“Be not intimidated... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice.”

- John Adams

I was sincerely trying not to write another article on Islam. Every time I write an article on Islam I get the usual hate mail from folks who accuse me of being anti-Islam and anti-Malay. The people who email me are not bad people. Far from it. If you define “good” as opposing Umno and corruption, then these folks fall into the category of “good” as defined by oppositional forces. Personally, I think this is a crappy definition of good but it takes all kinds, right?

Lawyer Aidil Khalid said something in a debate organised by Bebas recently that demonstrates why this country is ultimately doomed. Forget about the fact that non-Muslims are losing the demographic game but this idea of co-existence and mutual gain is anathema to mainstream Islam. If people wonder why when most people migrate they do not want to go to places where there is a Muslim majority, then you have to look no further than the idea espoused by Aidil Khalid.

"And we do not even want to impose it (syariah law) on the non-Muslims. It is only for Muslims," Aidil said. On the face of it, this sounds reasonable. However, is it really? What these Islamists are doing, and they do this everywhere, is make a clear distinction between "us" and "them". They are proud of the distinction they attempt to make but get all butt hurt when Western governments attempt to do the same.

Let me be very clear. There is enough empirical evidence that laws solely meant for Muslims in this country have a direct impact on non-Muslims hence this separate but equal canard is just another example of how mainstream Islam in this country always attempts to subvert democratic principles in the name of Muslim solidarity and hegemonic power.

Some folks got extremely upset when Aidil claimed that Muslims have not complained when they have been subjected to civil laws which have a “Christian” influence. While this statement is inaccurate for many reasons, the intent behind the claim points to an anti-Western bias rooted in Saudi Wahhabism and drenched in hypocrisy.

Let us unpack this statement, adding a couple of other points that this young lawyer made. Here are the three points he made:

1) Muslims have not complained about the Christian-influenced civil laws.

2) That interpretation of the Federal Constitution should be based on our traditions.

3) The right of states to “debate, enact and pass matters on Islam".

The first statement is utter bunkum because we have a dual track system when it comes to certain civil laws...