Pandering to Islam

So finally, McDonald's has corrected their mistake, and brought the Pig back into their Chinese Zodiac toy set:

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20100122/tap-singapore-mcdonalds-pig-c3bb44c.html

However, McDonalds is not the only American company that is going to great extents to avoid "offending" Muslims, but has no problems with "offending" non-Muslims. Even Google, who claims to be against censorship and says it is a strong supporter of free speech (as in their recent skirmish with the China government and threatening to pull their company out of China over censorship issues), seems to be pandering to Muslims.

If you go to "www.google.com", and then type some words into the search box, Google has a special feature called "Google Suggest" that will automatically display a list of sentences that starts with the words you typed in the search box.

Now, if you type the text:

christianity is

(note: remember to type a space after the word "is"), you will see a list of sentences, many of them unfavourable, shown by Google Suggest.

If you next type:

buddhism is

you will also see the suggestions, again many unfavourable, being listed.

However, if you type the text:

islam is

(remember to type a space after the word "is"), you will see that Google has censored the suggestions list!

You can try this for other religion names ("hinduism", "taoism", etc). You will see that the suggestions list has been specifically censored by Google for only the Islam religion.

*************************************************

Why did McDonalds pander to Muslims and made such a pig-headed move in the first place? I believe this is because it thinks that "offending" Muslims can lead to more disastrous consequences than "offending" the Chinese or the Hindus (Hindus consider cows a sacred animal and do not eat beef. If McDonalds is truly sensitive to religion as it claims, it will not serve beef to not offend Hindus).

Look at the recent troubles in Malaysia, where 10 churches were vandalised, fire-bombed, and burnt, over a legal ruling on the word "Allah". Instead of settling the dispute calmly and civilly in the law arena, deeds almost amounting to terrorism were acted upon by some Muslims, who were clearly offended by the legal ruling which seemed to favour the Christians and unfavourably to the Muslims.

Indeed, in the past few weeks, we hear of:

- an American Muslim army major who killed 13 people and wounded 30 others in his own army camp, in the name of Islam ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting )

- the Nigerian Muslim who nearly suicide bomb himself in a plane with 289 passengers in the name of Islam ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_Farouk_Abdulmutallab )

- daily terror bombings in Afghanistan and Iraq by Al Qaeda in the name of Islam

In the West, Muslims often complain that they are unfairly treated, and that they are victims of Islamophobia. However, the word "phobia" means an "irrational fear". With violent reactions by Muslims over issues such as the above and these:

- naming a toy bear with the name "Muhammad" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudanese_teddy_bear_blasphemy_case )

- the Danish cartoons ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy )

we can see that a fear of Islam is not an "irrational fear". Islam is indeed a religion to be feared, because it does incite its believers to do dangerous deeds.

Thus, Google is probably right to censor the suggestion list for "islam is ". It might save their office premises around the world from being fire-bombed by Muslim extremists, who appear to take offence at anything done by non-Muslims that even remotely appears to encroach upon the Islamic religion.

*************************************************

The Malaysia issue of banning non-Muslims from using the word "Allah" to mean God is shortsighted, and shows a hardening of Muslim fundamentalism creeping in the country ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_v._The_Herald ).

Unfortunately for the UMNO government, which is creating this unnecessary controversy, "Allah" is not an exclusive Islamic term!

To begin with, most of those who insist "Allah" is uniquely Muslim or Arabic seem unaware that the words for "God" in Arabic, Hebrew and Aramaic are so closely related as to be virtually indistinguishable. The Abrahamic faiths - Judaism, Christianity and Islam - have different conceptions of God, certainly, but etymologically speaking, the Arabic Allah shares the same root as the Hebrew Elohim and the Aramaic Alaha.

Elohim derives from eloh (Hebrew for "God"), Alaha is an emphatic form of alah (Aramaic for "God"), and Allah ("The God") is linked to ilah (Arabic for "God").

'All three of these Semitic words for "God" - eloh, alah, and ilah - are etymologically equivalent,' writes Dr Umar Faruq Abd-Allah, a Muslim scholar. If one heard Elah or Alah in Aramaic (pronounced Al-aw) it would sound almost exactly the same as Allah in Arabic (pronounced Al-lawh or Al-lah, depending on the context).

It is difficult to say Christians cannot say "Allah" when Arab Christians have been doing so for thousands of years and when Christ, who spoke Aramaic, would probably have said Alah, Elah, or Alaha. Both Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34 tell us that at the ninth hour on the cross, Christ cried out:

Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? ("My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?")

where Eloi being the personal possessive of Elah. Still, it would be as meaningless to say that Christians have a better claim on the distant common root of Elohim, Elah or Allah, because Christ came before Prophet Muhammad."

- Janadas Devan - "What's In A Name" - Sunday Times - 24 Jan 2010

(See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah )

Ironically, the situation between the UMNO politicians and the Catholic Church reminds me of an action of the Catholic Church back in 1633 when it punished the scientist Galileo Galilei to life imprisonment because Galileo says that the facts are that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and not the Sun revolving around the Earth as taught by the church and written in the bible.

Now, UMNO wants to punish Christians because the Christians say that the facts are that the use of the term "Allah" by non-Muslims predates Islam by thousands of years, and is not exclusive to Islam as UMNO wants the situation to be.

UMNO can behave like the enlightened political body it claims to be, and teach its Muslim members the historical truth of Islam and its origins, and help foster a harmonious society together with the other religions, and build a country that celebrates its multi-religious make-up. Instead, because of the hardening religious stance, they are now telling their members that only Muslims have an exclusive lock on the "Allah" term and only Muslims can be permitted to use it, ignoring history and reality that this is not true (in the Middle East, Arabic Christians and other non-Muslim faiths still call their God as "Allah" today).

This posture is just like the Catholic Church's stance back in the 1600s, dogmatically teaching its members that the Sun revolves round the Earth, ignoring science and reality that this is not true.

When religion comes into the picture, truth gets thrown out the door.

Black-Eyed Virgins

Last week, the newspapers were filled with daily reports of suicide bombings by Islamic terrorists in Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan. Among the more severe attacks were:

• 02 Nov - Pakistan - Twin suicide attacks resulting in 25 people injured in Lahore, 36 killed in Rawalpindi
• 28 Oct - Pakistan - 117 people killed, mostly women and children, at a market
• 25 Oct - Baghdad - 160 people killed, including 30 children in a day care centre

Of course, one is curious why the Muslim terrorists are also targeting innocent Muslims. Well, according to some Egyptian Muslim clerics in TV programs broadcast in Egypt earlier this year, it is good for a Muslim to die as a martyr, even if innocents are killed.

First, dying as a martyr, according to the Koran, guarantees that one will go to Paradise (despite how sinfully the person may have led his life before then). Besides, true Muslims do not fear death. They only fear being burnt in Hellfire for Eternity.

And so what if innocent boys are among the victims who are blown up? Innocent boys will be sent to Paradise immediately. So it is good for more innocent boys to be sent to Paradise to be with Allah. (As girls are not specifically mentioned, I guess girls who are blown up might not be going to Paradise.)

Also, the blood of the Muslims that are killed have the power to "clean and purify" the area of its sins. So the more blood that is spilled, the "cleaner" the place will be. One of the clerics even says he monitors the number of people sent to Paradise this way, and revels with happiness when he sees high numbers.

And there is this perennial fixation with the 72 virgins to satisfy the sexual hunger of the Muslim martyr. And we are not talking about any normal run-of-the-mill virgin, but "black-eyed virgins", man! These "black-eyed virgins" will embrace the suicide bomber and utter words like "I have never seen anyone as perfect and handsome as you" to him. Everything in this Islamic Paradise seems to be designed for men and men only. No wonder women are treated like chattel and 2nd class people in fundamentalist Islamic countries.

And yes, children must be educated to HATE anyone who is not a Muslim. "The Koran tells us to hate them, not to love them." "We must teach our children that death for the sake of Allah is our most lofty goal."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uK7k4KBta0

A most interesting video.

P.S.

Obviously, any rational person would immediately asked the imam, "Well, if becoming a martyr can give you such rewards as a place in Paradise and black-eyed virgins, why aren't you yourself taking up Allah's glorious offer?"

But then these imams would offer the lame excuse: "The glory is not for me, but for you, brother!"

And of course, only suckers will accept it.

Caning Punishment

Recently, Malaysia sentenced a Muslim woman to 6 lashes of the cane for the offence of drinking alcohol (after already giving her a fine of 5000 ringgit - which is approximately S$2050). Today, I learnt that good sense had prevailed, and the higher authorities had rescinded the caning punishment.

New York Times article about woman being freed from her caning sentence:

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/08/23/world/international-uk-malaysia-caning.html

The Independent article about the original caning charge:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/if-youre-going-to-cane-me-then-do-it-in-public-1775806.html

Caning Kartika just for drinking beer puts the Progressive Islam that former Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi was championing in a very bad light. She has already been fined RM5000. Subjecting her also to capital punishment is truly excessive.

And Kartika is actually a mother of 2 children. It just perpetuates the bad image that Islam already has, that it is misogynistic, barbaric, and backwards. And it is not as if she was being caned for an offence like manslaughter, drug peddling, inflicting violence on others, harming children etc. Her offence is that she was caught drinking beer! She was to have been flogged for an offence that did not harm any other person other than herself.

It just appalls me that the Malaysian Shariah courts wanted to cane this mother of 2 just to make her a "showcase" for Islam. The initial judgement to cane her simply shows that religious fundamentalism is making Malaysia slip back into the Middle Ages, instead of helping Malaysia progress with the rest of the world into the 21st century.

*****************************************

While trying to find what other offences by women are punishable by caning in Malaysia's Shariah Court, I accidentally stumbled upon a video showing in absolutely horrific detail how a Judicial Caning in Malaysia is like.

Judicial Canings are meted out by the Federal Court, and can be served on both Muslim and non-Muslim males for over 40 kinds of offences (e.g. rape, illegal immigrants, drugs, violence etc).

Singapore also practise the same kind of Judicial Caning, except that the sentences are harsher in Singapore. The minimum stroke in Malaysia is 1 stroke. In Singapore, it is 3 strokes. In Singapore, caning can also be meted out for traffic offences as well as homosexuality.

In the following video, you can see a prisoner being given 20 strokes of the cane by the Malaysian police.

Warning: The following video is very brutal, and is not for the faint hearted. You have been warned!

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5ab_1172940415

If you are interested, you can read about the kind of offences that result in Judicial Canings from the following site:

http://www.corpun.com/singfeat.htm

It is interesting to see that in the year 2007, Singapore meted out 6404 caning sentences. That is 120 canings per week!

*****************************************

Personally, I am not against the use of caning as a deterrent to prevent crimes. (Although I did find the caning video extremely unsettling. It is not without reason that many Westerners find the caning sentences "barbaric".) However, I feel that the punishment must fit the crime. "Drinking alcohol" is a non-violent act, and harms no one (other than one self - and for that, you have to drink a lot). Inflicting caning for this "offence", especially to a mother of 2, just seems a bit excessive in this modern age. It is as bad as other Shariah punishments like the chopping of limbs for crimes like stealing. The practice of chopping of limbs as a punishment is downright barbaric.

Some one once said that since this is the law of Malaysia, then you must simply obey it and not question it.

Although this sounds logical, the truth is that laws are man made, and many laws are ill-conceived, vague, oppressive, and/or immoral. Consider the race laws passed in Germany after Hitler assumed power, in which people of "un-pure bloodlines" like Jews were sentenced to death. These were "the laws of the land". Yet who would defend such racialist laws today?

We are not sheep. We are capable of passing moral judgements. The whole progress of human liberty depends on courageous people who question and challenge immoral "laws". The chief impediment to human progress is the notion that one must not question anything.

Unfortunately, Islam is a religion whose holy book dictates that none of its contents can be questioned. Any Muslim who challenges the doctrines of Islam is branded an "infidel", in which the official punishment is death. It is precisely that Islam does not allow itself to be questioned that fundamentalist Islam has been permitted to thrive and grow. Moderate Muslims just dare not question the actions of Muslim terrorists such as suicide bombers and murderers who kill non-Muslim civilians, or the practices of other Muslim countries which deny women the same rights as men, because speaking up against their Muslim brethren is deemed "un-Islamic". However, by not standing up for reason and rationality, moderate Muslims allow the worst excesses of their religion to become mainstream and acceptable practices. And this simply leads to their religion becoming more and more out-of-step with modern progressive societies.

Mecca Time

You just can't make this kind of stuff up.

An Islamic conference held in Qatar last Saturday wants the world to change the reference point of world time from Greenwich in England (GMT) to Mecca in Saudi Arabia because Islamic scholars have "scientific evidence" that Mecca is the "true centre of the Earth".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7359258.stm

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=214103&version=1

I wondered to myself "who would be this crazy?", until I was directed to this video of an Egyptian TV program featuring Islamic "scientist" Dr Abd Al-Baset Al-Sayyed on why Greenwich Mean Time must be abolished and replaced with Mecca time:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_N7t19hfeSE

So what is the difference between setting the reference point in Greenwich and in Mecca? Well, for one, anyone can visit Greenwich - whether you are Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, freethinker etc. Greenwich is open to one and all. However, Mecca is completely out-of-bounds to anyone who is not a Muslim. That is, 80% of the world's population are not allowed in Mecca simply because they do not follow Islam.

These people are plain deluded in thinking they can ask the world to make one of the most restricted places on Earth to be a global reference point for everyone.

In the same news article, it was mentioned that a "Mecca Watch" was also introduced at the conference in which the hands move anti-clockwise, the same direction that worshippers move when they circle the Kabaa. Let's see, Mecca as the centre of the world, a clock that runs backwards. I think I see where this is going...

FITNA - The Controversial Anti-Islam Movie

You may have read about the huge hoo-hah around the world about Geert Wilders controversial 15 minute anti-Islam movie. It has been criticised in the Straits Times in articles printed yesterday and today for being polemic and being sheer propaganda. Muslim nations every where have decried the movie, saying it insults Islam and that what it depicts is not "true" or "mainstream" Islam. Indonesia wants Google to eliminate the movie from its servers, effectively asking Google to censor the video, and thus countering one of the tenets of Western civilisation: freedom of speech.

I have watched the movie, and agree that it is indeed highly polemical and extreme. But the irony of it is that many fundamentalist Islam videos - those constantly put out by Al Qaeda and the Taleban sympathisers - is structured in the same way. But the Al Qaeda videos are not condemned by the Muslim nations universally, or as vehemently, as against Wilders' film. In fact, Geert Wilders has used video footage from many of these fundamentalist Muslim videos in his film. Many portions of Wilders' film is comprised of footage from news reels and Muslim terrorists videos, juxtaposed with Quran sayings, just like the terrorists' videos!

The Muslim nations keep making the call that Islam is a "religion of peace". Unfortunately, since the 9/11 US attack, 2002 Bali bombings, 2004 Madrid bombings, or the London 7/7 bombings, Islam has constantly demonstrated that it is anything but because all the perpetrators have been Muslim. The Muslim nations say that the terrorists are not "true" Muslims. But then, why do the news videos always show captured terrorists, as they are being hauled away, always screaming into the camera that they are unrepentant for their actions, and they are doing it all "for Allah" and "in the name of Islam"?

If Islam is a "religion of peace", why is Islam breeding such destructive elements? Why can't mainstream Islam halt the growth of the radicals?

Or, could it be that the mainstreamers could not criticise the radical Muslims' actions because what the radicals are practising is indeed condone by the Quran?

This is the stance of Geert Wilders controversial film.

Personally, I think Geert Wilders film won't have much of an impact in reducing radical Islamism. Radical Islam must be reformed from within by Muslims themselves.

However, as the Muslim nations want to ban the movie from the Internet, and they might succeed in doing so, you might want to take a look at it before it gets pulled down. Do watch it knowing that Geert Wilders is also an extremist, and that his video has been made in exactly the same extremist style that radical Muslims make in their own videos. Please be warned that there are extremely violent images in the film (I was particularly disturbed by the beheading scene):

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3369102968312745410

P.S. I just learnt that the trial has just started yesterday for the 8 Muslims arrested in August 2006 for planning to bomb 7 commercial passenger planes in mid-flight. These were the terrorists who initiated the worldwide ban of carrying liquids, creams, gels etc into planes. As the BBC news report indicated, the 8 Muslims were going to blow themselves and the planes up "in the name of Islam":

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7328892.stm

Treatment of Women in Islam

Seriously, this is what some Arabic sheik believes is the difference between Man and Woman:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5KmIXZM-V8

I don't understand why more Muslim women do not protest against the sexism that is advocated in the Quran. The Muslim holy books were written way back in the 7th century, and surely the religious norms and practices that are observed then are no longer relevant today. However, because these holy books are accepted as inerrant even in the 21st century, they allow Muslim clerics to condemn women as "Deficient in Intelligence":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MylrCU3u6V8

And here is a Muslim lawyer (a doctor no less) who describes how the wife should be beaten by the husband as instructed in the Quran:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nUI3TUdFCk

Indeed, the sorry treatment of women in a fundamentalist Muslim society is still thriving today because all these chauvinistic conduct against women rights are actually endorsed by the Quran! In the 7th century, the status of women is pretty low (practically non-existent) - and women are often compared to property or livestock. Even Prophet Muhammad himself had 11 wives, and his last wife, Aisha, is a mere 6 years old when betrothed to Muhammad. Although Muhammad "only consummated" this marriage when Aisha turned 9, we would call a person having sex with a 9 year old child a paedophile in the 21st century! Today, these Quran writings are being held up and used to perpetuate such abhorrent practices!

Luckily, there are some brave women who are speaking out against the barbarism of fundamentalist Islam (at great danger to their lives, no doubt, as fanatical Muslims are prone to violence against anything they don't like):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wPglHZQf-0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPioGIjS4vc

The End of Faith

After 9/11, the Bali bombings of 2002, and the Jemaah Islamiyah threat to bomb the Yishun MRT Station, I have became more conscious that Islamist religious fanatics can seriously threaten and destroy civilisation. Without doubt, these Islamic terrorists must be stopped before more innocent lives are killed.

Indeed, Sam Harris was so affected by 9/11 that he wrote the book, "The End of Faith", as his response to it (S$17.33 from Kinokuniya). It is a well argued book on why blind acceptance of religious beliefs is a threat to civilisation, and why fundamentalist Islam is particularly dangerous.

Harris wrote a follow up book, "Letter to a Christian Nation", which emphasizes on the dangers of fundamentalist Christianity.

Both Islam and Christianity centre their foundations on the "divine" writings in the scriptures of the Quran and the Bible. The dogmatic interpretations of these ancient writings by fundamentalists in the 21st century poses a conflict with modern civilisation, and makes religion particularly dangerous - especially to people who do not believe in the same faith as the fundamentalists.

Many Christians believe that the Bible is a perfect document written (or influenced) by a perfect god and as such is an infallible text. Harris points out in "The End of Faith" that the Bible is actually riddled with contradictions, and that even way back in 1859, William Henry Burr has actually published a book called "Self-Contradictions of the Bible". The list of contradictions has been published here:

http://skeptically.org/newtestament/id19.html

These mistakes in the Bible should lead thinking Christians to query whether the Bible is indeed the handiwork of a perfect god, or that the book is as perfect as it is being claimed. With such revealing mistakes, it becomes suspect as to whether the writings in the Bible should be treated literally as divine truths.

I like another section in "Letter to a Christian Nation" in which Sam Harris talks about Christians who strongly believe that "The Ten Commandments" in the Bible is the strongest statement about morality which no other religion can improve upon:

The Ten Commandments

1. 1. You shall have no other Gods but me.
2. 2. You shall not make for yourself any idol, nor bow down to it or worship it.
3. 3. You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.
4. 4. You shall remember and keep the Sabbath day holy.
5. 5. Respect your father and mother.
6. 6. You must not kill.
7. 7. You must not commit adultery.
8. 8. You must not steal.
9. 9. You must not give false evidence against your neighbour.
10. 10. You must not be envious of your neighbour's goods. You shall not be envious of his house nor his wife, nor anything that belongs to your neighbour.

In response, Harris quotes Mahavira, the patriarch of Jainism, who surpasses the morality of the Ten Commandments with a single one:

Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture, or kill any creature or living being.

In fact, there is a very humorous skit by comedian George Carlin on YouTube about the Ten Commandments:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CitfTtMIx8

There is another George Carlin video on religion in general:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uBAPbOWLxc

The God Delusion

I bought Richard Dawkins book "The God Delusion" at MPH Funan Centre on 19 May 2007 (price: S$18.90). This is the new UK paperback edition with a new preface (book details at Amazon.co.uk):

"The God Delusion" is an excellent book that uses science, philosophy, history, logic and reason to explain why the gods promulgated by Christianity, Islam, Judaism are extremely improbable, and debunks the idea that we need to believe in such gods to be good humans to lead meaningful and moral lives.

In fact, when I was young, I had already pondered on the following conundrum:

Christianity says it is the one true religion. Islam says it is the one true religion. But logic dictates that if Christianity is the one true religion, then Islam must be wrong. Or if Islam is the one true religion, then Christians must be worshipping the wrong god.

How can both religions be right? The only logical conclusion that can be drawn is that they could both be wrong!

As I learnt more about science and history, I gradually came to the realisation that it is not god who created humans, but it is humans who had created god.

Being educated in an English speaking environment, I was exposed to a lot of Christian evangelists who were extremely enthusiastic in their trying to proselytise me to their faith. I am very glad that my school education required me to study all the major religions of Singapore: Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Confucianism. When you study comparative religions, and have a good grounding in science and history, you will be armed with enough defences to protect yourself against the shrill being blasted at you by the Christian evangelicals that "you must believe in Jesus Christ or you will be condemned to burn in Hell for eternity!" Talk about a loving god :-)

Despite my constant debates and arguments with these Christian evangelists, I knew these debates were always lost causes. I cannot possibly sway others who are set in their beliefs to my way of thinking, as they cannot possibly convince me about changing my stance without conclusive evidence that their god is a real entity.

However, I do not go about preaching to others about my atheism. The irritating thing about Christian evangelicals is that they do. And every Saturday, you will see them waylaying passerbys (especially people going to the library) to tell them about the "4 Spiritual Laws".

However, as the Christian evangelists are well funded and are always proactively promoting their religion, so it is inevitable they will gain new converts. Indeed, the dawn of the 21st century has not seen humankind stepping into a new age of science and reason. Indeed, in the sole hyper-power of the world, the United States of America, fundamentalist Christianity has greatly expanded its influence, and have gained significant power in the political arena.

The problem with fundamentalist Christians is that their stance is as rigid and as scary as the Islamic Taleban , as they both base morality on ancient scriptures instead of rationality and reason.

"The God Delusion" is a much needed book to educate the public on why the existence of the Christian god is highly improbable, and that morality should be based on rationality and reason, and not on ancient texts espousing values that have no relevance to modern living. The book is well thought out, well argued, well organised, well written, and well worth reading.

Richard Dawkins actually made a 2-part documentary for UK's Channel 4 station on a related theme prior to the publication of "The God Delusion". You can watch the documentary on Google Video:

Root of All Evil - Part 1 : The God Delusion

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9002284641446868316

Root of All Evil - Part 2 : The Virus of Faith

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7619161192220036050

Dispatches - Undercover Mosque

Last Saturday (5 May 2007) at a reunion lunch gathering with some ex-Conner (FIS) colleagues, I mentioned to my friends that I was very perturbed by the hijacking of religion to promote hatred and intolerance. I was referring to the fundamentalist Islam as practised by militant and radical Muslims in the Middle East, but which is gradually making in-roads into South East Asia, and even influencing moderate Islam here. Personally, I feel that the problem has been severely amplified since 9/11 as moderate Muslims everywhere are not aggressively confronting the theology of hate that is sprouted by the radicals, allowing children and impressionable youths to be indoctrinated with this dangerous form of their religion that threatens life and society for everyone. By allowing these teachings of hate to grow, the intolerant form of Islam becomes the "norm" instead of the extremist variant they were supposed to be!

I had developed a certain impression of such radical Muslims from my reading of internet articles and newspaper reports. However, I was actually quite unprepared for the level of hatred that is being espoused by the religious teachers (imams) against non-Muslims until I watched this British documentary, "Dispatches - Undercover Mosque" from UK's Channel 4 TV station. The 1-hour documentary shows how although some British mosques publicly profess to promote an Islam of love and understanding and tolerance of other faiths (they belong to a government inter-faith group that works with other religious organisations), internally, the imams go about propagating their teachings of hatred for all "kuffaars" (non-Muslims), and for their ultimate aim to bring down governments and establishments and to install their militant brand of Islam for everyone.

The documentary is quite an eye-opener. It was aired in the UK on 15 January this year.

Part 1 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peFQWuk4nuo

Part 2 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuCLC8kjWCI

Part 3 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5t5EqWX92k

Part 4 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMztM0Z7BYE

Part 5 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4Zv3BUmwqs

Part 6 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvjvNScmTQA