Dear Aliff Asyraf of ISMA: You were right!


Dear Aliff Asyraf,

Thank you for your touching reply to my article for ‘The Malaysian Insider’, where you declared yourself “better” than me, on account of your belief in Allah. As it turns out, you and the rest of ISMA were right! I had a revelation from God. Not your God. It turns out your God isn’t the true God at all. I know this, because my God – FutileGod – told me so. It says so in FutileGod’s book, FutileBook Chapter 2 verse 5:

“And lo, there was no Allah. Muhammad made it all up. FutileGod is the one true God, and Her word is the truth. The disbelievers will face a fiery torment!”

– So, as you can see, your whole life has been a lie. Not my words, I didn’t make it up. The words of the one true FutileGod. Sorry to break it to you. But now you accept the truth (why wouldn’t you? It says so RIGHT there in the book), you will of course accept that as a believer, I am better than you, and so I now have the inherent right to force you to live my by divine rules. As you so rightly claimed, this isn’t an ideology, because it comes straight from the one true God – unlike Islam, which as we have heard from FutileGod, is entirely man made – and so it is natural for you to live by the rules of FutileGod, even if you don’t believe in Her.

So, when you said that people shouldn’t be allowed to dress as the opposite gender, thus oppressing their liberty to self expression and to feel comfortable in the clothes they wear simply due to your personal beliefs; Or when you said that people shouldn’t be free to wear clothes that might “distract” you, you were right! As a believer in the truth of FutileGod, I absolutely have a right to tell others – including you, because I’m better than you on account of my belief – how they should dress. FutileGod for example tells us through his truth (and it is truth, because I said it is), that the niqab and hijab are completely unnatural. And so they must be banned. Muslim women must not be allowed the liberty to dress in a way that offends FutileGod. They also might distract men who are attracted to women in a niqab and hijab. And of course men shouldn’t feel the need to confront their own inability to control their sexual desires, it should be women punished for that. FutileGod has spoken.

FutileGod – whose message is the truth – says your eye colour is unnatural. It is against the laws of FutileGod. According to FutileGod, you must be subjected to psychological treatment to change your eye colour to a natural colour, thus completely freeing you to realise your true purpose; the worship and obedience to FutileGod. If you don’t repent, the punishment will be death. This is how FutileGod dealt with FutileSodom – a very real place, in which people all had your eye colour, like the filthy deviants they are.

Also, FutileBook Chapter 2 verse 12:

“And the one true God decreed: “Anyone called Aliff, must forever wear clown make-up on his face”.

– As per your logic, me and you Aliff are treated equally under the law of FutileGod here, because if my name was Aliff, I too would have to wear clown make-up on my face at all times. Personally, I don’t understand the reasoning behind this law, but who are we to challenge the master plan and “objective morality” of FutileGod? We cannot comprehend Her greatness! So, get putting your make-up on, as is your natural inclination, having been born “Aliff”.

When you told me that I would be free to marry the woman that I love even if she’s Muslim, as long as I convert to Islam, or that you’d be free to marry a non-Muslim, as long as she converted to Islam, and that this meant you and I are treated equal; you were right! According to FutileGod, you are absolutely free to marry the person that you love, that you wish more than anything to spend your life with, who you would do anything for; as long as you swear allegiance to FutileGod and publicly announce that Muhammad was a fraud. You are not oppressed by this, because if I want to marry the person that I love, they’d have to do the same. Equality!

Also, FutileBook Chapter 7 verse 2:

“And so it was heard, FutileGod said: “ISMA is banned. It is the unnatural work of FutileShaytan, working to destroy civilisation! Members of ISMA must leave immediately, and accept the authority of FutileGod.”

– I hate to contradict you when you said that Islam “constitutes civilisation” by dictating what is right and wrong, but the one true God says that your group is the work of FutileShaytan. Who are we to argue with the TRUTH? (that’s right! Not only does FutileBook say it’s the truth, I also capitalised the word ‘truth’! How can you deny it now?) I trust you will be renouncing your membership immediately, after this unambiguous divine revelation.

When you said that you and I will be treated equally under the law of Allah in an Islamic state, and that means you don’t get privileged after all; you were right! Under the true state of FutileGod, I will be punished, the same as you if I read a Qur’an (the punishment is death, by the way) because reading the Qur’an is against the word of FutileGod, who forbids it. Therefore, this clearly means that you (as a Muslim likely to want to read the Qur’an) are entirely equal to me (as a non-Muslim, unlikely to care much for reading the Qur’an) under the law, when it comes to our FutileGod given rights. And so, neither of us are privileged or oppressed. Great! So put down the Qur’an, or the state has a right to execute you. I’m glad we agree on this.

When you said that I’m free to believe whatever I want, as long as it is in accordance with your God’s rules; you were right! But not according to your God’s rules (as we have seen, your God is not the true God), but according to the rules of FutileGod. So, you’re absolutely free to believe in Islam, as long as it doesn’t interfere with the rules of FutileGod, including the prohibition on reading the Qur’an. Oh, and the name “Muhammad” is banned from being spoken. I find this particular rule a little harsh, but who are we to judge the moral goodness of the one true FutileGod? Any claim that this is a harsh rule, is a man made claim, and so not legitimate. We must follow our creator FutileGod’s laws, as this is our natural disposition. Note; if I say “Muhammad”, the state will punish me too, so you and I are both equal under the law, meaning you are not oppressed by this.

