Hear ye, hear ye, PASOK, Chanatak and Tompios

Below are some comments in my article, What if the shoe was on the other foot?, which I have been asked to reply to. I thought, rather than just comment in the normal manner below the article, I shall instead reply in the form of an article to ensure that my comments do not get buried in the already many comments below that said article.


Raja Petra Kamarudin

written by cruzeiro, April 30, 2009 12:22:03
Some people still don't get it, even when you spell it out.
I suggest you write an article specifically addressing "experts" like PASOK, chanatak & Tompios …..


written by Tompios, April 30, 2009 06:07:36
Dear RPK,

Yes, we are not always right! We should admit it. But, anyway the Christians deserve to get punishment from the Muslims since the turmoils between Christians and Muslims started by (Roman/Byzantium) Christian empire.

Yes, the Christian's empire started it first!! Now, one main stream Christian did it and it effecting to all other Christians denominations until today. Islam still hate Christians in general since "Perang Salib"! Yes, indeed "Perang Salib" started by Westerner Roman Christian empire! Those who opposed the "Perang Salib" that propagated by Roman Christian empire particularly the "Easterners Christians" have been persecuted by Roman Christian. As a result, these Easterners Christians (North Africa countries including Syria, Lebanon, and many more) convert to Islam for security.


written by chanatak, April 30, 2009 10:03:20

Will Christians go amok when you cut and paste gospel of Barnabas? No, Christians will read, get upset and then check whether the gospel of Barnabas (or gospel of Thomas, or gospel of Judas, etc., etc.) is true, and if it is not true, why.

Christians, or for that matter the Buddhist don't go round stirring anger and spewing venom for religious slights and criticisms.

Which is the religion famous for its adherents spewing murder and venom?


written by PASOK, April 30, 2009 11:04:31

Do I have to be a religious scholar before I criticise these two stupid religions called Islam and Christianity? You mean only very clever people like priests and imams are qualified to judge a religion?
What bullshit.
Islam and Christianity are just fairy stories and it is very obvious to me.
Mohammad hears voices and thinks its God and Jesus flew in the air to heaven.
Do you really believe this nonsense?


written by wildbil, April 30, 2009 09:48:05
Dear RPK,

I heard your points and noted.

Then please explain if you said Islam is peace, then why so many Muslims are willing to kill in the name of Islam?

Please explain to me, if you are fair, why are you use Muslim and non-Muslim as context? In your eye, in this world, there is only you Muslim and the rest is non-Muslim?

If a Christian addressed in the public by saying, we Christian and rest of you are non-Christian, I am sure he just pronounce his dead wish …..

My two sense worth.


written by hellosunshine, April 30, 2009 12:44:41

RPK, all you wrote for and against Islam Muslim is fine and dandy. The problem is majority (?) of Malaysian Muslims do not allow or discourage their children from mixing with non-Muslim children because they eat pork, visiting each others' homes, don't patronize non-Muslim outlets, etc. Also, why are the problems like mat rempits, gays (males and females), bosiah, unemployable graduates, etc., mainly infecting one race only? Why must Malaysians of other religions be sensitive to the religious practises of Malaysian Muslims but almost non-existent vice versa? All these are the result of Umno's 52 years of Ketuanan Melayu and Umno's religious crap which had divided the country thru racial and religious lines. When can they all wake up and join the human race?


Okay, those are just some of the comments in that article of mine. However, since these questions have been specifically targeted at me, plus cruzeiro has requested that I reply to three specific readers, I shall do so as ‘demanded’.

First the comment by wildbil. I don’t know how long you have been reading Malaysia Today. But if you have been around long enough then you would know I have already addressed this issue. I said from way back I do not like using the term Malays and non-Malays (or Muslims and non-Muslims) but I am forced to do so because this is the so-called ‘accepted norm’ in Malaysia. If I were to use any other references then there may be a danger many would not understand what I am talking about.

I also questioned why we must use Malays and non-Malays (or Muslims and non-Muslims) when China, the largest nation in the world, does not use Chinese and non-Chinese to classify its citizens. Maybe they do use the term Han and Minorities to identity which particular group you belong to. But they do not classify their Chinese citizens as Hans and non-Hans.

The same goes with the second largest country in the world, India. They do not say Indians and non-Indians. Actually, in the first place, Indian is a nationality, Rakyat Negara India, and not a race.

Okay, what about religion? Christianity is the unofficial official religion of the US, if you know what I mean. Are the people grouped into Christians and non-Christians? And what about UK where Christianity is the official religion? There are also no Christians and non-Christians.

I have already addressed this issue and am merely repeating myself here.

Now, over to Tompios. The trouble with Malays (and sometimes Muslims in general) is that they don’t understand the difference between religion, history, anthropology, archaeology, etc. They think that anything and everything related to Islam means religion, full stop. So, when we talk about history or anthropology or archaeology, and if what we say differs from or contradicts certain religious beliefs, then they interpret this as trying to undermine or insult religion.

You have to study the other sciences independent of religion and try to keep an open mind about it. And this not only applies to Islam but to all religions as well. For example, according to the Gospels according to Luke, Caesar Augustus was the Roman Emperor, Herod reigned in Judea, Quirinius was the Governor of Syria, and that a Roman census was conducted at the time of Jesus’ birth.

However, Josephus, the Jewish Chronicler (the Arkib Negara of that time) reported that Herod died in 4 BC, there is no mention of Augustus and Quirinius ever existing, and the census ordered by the Roman Emperor happened six years after Jesus was born. So there is a gap of ten years in between.

Now, how do you reconcile what recorded history says and what religion says? That is why religion is based on faith and not on evidence. Based on evidence not a single religion would pass the acid test.

Religion says that man first inhabited this earth 10,000 years ago. Anthropologists and archaeologists have discovered remains of man that carbon dates back to millions of years. In China, they have discovered remains that date back half a million years.

Are these scientists lying? Are they mistaken? Or is this an atheist plot to debunk religion?

Now, on your remarks about the Crusades, which Crusade were you referring to? There were nine in total stretching over many generations. And the Crusaders, depending on which Crusade you are referring to, were from different nationalities. Were you aware of this?

So, not all were Roman Crusades as you suggest.

And were you aware that more non-Muslims than Muslims died at the hands of the Crusaders? The Muslims, in fact, just retreated to the safety of Muslim territory when the Crusaders invaded their territories. Those non-Muslims — Jews, Christians, etc. — who were the citizens of those occupied territories, were massacred by the Crusaders. That’s right, even Christians. And this is because, depending on which Crusade we are talking about, the Christians of the Middle East were from different sects compared to the Christians from France, England, Germany, Rome, etc.

It was very much like the Wahabbis killing all non-Salafis at the time of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire or the Shia-Sunni killings by the millions, today. So, more Jews and Christians died at the hands of the Crusaders than did Muslims. The Muslims just lari back to their homeland.

And your argument about Christians converting to Islam for purposes of security is not quite right. Non-Muslims paid a poll tax under Islamic rule. As Muslims, they were exempted from paying tax and only paid fitrah and zakat. So it made good economic sense to become a Muslim, especially when you are rich. That was part of the reason.

Now to Chanatak. There was a time, not that long ago, when Christians burned alive those who tried to translate the Bible into their mother tongue, say like German. Clever women were branded as witches and were also burned alive. Scientists and those gifted people were branded as devils and were also tortured and killed.

The Church endorsed torture as a means to rehabilitate so-called ‘deviants’ before they were killed. Most were tortured to death as a means of cleansing their souls.

All religions, without exception, have gone through a period of violence and cruelty. It is just that Islam is the latest or newest religion. So it has not evolved the way Christianity has. Christianity saw reforms maybe 500 years ago. Islam is about 500 years younger than Christianity. So Islam, today, is where Christianity was, 500 years ago. And Christianity, 500 years ago, was worse than Islam today.

Unfortunately, we need a ‘Martin Luther’ to bring reforms to Islam, like what the Martin Luther of 500 years ago did to the Church. But the ulamaks have a stranglehold on Islam and the moment anyone appears to be talking about reforms they would be quickly and severely dealt with.

Okay, now PASOK. In a democracy, everyone is entitled to his or her belief. Who are you to tell them what they should and should not believe? You speak without facts. Can you prove that God does not exist? I am not saying that God does exist. In fact, I am not saying anything. You said God does not exist. So, can you prove it? And why grudge those who would like to believe that God does exist. That is their business, not yours. As long as they don’t force you to also believe that God exists then they are not imposing upon you.

Finally, hellosunshine. I thought I would include you since you addressed your comment to me personally. I really don’t understand what the hell you are going on about, old chap. I hope this is not an early sign of swine fever.

I know for a fact that many Malay-Muslims have no problems with Chinese pork-eating GROs. In fact, they would lick these China Dolls from head to toe and bury their tongues deep into their throats in spite of the Bakuteh that they just had. So I think your argument is flawed.


The Crusades were a series of religion-driven military campaigns waged by much of Latin Christian Europe against external and internal opponents. They were fought mainly against Muslims, though campaigns were also directed against pagan Slavs, Jews, Russian and Greek Orthodox Christians, Mongols, Cathars, Hussites, Waldensians, Old Prussians, and political enemies of the popes. Crusaders took vows and were granted an indulgence for past sins.

The Crusades originally had the goal of recapturing Jerusalem and the Holy Land from Muslim rule and were launched in response to a call from the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Empire for help against the expansion of the Muslim Seljuk Turks into Anatolia. The term is also used to describe contemporaneous and subsequent campaigns conducted through to the 16th century in territories outside the Levant usually against pagans, heretics, and peoples under the ban of excommunication for a mixture of religious, economic, and political reasons. Rivalries among both Christian and Muslim powers led also to alliances between religious factions against their opponents, such as the Christian alliance with the Sultanate of Rum during the Fifth Crusade.

The Crusades had far-reaching political, economic, and social impacts, some of which have lasted into contemporary times. Because of internal conflicts among Christian kingdoms and political powers, some of the crusade expeditions were diverted from their original aim, such as the Fourth Crusade, which resulted in the sack of Christian Constantinople and the partition of the Byzantine Empire between Venice and the Crusaders. The Sixth Crusade was the first crusade to set sail without the official blessing of the Pope. The Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Crusades resulted in Mamluk and Hafsid victories, as the Ninth Crusade marked the end of the Crusades in the Middle East.