The thin line between humour and blasphemy

The Malaysia Today
13 February 2006


Loony Malaysia

The thin line between humour and blasphemy

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The Sarawak Tribune has been forced into closure for the crime of
insulting Prophet Muhammad. I wonder why the New Straits Times (NST)
did not suffer the same fate as the Sarawak Tribune. In fact, NST’s
crime is far worse than that committed by the Sarawak Tribune. While
the Sarawak Tribune just wanted to show its readers in graphic detail
what the fuss was all about, NST openly defied the Quran and made fun
of it by mocking the teachings of the Quran.

Actually, I am not sure whether the sub-editor of the Sarawak Tribune
intentionally wanted to insult the Prophet or whether he innocently
wanted to show the readers what the Danish newspaper had done. It
appears this is not important -- whereas, in Islam, niat (intent) is
crucial in determining if the act was done with malice or merely an
honest mistake where one can always repent by begging forgiveness and
all will be forgotten (even for crimes involving the death sentence,
except for murder where the deceased's family has the last say).

The Danish Muslims too had reproduced the caricatures into a booklet
to distribute to Muslims throughout the world to demonstrate what the
Danish newspaper been done. The intention (niat) of these Danish
Muslims was not to further insult the Prophet but to show in what
manner the Prophet had been insulted (and the niat was certainly not
to start a riot though that is what eventually happened). Would not
these Danish Muslims therefore also be considered to have committed
the same crime? Why is it a crime when non-Muslims produce or
reproduce caricatures of the Prophet but is not so when Muslims do
the same?

I suppose if the person who originally published the caricatures had
been arrested, charged in court, and put on trial, then the
prosecutor who have to show the caricatures to the packed courtroom
to prove that a crime had been committed. Would the prosecutor then
also face prosecution for insulting the Prophet? If, however, he is
not allowed to show the caricatures in court, how then would he be
able to prove that a crime had been committed?

It was just like when Ezam Mohd Noor was charged and tried under the
Official Secrets Act (OSA) for being in possession of classified
documents. The prosecutor had to table the documents in court for all
and sundry to see, including members of the public in the public
gallery. Ezam was found guilty and sentenced to two years jail. What
about all those scores of people who had now seen those extremely
classifed documents? And had the prosecutor not committed a crime by
allowing unauthorised people to see those classified documents? But
then, if he had not shown the documents to all and sundry, how could
he prove that Ezam had committed a crime?

Food for thought isn't it?

Anyway, back to the NST thingy I spoke about earlier. I wrote the
article below called Blasphemy is not funny in the Free Anwar
Campaign website on 23 November 2003. I am not sure whether I need
add anything further to this article as I feel it already covers
everything I would like to say about the issue.

This is what I said on 23 November 2003:

There is a joke I used to tell, I think it was 20 years ago or so:
When Saudi Arabia first entered the World Cup, they would win all the
matches. This was because they would wear these long robes and, once
they got the ball, they would hide it between their legs. Then we
would see all these players running towards the goal but no one knew
which player had the ball. Invariably, they would shoot the goal
unchallenged and win. Then they changed the rules and made it
compulsory for all players to wear football shorts and the Saudi team
no longer won the matches.

Munir Majid, in his column in the Sunday Times today (23 November
2003) -- The Big Picture: Will Pas want to ban football next? -- has
his own version of the football joke. In the column he asks whether
the Islamic Party of Malaysia (PAS) will ban football “like the
Taliban did in Afghanistan?”

“Those shorts, showing hairy legs they're too much of a turn-on,”
said Munir.

A joke is one thing, but making fun of the Quran is something else.
Making fun of the Quran, Bible, Torah, or any Holy Book for that
matter, borders on blasphemy. Even the Ten Commandments of the
Christians and Jews say that we must not take the name of the Lord in
vain.

Islam clearly stipulates that the male aurat is from between the
bellybutton to the knees. Therefore, this part of the body must not
be exposed, which means the thighs and the family jewels. Munir is
not mocking PAS in his opinion piece. He is mocking the Quran. And
this is blasphemy.

I had a Christian friend who once joked about the Virgin Mary. She is
not actually a virgin, he said, it is just that Joseph did not know
Mary had slept with other men. I cautioned my Christian friend that
this is blasphemy. The Bible that declares Mary a virgin is his
Bible, not mine. But Islam does not allow Muslims to insult or mock
other religions or Prophets. We are in fact told to respect the other
religions so that non-Muslims too, in turn, respect Islam. How can we
demand that Islam be accorded respect when we do not know how to
respect the religion of others?

The Quran speaks about all the Prophets of the Christians and Jews
with respect. Muslims are told to believe in ALL the Prophets, be in
Adam, Jacob, David, Solomon, Aaron, Zakariya, John, Elias, Jonas,
Lot, Elisha, Moses, Abraham, Ishmael, Noah, or Joseph; never mind
they were all Jews. In fact, any Muslim who does not believe in any
of the other Prophets before Muhammad ceases to be a Muslim. The
Quran mentions in many of its verses that Jesus is the son of the
Virgin Mary. If the Prophets of the Christians and Jews are to be
respected and are not to be mocked, what more Prophet Muhammad? And
to dispute what Prophet Muhammad has decreed is a mark of disrespect.

The Quran tells us that Allah sent a Prophet to every community,
sometimes more than one at each time. According to the Quran, the
first Prophet sent to earth was Adam while the last one was Muhammad.
All told, there were 124,000 Prophets throughout the ages. Out of
these 124,000, only 25 are mentioned in the Quran by name. If there
were 124,000 Prophets, could Buddha therefore have been a Prophet the
Muslims should respect? Only God knows, so Muslims must refrain from
mocking those other religions and their Prophets. This is the Islamic
way.

Some may argue that Malaysia is a democracy, a code of conduct
created by man. Therefore Malaysians are free to exercise their right
of freedom of expression, including the right to mock the Divine. How
can the Divine be placed below a code of conduct that is man-made
when man himself was created by God?

There are many mazhats (sects) in Islam -- Shafiee, Maliki, Hambali,
and so on, plus the Shias. While the different mazhat may differ in
its interpretation of some of the rules, they are unanimous on what
represents the male aurat; and that is from the bellybutton to the
knees. If you read Iman Ghazali’s book (kitab), Haram (forbidden) and
Halal (permitted) in Islam, it is clear that there is no dispute on
what represents the male aurat.

Is Munir trying to say that PAS is being unreasonable in not allowing
males to show of their thighs, or more? This is not PAS’ rule. This
is what Prophet Muhammad says. I used to jog in shorts on the streets
of Kota Bharu and I faced no problems from the Kelantanese
authorities. Anyway, PAS did not ban football so the whole debate is
purely academic.

Then Munir mocks PAS by saying, “Or of the scorer running to the
corner flag immediately upon scoring, like Manchester United's Diego
Forlan usually does (when he scores, that is), and then yanking his
jersey off, thereby exposing his (dear me!) bare torso, or even just
exposing his sleeveless singlet, in the manner Arsenal's more
protected Thierry Henry has been seen to do after scoring (which he
usually does).”

“Ugh! How disgusting and intolerable. Therefore, ban. It is all no
good.”

Now Munir is trying to reinterpret what the Quran says and this is
certainly very mischievous of him. Since when is exposing your torso
prohibited in Islam? If you were to notice those dressed in their
ihram during the Haj (pilgrimage), you will see that the piece of
white cloth worn covers that part of the body between the bellybutton
to below the knees. In fact, the legs below the knees can be seen as
can the stomach, chest, shoulders, and so on. And this is while
performing the Haj mind you. Where, therefore, does Islam forbid one
exposing the torso as Munir claims?

This is the trouble with Anglophiles who are more English than the
Englishman. Munir achieved fame as a loose cannon back in his New
Straits Times (NST) days and is one of three Chief Editors who were
removed because of their unorthodox ways. The third was of course the
recently removed Abdullah Ahmad, a.k.a Dolah Kok Lanas, and the other
was Kadir Jassin who had to take the fall for NST’s declining
circulation.

Munir may delight in acting the Englishman, and act to the fullest he
does. But there should be a line drawn and he should stay on the side
of decency and not cross that line. Does he not realise the damage he
is doing to Islam? Instead of helping the non-Muslims better
understand Islam, he is making them more confused as to what Islam
allows and forbids. Anyone reading his piece would imagine that Islam
is against sports and games, which is a terrible disservice he has
done to Islam.

Munir may disagree with Islam. That is his right. But it must be done
tastefully and with sound arguments, not by mocking Islam. The
Democratic Action Party (DAP) too disagrees with the concept of an
Islamic state. But they do it with dignity and maturity by quoting
the first Malaysian Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman who had
promised that Malaysia would remain a secular state and would never
be turned into an Islamic state. DAP does not make fun of Islam.

Munir closes by saying, “We cannot have PAS undermining the future of
Malaysia. Countries that have gone down that path have destroyed
their societies and are struggling to find their way back.” Munir is
saying that Islam is counterproductive and will reduce a country to
rubble. A statement like this coming from what the non-Muslims
perceive as a Muslim will just make the non-Muslims believe that
Islam is evil. Munir has dealt Islam a terrible blow and he should be
ashamed of himself. Taubat (repent) my dear Munir.

My first encounter with Munir was during the Third Bumiputera
Economic Convention at the Putra World Trade Centre some years back.
He stood up on stage to declare that the Chinese will always own the
economy of this country and there is nothing we can do about it.
There were also Chinese businessmen in the convention and all were
there to sincerely brainstorm as to how a more equitable share of the
country’s wealth could be achieved. His statement turned off the
Chinese as it did the Malays. And that is Munir Majid.