ISRAEL, AMERICA, IRAN & DOUBLE STANDARDS

 

If there is one human trait that I find truly intolerable, it is the double standard. Throughout my decades of writing and public discourse, this theme has surfaced repeatedly. Double standards are the bedrock of hypocrisy, and naturally, I find it difficult to maintain a kinship with hypocrites. On a personal level, friendships built on such inconsistency usually dissolve; I simply choose to move on.

My commitment to consistency is not a mere academic exercise; it is a moral compass I have attempted to follow in every facet of my life - from my religious advocacy to my personal diet.

The Mirror of Domestic Fairness

In my book, Can We Use Allah in the Bible?, and in numerous articles, I have urged my fellow Muslims in Malaysia to be fair. If we do not allow non-Muslims to proselytize to Muslims, we should hold ourselves to the same standard. We should not need to "sell" our faith through aggressive outreach; let people choose to convert because of our shining example as compassionate, ethical Muslims.

I have extended this same gentle critique to figures like Zakir Naik. His style of comparative religion where Islam is used to criticize other faiths is deeply problematic in a Malaysian context where a non-Muslim is not legally permitted to rise and counter-argue. To speak where others are silenced is not a victory of truth; it is an exploitation of privilege.

This sense of fairness must also extend to the smallest details of our shared life. Since 1985, when I turned 21 at the University of Malaya, I stopped eating beef. If we expect government institutions to respect Muslim sensitivities by not serving pork, we should extend that same courtesy to our Hindu brothers and sisters regarding beef. For 41 years, I have refused to serve beef in my home or at my functions.

Even in economic policy, I have long pressed for affirmative action to include the non-Bumiputera poor, particularly the disenfranchised Tamil Indians from the estates. Justice, after all, does not have a race.

The Selective Outrage: Iran, Israel, and America

This deep dislike for hypocrisy is not accidental; it is rooted in the moral framework of the Qur’an:

“Woe to those who give less than due. Those who, when they take a measure from people, take in full. But when they give by measure or by weight to them, they cause loss.” (Qur’an 83:1–3)

Today, we see this "loss of measure" across the world and in Malaysia too, particularly in the lopsided discussions surrounding Iran. While I have theological disagreements with certain Shia beliefs, I respect the right of Iranians to choose a political structure based on their faith. If they desire change, it must come from within.

What I question is the global double standard. When Iran bases policies on its religious creed, it is labeled "medieval" and subjected to intense scrutiny. Yet, we see a startling silence when Zionists justify the displacement and killing of children through their interpretation of scripture. Benjamin Netanyahu has openly claimed religious legitimacy for domination, quoting the "laws of Amalek" to justify the expansion of a "Greater Israel."

Why is one a "theocratic threat" while the other is "defending a biblical mandate"?

The "Costume" of Virtue

There is a further hypocrisy in how we judge religious leadership. Many mock Ayatollah Khamenei because he dresses in a traditional kufi and robe while speaking of spiritual struggle. Yet, many of these same critics remain silent when someone in Western attire does the exact same thing.

Consider Paula White-Cain, the spiritual adviser to Donald Trump. To test whether you have fallen into the trap of double standards, I invite you to watch the accompanying video of her preaching. Now, perform a mental experiment: Imagine her as a hijabi Iranian woman making those same declarations of divine authority in support of the Ayatollah.

If you find yourself comfortable with the Western preacher but outraged by the hypothetical hijabi, the problem does not lie in the religion - it lies within your own bias.

A Universal Shared Value

This is not a "Muslim issue." It is a human struggle. Our greatest teachers across all traditions have warned us against the plank in our own eye:

• Tirukkural 272: "The false ascetic who pretends virtue while hiding vice is worse than those who openly do wrong."
• Dhammapada 159: "One should first establish oneself in what is proper; then only should one instruct others."
• Matthew 7:5: "You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."
• Qur’an 61:2–3: "O you who believe, why do you say what you do not do? It is most hateful in the sight of Allah that you say what you do not do."

Before we point across the ocean or across the border, let us ensure our own scales are balanced.

Peace,

Anas

 

GE16: Voting with Head and Heart

 

This logo represents a simple, yet profound idea.

When we as Malaysians cast our ballots, we must do so by engaging both our heads and our hearts.

The Head: Our Anchor in Fact

The head compels us to look at the cold, hard facts. It demands that we examine the data, scrutinize policies, and weigh the track records and long-term consequences of our choices. Democracy flourishes only when citizens think critically—refusing to be swayed by shallow slogans, the politics of fear, or empty promises.

The Heart: Our Moral Compass

The heart reminds us of our shared humanity. It provides the passion to defend what is right, the empathy to protect the vulnerable, and the resolve to build a nation where every Malaysian can live with dignity and hope.

A Necessary Balance

Reason and passion must move in unison, like the rudder and the sails of a ship. If we neglect one for the other, our journey will inevitably go astray. A nation’s future is forged in this very way:

• Reason must be our guide.
• Passion must be our engine.

That is why, for GE16, I make this pledge:

"I will vote with my Head and my Heart."

And I hope you will join me.

Peace,

Anas

GE16: LET’S PREPARE EARLY

 

𝗚𝗘𝟭𝟲: 𝗟𝗘𝗧’𝗦 𝗣𝗥𝗘𝗣𝗔𝗥𝗘 𝗘𝗔𝗥𝗟𝗬

I am starting my entries on GE16 today, March 8, 2026.

Let us start early this time. We need to define the narratives. We cannot depend on the politicians. They would likely disappoint us.

Let us prepare to vote with both our heart and our head. And let us learn from past experiences. We must not make the same mistake again by voting for those who say one thing before the election and do another after it.

In GE15, Malaysians, regardless of race, religion, or background, voted against one very important enemy: 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗿𝘂𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. For the second time in our history, we rose above race and religious politics and focused on a national issue.

The first time was in 1955, when we voted together for our freedom from the British. Malays, Chinese and Indians came together as one people around a national cause: 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗼𝗺.

But realpolitik disappointed us.

Immediately after GE15, the very politicians who had asked us to reject corruption quickly coined terms like “Green Wave” to divide us again as soon as they could. And the other side was just as quick to play the same game.

You see, many political parties and leaders live, grow and thrive on race and religious politics. Any other narrative weakens them. When Malaysians unite around national issues, their usual tools of division lose their power.

So they will resist any movement that takes away race and religion as the main narrative for political survival. Breaking us apart is how they remain relevant.

That is precisely 𝘄𝗵𝘆 𝘄𝗲 𝗺𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗯𝗼𝘁𝗵 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘀.

The truth is this: we voted against corruption based on our shared moral and religious values. In mosques, temples, churches, gurdwaras and other houses of worship, people were reminded that corruption does not depend on race or religion. It harms everyone: you, me and the nation.

We took that faithful step to be better Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists and Sikhs. And we voted based on a real national issue.

We said NO to corruption.

Yet soon after, one group, the Muslims, were labelled the Green Wave. And we fell into the political trap. The unity we had built around a national cause slowly gave way to narratives built on sectarian lines.

Let us be wiser this GE16.

In 1955, we voted together for freedom.

In 2022, we voted together against corruption.

In GE16, let us once again unite around the issues that truly matter for Malaysia.

Let us vote on real national issues. I will be proposing them soon, one of which is the fight against corruption.

Let us vote with both our heads and our hearts.

Peace,

Anas

10 LESSONS FROM THE US–ISRAEL ATTACK ON IRAN (So Far)

 

1. Widespread ignorance about Iran

The West, and many people around the world including my fellow Malaysians, know very little about Iran’s internal politics, governance structure and political culture. For decades the West has repeated a simple narrative about Iran. Over time, many have begun to believe their own propaganda.

Those who accept these narratives without question often do so because they already carry biases about what they imagine a theocratic Islamic nation must look like.

This conflict has exposed how shallow that understanding really is.

2. The limits of relying on US protection

This episode raises an uncomfortable question for countries hosting US bases or aligning closely with US military strategy.

In moments of real crisis, the United States cannot always defend its allies. Nor is it always willing to do so at the level those allies expect.

Some Middle Eastern partners are beginning to realise that their interests do not carry the same weight. Many feel treated like secondary players, while Washington’s full strategic attention remains focused on Israel.

This could reshape how countries view US bases, not just in the Middle East but also in the Far East. The Philippines, for example, may one day have to reassess its growing military cooperation with Washington.

3. Iran’s system is more resilient than portrayed

For decades Iran has been portrayed as a fragile authoritarian system dependent on a single leader.

Reality appears more complex.

Iran operates through layered institutions: constitutional structures, clerical networks, elected offices and powerful military command systems. This architecture allows the state to absorb shocks far better than many outside observers assumed.

4. Israel appears more cunning while America carries the cost

Israel initiated the confrontation. Trump and Netanyahu announced the attack together.

Yet today the global political heat is directed mainly at Trump and the United States.

Israel appears to have played this more shrewdly. The diplomatic and reputational cost is largely borne by Washington, while Netanyahu remains relatively shielded.

In simple terms, Israel looks cunning. America looks like it has been drawn into carrying the blame.

5. Iran appears well prepared

Iran seems to have prepared carefully for this conflict.

Its responses so far appear calculated and deliberate, almost like following a strategic playbook.

Iran has also shown restraint. Despite having the capability to target major US assets such as aircraft carriers in the region, it has avoided doing so.

That restraint likely reflects a strategic decision not to push the entire American public and military establishment fully into the war.

But if heavier American weapons are used, escalation may follow.

6. Trump abandoned his own negotiating principles

Ironically, Trump contradicts many principles he himself wrote about in The Art of the Deal.

The book emphasises preparation, doing your homework, understanding the opponent, building leverage and securing alliances before making a move.

Most importantly, every negotiation must have a clear endgame.

In this case there appeared to be no clear objective from the start. Instead, new goals seem to be invented along the way.

7. China and Russia are likely watching closely

There are growing perceptions that China and Russia are quietly assisting Iran behind the scenes.

China in particular is likely studying this conflict very carefully.

For Chinese strategists, this war is a real-world laboratory to observe how American military systems perform under actual combat conditions.

Some observers even believe Chinese experts may be working alongside Iranian specialists to assist and learn at the same time.

8. India may be drifting into a Zionist trap

India may be bending too far toward Israel instead of playing the nuanced and statesmanlike role it historically held.

Prime Minister Modi recently described Israel as the “father” and India as the “mother”.

As support for the idea of “Greater Israel” becomes more controversial and questioned even inside the United States, Israel may begin looking for another major power to anchor its political support.

India could become that partner.

Some observers even speculate that lobbying structures similar to the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) could one day emerge in India. An Indian version, perhaps called “IIPAC”, could attempt to shape policy debates and influence Indian politics in similar ways.

9. The biggest winner may be China

The biggest long-term winner of this conflict may not be the United States, Israel or even Iran.

It may be China.

From Beijing’s perspective, this war provides a live laboratory to study American military capabilities, logistics and limits.

China may conclude that the United States is not as dominant as previously assumed.

If Iran can produce thousands of drones and sustain prolonged confrontation, China’s industrial capacity could scale that capability dramatically.

For Chinese strategists, this conflict may simply be a rehearsal for the future.

It will also be interesting to see how China evaluates its options regarding Taiwan reunification.

10. Malaysians are still trapped in race and religious political lenses

Many Malaysians still cannot break free from our race and religious political mindset. Too many people choose sides not based on what is right or wrong, but based on their own internal biases.

There are those who celebrate the death of Khamenei simply because he promoted the hijab and traditional Islamic values, which they see as oppressive to women. Yet they fail to consider that a more US-friendly leadership could easily resemble the same elite class associated with scandals like Epstein, where power and privilege protect those who exploit young girls. The experience of the Shah of Iran and the Western-backed elite of that era seems to have been forgotten.

On the other side, there are those who support Iran simply because it is a Muslim country. Yet some Muslims hesitate to support Iran because it is Shia while Malaysians are largely Sunni.

Both reactions miss the bigger picture.

This war is not fundamentally about Sunni or Shia. It is not about headgear or religious rituals. At its core, it is about the geopolitical project of Greater Israel, and Iran has been one of the major obstacles standing in its way.

Peace, anas

 

THE SINDHU CONNECTION: How Iran Shaped the Words India and Hind

 

India under Modi has been silent about the US–Israel attack to date. Ironically, the very name India, along with Hind, Hindu, and Hindi, carries a linguistic link to ancient Persia (today’s Iran).

The Sanskrit word Sindhu (Indus River) became Hindu/Hind in Persian because Persians pronounced the “s” as “h.” The Greeks later turned it into Indos, which eventually became India.

Historically, there was also no single religion called “Hinduism.” The term Hindu was originally a geographical label for people living beyond the Indus. Many traditions were better described as Sanatana Dharma – the eternal way.

In other words, even the modern name “Hinduism” is linguistically linked to Persia.

Peace, anas

Note : The link Sindhu → Hind → India is a small reminder of a much deeper Persia–India civilizational connection spanning trade, culture, and ideas for over two millennia.

WHY KILLING THE AYATOLLAH WOULD BE A STRATEGIC BLUNDER

 

Firstly, if leaders like Trump and Netanyahu believed that removing the Ayatollah would cause the collapse of Iranian leadership, it would reflect a serious misunderstanding of Iran’s political structure.

The Ayatollah is not a dictator. Iran is a theocratic republic with layered institutions, constitutional mechanisms, clerical oversight and military command structures. Like any political system, there would be a period of uncertainty during a transition. But the system itself would not collapse overnight. Its political culture, institutional continuity and chain of command would take over. We have already seen how quickly state responses can be activated and counter offensive took place within hours of his death.

For decades, Western narratives have often portrayed the Ayatollah as a singular authoritarian figure. When a narrative is repeated long enough, it can begin shaping policy assumptions. Decisions then risk being made based on caricature rather than structural reality.

But even that is not the deeper issue.

The deeper miscalculation lies in failing to understand the religious and historical dimensions of Shia identity.

The Ayatollah, as Supreme Leader within Iran’s Shia framework, holds a position that many followers view as more than political. His role carries spiritual weight. In Shia theology, leadership is not merely administrative. It is connected to the legacy of the Imams and to a long history shaped by martyrdom and moral resistance. To help a non-Shia reader understand, his position is sometimes likened to the Caliphate in Muslim history and spiritually to the Pope in Catholicism.

Shia history is profoundly shaped by the assassination of Ali ibn Abi Talib, regarded as the first Imam, and even more decisively by the tragedy of Karbala, where Husayn ibn Ali stood against what he viewed as unjust rule and was killed.

Within Shia spirituality, suffering is not seen as meaningless but can carry redemptive meaning; standing for justice, even at personal cost, is regarded as a sacred obligation; and martyrdom is viewed as the highest form of faithfulness to God and truth.

If such a leader is killed, he is not merely removed from office. He is elevated within a spiritual narrative that has defined Shia consciousness for centuries.

There are roughly 200 to 300 million Shia Muslims globally. A killing framed as martyrdom does not weaken such a tradition. It can deepen solidarity and emotional resolve. It may also resonate beyond sectarian lines, particularly among Sunni Muslims who view defiance against global superpowers or Israel through a political lens of resistance.

Furthermore, stories of a leader refusing personal safety and choosing to remain alongside his people strengthen that martyr narrative. Whether fully verified or not, such accounts spread rapidly in today’s digital ecosystem and become powerful symbols. Symbolism often outlives strategy.

Already, many Muslims across different denominations are sharing the Qur’anic verse:

“And do not say about those who are killed in the way of Allah, ‘They are dead.’ Rather, they are alive, but you perceive it not.”
Qur’an 2:154

In such a framework, death is not defeat. It becomes transcendence.

The Ayatollah, in that narrative, does not disappear. He becomes morally amplified. And that amplification can carry consequences long after immediate military calculations fade from view.

Strategic actions taken without deep historical and theological understanding risk producing effects far beyond their intended goals.

Peace,
Anas

 

 

HICKORY – A Place to Read, Write, Think, Reflect

 

A month ago, during my birthday week, I spent almost a week at Hickory, Penang Hill. It has been my norm for decades to travel somewhere during my birthday. My gift to myself has always been time. Time to read. Time to write. Time to think. Time to reflect.

When I was married for a while, my ex-wife once asked what birthday present I wanted. I told her, “A whole day to read.” That day, I read The Power of Habit by Charles Duhigg from cover to cover. That was my celebration.

This year’s gift was solitude at Hickory.

Each day followed a simple rhythm. Wake up. Breakfast. Write. Lunch. Write again. Workout. Dinner. Write again. Day in and day out. I did not leave Hickory.

Hickory itself is a gift. A serene environment with cool weather at about 700 metres above sea level. The staff are friendly. The owner is calm and clearly not doing this merely for money. There is a genuine love in the way the space is curated. It is clean. Organised. Thoughtfully detailed. The rooms are beautifully done. The entire bungalow feels like a heritage art piece, quietly standing in time.

They were flexible with food from the menu, accommodating my preference to avoid pastries, chips and wedges in exchange for more vegetables. Coffee and tea are complimentary throughout the day.

The sunrise is mesmerising. Every morning feels fresh and purposeful. And at night, the cool air refreshes the soul. From 700 metres up, Penang truly lives up to its name as the crown jewel, its lights glowing gently across the night sky.

I highly recommend Hickory to anyone looking for a place to think and reflect. If you are seeking reflective energy in silence, this is it.

God willing, I will be back again right after Hari Raya.

Thank you, Raj, Durin and the entire team at Hickory.

Peace, anas