you have to kill a man as punishment for his crimes then the condemned person should at least be allowed to die with dignity. A man should not huff and puff his last breathe at the end of a swinging rope to the sounds of taunting and cursing. You are sending him to his Maker. Is it so wrong to allow him to leave this world in peace and with his dignity intact?
The last 50 years or so have seen the most violent side of Islam. Actually this has not been happening over only the last 50 years. It is just that with radio and television, and now the internet, the world has better access to information -- so it is more visible now than it was in, say, the 1800s and the period before that. Today it is in real-time so you get to see it as it happens. But the violence has always been there from the period soon after the Prophet's death. It is just that we did not see it from the comfort of our living rooms. Many of the Muslim leaders down to the Caliphs of the Medina period suffered violent deaths, as did the children and grandchildren of the Prophet. Yes, that's right, even the immediate family and descendants of the Prophet were not spared this violence.
Are Muslims violent by nature? Is this in their genes? Or is Islam a violent religion and that is why the followers and believers of Islam are so violent?
No, it is not that Muslims are violent by nature. Many are actually very nice people (me included -- unless you say something stupid, then I whack you to kingdom come). And it is also not Islam that is at fault. Sure, I know what the Islam-phobics are now going to say. Islam is a violent religion. Islam teaches violence. The Quran teaches Muslims to become violent. And so on and so forth.
You are actually only partly correct. It is not that Islam is violent or that Islam teaches violence. It is that all religions are violent and all religions teach violence. The only difference is, Muslims are good Muslims and they follow their religious teachings whereas those of other religions are bad Jews, Christians, etc., in that they do not follow what their religion teaches them.
The problem, in a nutshell, is that Muslims are good Muslims whereas Jews and Christians are bad Jews and Christians. Now, if the Jews and Christians are good Jews and Christians, then they will be just like Muslims because Judaism and Christianity, just like Islam, all teach the same thing. But while Muslims follow to the letter, and to the spirit, what they are taught, the Jews and Christians are deviants who do not comply to what their religion teaches them. In short, Muslims are bad because they are good whereas Jews and Christians are good because they are bad. Confused? You should be!
Okay, let us look at what Prophet Muhammad and the Quran say. Muhammad said he did not introduce a new religion. The Quran confirms this and talks about the religion of Abraham, the same religion for the followers of Moses and Jesus. Now see what Mathew says:
"I come not to abolish the Law and the Prophets but to fulfill them. Till heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" (Matthew 5.17,18)
Mathew, just like the Quran, confirms that the teachings and laws of the Prophets before that are to be upheld. None have been abolished or abrogated. Okay, what about the punishment of stoning to death for adulteresses and apostates? This is the so-called barbaric 'Taliban' laws of the Muslims, so say the Islam-phobics. Actually it is not. It is a Jewish-Christian law that Islam 'borrowed'. Remember, Islam is not a new religion but the religion of Abraham, which is also the religion of Moses and Jesus. See what Deuteronomy, chapter 13, has to say about apostasy.
13:6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
13:7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
13:8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
13:10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
That's right, apostates must be killed, and you must strike the first blow. Then the entire community is to join in and keep stoning the apostate until he or she stops breathing. That is what Moses and Jesus taught us if you go by the correct teachings of Judaism and Christianity. And Judaism, Christianity and Islam are not new religions but the religion of Abraham. And while Muslims are good Muslims, Jews and Christians are bad Jews and Christians. That is the real problem here.
Okay, Muslims go to war and those 'enemies of God' can be killed or, if they admit defeat and surrender, can be captured and taken as slaves. The women of those killed can also be captured even if they did not carry arms. And if the women are beautiful then it is lawful for you to keep them as your concubines and you can have sex with them. Of course, this was practiced many generations ago during the time of the Islamic conquest and is not quite the practice today. But what many do not know is that this is not an Islamic thing but is what the religions before Islam stipulated and this has never been abrogated from the Holy Books of the Jews, Christians or Muslims. In other words, it is still lawful to this very day if you want to do it.
This is what Deuteronomy, chapter 21, has to say:
21:10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,
21:11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
21:12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
21:13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
21:14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.
Another controversy is with regards to the cutting off the hands of thieves. Islam has been whacked as being very barbaric when some Muslim countries implement this law. Is that so? Well, see how the religions before Islam punished wayward sons:
21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
21:22 And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree:
21:23 His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
No, Islam is not violent. All religions are violent. The problem is, only Muslims still follow what the Holy Books stipulate. People of the other religions deviate from their religious teachings and refuse to follow what their religions stipulate. This makes them bad people. People who have no respect for their own religion and refuse to follow their religion's teachings are bad people, they can't be good people.
The only crime that Muslims have committed is that they are good Muslims. Just because Jews and Christians refuse to follow what their religion teaches them does not make them good people. They are bad Jews and Christians. If they can't even follow their own religion's teachings how can they be good? How can we trust anyone who does not respect their own religion? And, worse of all, they accuse Muslims of being bad people because, according to them, the Quran is bad and it teaches Muslims to be bad. But the Quran is only a continuation of Abraham's teachings which is the same teachings for the Jews and Christians. Unfortunately, because the west controls the media, they make it appear like good Muslims are bad for following their religion's teachings whereas bad Jews and Christians are good for not following their religion's teachings.
Confused? You should be!