When you said that we must not cross taboos, including “offending” Islam in the “name of freedom and liberty”; you were right! If you deny the legitimacy of FutileGod – and of my right to power – over your life, you have offended FutileGod, and so must be punished. The right to criticise or mock powerful man-made ideas and ideologies is one thing, but to mock, or criticise FutileGod in anyway, we believe to be a grave FutileSin, an abuse of ‘free speech’ which must be punished. We, however, reserve the right to believe and to publicly speak the word of FutileGod, even when it “offends” or threatens you.

So, to recap; you were right! FutileGod does not restrict your liberty at all. You’re free to wear whatever you want, as long as for women it isn’t a hijab, or niqab (those crazy women, distracting men). You’re free to change your name, if you don’t want to wear clown make-up forever. You’re free to marry the person that you love, as long as you renounce Islam and publicly shame Muhammad. You’re free to have any eye colour you want, as long as it isn’t the eye colour you currently have (that eye colour, is from FutileShaytan and resulted in the historically accurate destruction of FutileSodom). You’re free to believe whatever you want, as long as you don’t read the Qur’an or say “Muhammad”. You must also immediately leave ISMA. You are free to express yourself, but not to “offend” FutileGod. To break any of these rules, the state should punish you. How can you not see that FutileGod is liberating you?

Alternatively, we could both accept that your right to your own life, does not end where my religion begins. We could both accept that my belief in FutileGod must only apply to my life. Not to yours. And once we accept that, by extension we accept that your belief in Allah must only apply to your life. Not to mine. The state therefore should remain neutral, privileging neither my belief nor yours, and ensuring – through civil, secular protections – that your liberty is not injured by my belief – regardless of how deeply held that belief is – in FutileGod. That all authoritarian ideas must be open to criticism, satire, ridicule, especially where they seek to control the lives of others. This is how to constitute a diverse and free society.

I hope this helps.

Regards,

FutileDemocracy.

Advertisements

3 Responses to Dear Aliff Asyraf of ISMA: You were right!

  1. Steve says:

    I’ve read the letter from Aliff Asyraf of ISMA (not sure what ISMA is but presumably some kind of Malaysian Muslim grouping) and it is profoundly depressing… even distressing. I am a world weary cynic and not often surprised at the stupidity, ignorance and unreasonableness of my fellow humans but there is something particularly upsetting about this bloke because he is obviously an educated and intelligent man and (as a medical doctor) a man trained in science and presumably familiar with the concepts of Scientific Method and empirical evidence. In the UK I believe medical training also includes ethics… although I don’t know where this guy trained.

    Despite his education and his scientific training and his profession as a carer and healer this man is a religious bigot whose understanding of the very concepts of freedom and liberty and the fundamental rights (I won’t use the term “Human Right” as this is a problematical and contested term which has little objective meaning) of people to make choices about their life and beliefs are so distorted, warped and perverted by his own blinkered beliefs and corrupted moral compass that he is incapable of even discussing these issues in any intelligible manner because he speaks a totally different language. I’m not talking about the man’s imperfect English which makes a few sentences of his missive hard to follow without two or three readings but the fact that Aliff Asyraf does not have a common mindset with those he seeks to engage with and in his distorted and frightening world view words mean what he has been told they mean and not what any reasonable understanding of the language might indicate.

    I have often pointed out that it is not necessary to be a vile and despicable person in order to carry out vile and despicable acts. Sometimes these acts are brutally violent crimes committed against the innocent and helpless (eg. mothers who arrange the mutilation of their young daughters’ genitals) but it is still possible to say that these criminals are not themselves vile and despicable people but merely gripped by ideas and beliefs that drive them to commit these atrocities. Of course they must be prevented and deterred from committing such crimes and the full force of the law mist be brought to bear to stamp out such barbarities, but it is still possible to feel pity for such people. And so it is that I also have some pity for Aliff Asyraf whose life and outlook and his very means of interpreting the diverse world around him in all its glorious complexity has been reduced to a terrifying Manichean nightmare world of stark and utterly irrational and unnecessary choices between the Halal and the Haram and who is unable, despite his intelligence and education, to engage in any kind of reasoned debate with those who do are not cursed with his bigoted mindset.

    When I read stuff like this I am more convinced than ever that we in the UK have to confront and ‘de-fang’ the deadly snake of religionist irrationalism. Islamism may be the most obvious danger but there are also christian fundamentalists, ultra orthodox Jews/religious zionists and even a few Sikh and Hindu reactionaries who pose dangers to secular rationalism (I would not have included Sikhs in this list a few years ago but the Behzti affair in Brum was an unpleasant wake up call).

    i am a tolerant and socially liberal sort of person (although my definition of that term might differ from that used by some others) but there are some things which should not be tolerated and some things which a secular society should take a view on as a matter of public health and safety. Thus, I believe that a sensible society would actively discourage (not ban) those who promote irrationalist beliefs (ie. religions) as a reasonable basis for deciding a world view and questions of practical morality and ethics. Just how far we are from adopting this sensible course can be seen from the idiotic pronouncements of two of our last three Prime Ministers on the subject of religion. We also have a global economic system, which almost every government in the world endorses to some extent, (except perhaps Cuba and possibly Venezuela), based on the ludicrous irrationality (and scientifically and mathematically impossible idea) that we can maintain indefinite and never ending economic growth within a sealed biosphere of finite resources – essentially a religion (ie. a belief system based on ‘faith’, not evidence). However, that is another argument.

  2. anand says:

    you missed one thing. brunei & saudi will punish non muslim who eat in public in the month of ramadan.

  3. Frankie says:

    ISMA is a nuisance in Malaysia. The grouping is destroying the facade of the religion and put on a real ugly monster mask on it.

    Religion of peace? Hardly, more like a religion full of hatred.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: