Berita UtamaPendapatUtama

DAP Ramasamy, why have you gone mental?

zakir naik ramasamy dap
I am surprised by the way DAP Ramasamy, the Penang Deputy Chief Minister II has been acting lately, especially ever since Dr Zakir Naik set his foot on our soil.

We are all aware of his malicious accusation against Dr Zakir Naik by calling him ‘Satan’. Then few days later or so he expressed his regret of calling Dr Zakir Naik as such. The latest headline is that he has openly challenged Dr Zakir Naik to be seated together in a debate on comparative religions.

As far as these fancy chronologies are concerned, here are the points I wish to highlight:

1.      The accusation was made susceptible to a malicious intention and in bad faith with complete disregard of Dr Zakir Naik’s well established reputation around the world, not just among ordinary public members but also among Muslim scholars. He might have also been influenced by sentiments and emotions and overreacted.

2.      How convenient it is to make accusations of that sort against a person whose standing and acceptance may be higher than that of the person making the accusations, and how convenient it is to withdraw the accusations – by deleting the posts – and express regret after the effects have already perpetuated. Didn’t he give any thoughts before making the statement of the impact and the sensitivity issues which could arise?

3.      Notwithstanding his later statement of regret, I believe it was just to gain sympathy and correct the existing false perception towards DAP and him that in fact DAP is anti-Islam.

4.      It looks as if the anti-Islam sentiment is evident by his latest challenge for a debate against Dr Zakir Naik on comparative religions.

5.      When an event with the title ‘Similarities between Hinduism and Islam’ was replaced with a new less sensitive title – though it may be sensitive to Sisters in Islam – regarding women rights in Islam under the direction of public authorities, an open challenge for a debate on the overwhelmingly sensitive matters of religions are being considered and no one seems to prevent it from happening.

6.     As you have openly challenged Dr Zakir Naik, the public have legitimate expectation that you are man enough to close the deal and confront Dr Zakir Naik.

7.   In the event that the debate is realized, do not attribute solely on Dr Zakir Naik should the debate causes sensitivity issues and social unrest.

8.      In the event that the debate is realized and you lose, know that you have lost to the person whom you accuse of being a ‘Satan’. Then may I ask, do you still think you deserve to be a Deputy Chief Minister for Penang, or have you been acting like one?

As far as the debate is concerned, DAP Ramasamy has shown his arrogance by claiming that Dr Zakir Naik, once confronted by him, quote, ‘will be put in his place’ and claim that Dr. Zakir Naik, quote, ‘he doesn’t have an analytical mind’.

This is the ethics of a person who previously accused Dr Zakir Naik being a ‘Satan’, then later on publicly challenges Dr Zakir Naik for what would seem as an intellectual discourse and yet he has been criticizing Dr Zakir Naik even before the debate is confirmed and scheduled.

Notwithstanding all these dramas, DAP Ramasamy made a statement which is hardly descriptive of how he has been acting and making statements. He said, quote, ‘Freedom of speech does not give provisions to unwarranted attacks against the religions of others’.

I guess DAP Ramasamy does not understand that accusing Dr Zakir Naik as ‘Satan’ was not just a personal attack on the Indian Muslim preacher but also an insult to the religion of Islam and Muslims, and that an event on the similarities between Hinduism and Islam is well within the scope of preserved freedom of speech which is provided for by the Constitution, and the challenges for a debate is a blatant act unbefitting of the freedom of speech as his behaviour fall short of the ethics of dialogue or debate, and although the debate may have minimal potential of touching religious sensitivities if coordinated in accordance with the law and the standard of protocols, the debate is called upon for ulterior motives and does not arise out of a genuine interest in intellectual discourse.

Other than being truthful to his cause, he has just gone mental.

Danial Ariff bin Shaari
I-Peguam

Penafian: Kenyataan berita atau artikel ini adalah pandangan peribadi penulis dan tidak mewakili pendirian rasmi Media Isma Sdn Bhd atau Portal Islam dan Melayu Ismaweb.net.
Papar selanjutnya

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Artikel berkaitan

Back to top button

Adblock Detected

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker