TANPA IZIN vs HARAM and ADAB MELAYU

 

In recent years, Malaysians have increasingly used the word haram when discussing places of worship. Whether it is a mosque, temple, church or shrine, the language we choose matters.

I would like to suggest a small but meaningful change in how we speak about these matters. Instead of saying something is haram, perhaps we should say it was done tanpa izin.

Why does this distinction matter?

Haram is a religious ruling within Islam. It carries a strong moral and spiritual judgement. When the word is used in public debates, especially in a multi-religious country like Malaysia, it can easily be perceived as condemning others and their beliefs.

Tanpa izin, on the other hand, simply means without permission.

It focuses on the real issue, whether proper consent, approval or process was followed.

This approach is also very much in line with Adab Melayu. In our culture, we are taught to speak with restraint, courtesy and wisdom. When disagreements arise, we try to lower the temperature, not raise it. Our elders remind us that good manners and careful words are the foundation of social harmony.

Saying something happened tanpa izin reflects a spirit of calm and respectful correction rather than harsh judgement.

It focuses on the real issue and allows room for discussion, correction and resolution, while showing respect to fellow Malaysians of different faiths.

Using haram in such situations can unintentionally escalate tensions. It may make people feel that their religion itself is being judged rather than the specific action.

If we have adab, we say tanpa izin.
If we tidak beradab, we use the word haram.

Mari jadi orang beradab.

Peace.

Anas zubedy

Penang

 

Can Malaysian politics pivot? - By Philip Golingai

By Philip Golingai

It's Just Politics

The Star 

Sunday, 15 Mar 2026

Kedah. Pahang. Johor. Kedah. Penang. Pahang. Kedah. Johor. Pahang. Penang

Will the next one be from Sarawak or Sabah?

For nearly seven decades, these are the only states from which our prime ministers have hailed. Is it finally time for a change in the political geography?

Historically, the “Big Three” – Johor, Kedah, and Pahang – have held a near-monopoly on the premiership, anchoring the nation’s leadership in the traditional Malay heartland. It wasn’t until 2003 that we saw Penang’s rise, when Tun Abdullah Badawi broke the mould, followed later by current PM, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

Sarawak, with 31 seats, and Sabah, with 25 seats, hold a combined 56 parliamentary seats in the 222-member Dewan Rakyat. While this represents only 25% of the House, their cohesive voting blocs mean that no federal government can realistically stand without them.

In an era when Bornean kingmakers decide the fate of Putrajaya, the question is no longer just about geography – it’s about whether the equal partnership that makes up Malaysia is ready for its ultimate test.

I thought about this when I read social commentator and unity advocate Anas Zubedy’s blog entry on the 16th General Election, “GE16: Why not a PM from Borneo” published yesterday (at bit.ly/4cNGbYY).

Anas argues that race-centred politics is currently stalling our political engine. He suggests that we are trapped in a cycle of asking which race or religion a leader represents rather than who can best serve the nation as a whole.

To illustrate his point, Anas looks to the corporate world, citing Volvo’s pivot to safety in the 1970s with a CEO from the insurance sector and Citibank’s shift towards consumer technology in 2021 under a leader with a management consulting background as examples of how choosing a leader from outside the traditional circle can fundamentally reorient an organisation’s purpose.

Malaysia, he argues, needs a similar reorientation. By looking towards Sabah or Sarawak, he contends that we look towards a political culture that is historically more multi-ethnic, pragmatic, and less burdened by Peninsular Malaysia’s sectarianism.

“Choosing a leader from Borneo would therefore not simply be about geography. It could represent a shift in how Malaysia thinks about leadership itself. Just as Citibank reoriented banking towards customers, and Volvo reoriented the automobile industry towards safety and human values, Malaysia too could reorient its politics towards national purpose rather than racial contestation.”

He continues: “After all, Malaysia was founded as a federation of regions and peoples. Perhaps the time has come to reflect that spirit in our highest office.”

Anas ends his piece with a provocative challenge: “So the question may not be whether it is possible. The question may simply be: Why not?”

To be cynical, however, the “Never-Going-to-Happens” are deeply entrenched in the peninsula’s political conventions. While the logic behind electing a Bornean PM is sound, it faces the formidable wall of peninsula anxiety. If we are to be honest about the obstacles, they look something like this:

The Malay-Muslim hegemony: For decades, the narrative has been carefully curated to say that the PM must be a Malay Muslim from the heartland. Even though the Federal Constitution does not state a race requirement, the political reality is that many in the peninsula’s conservative base view the prime minister as the ultimate protector of Malay rights – a role they have yet to even imagine trusting to a leader from the more pluralistic Borneo states.

The numbers game: Geography remains a stubborn hurdle. The peninsula has 165 seats, Sabah and Sarawak have 56 so the path to the top still runs through the crowded corridors of Peninsular Malaysia. A Bornean leader would need to command a significant chunk of these peninsula seats, a feat difficult to achieve without massive, transregional party machinery.

The outsider perception: Despite being “Equal Partners” on paper, Sabah and Sarawak are often still viewed by the peninsula political elite as “fixed deposits” (ie vote banks) or kingmakers rather than the source of a leader.

The lack of a national party: Currently, the strongest leaders in Borneo belong to regional blocs (GPS, GRS and Parti Warisan). While this gives them immense leverage, it also tethers them to their home states. Without a truly national brand that resonates in Kelantan’s warung and Petaling Jaya’s kopitiam, a Bornean candidate remains a regional choice in a national contest.

Ultimately, while the corporate world can pivot overnight to a new orientation, the machinery of a nation-state is subject to the friction of identity politics. The “why not” doesn’t refer to a lack of talent or merit – it is a lack of imagination on a peninsula that has spent 70 years looking only at its own reflection.

But. There is a but.

There once was a possibility of someone from Borneo becoming the PM. In 2020, following the collapse of the Pakatan Harapan government (remember the Sheraton Move?) and then Tan Sri Muyiddin Yassin stepping down as PM, the Opposition (then comprising Pakatan and its allies) had a choice over who to put up as a PM candidate: Anwar of PKR or Datuk Seri Shafie Apdal of Sabah’s Parti Warisan.

Eventually, Anwar’s name was offered as the primary candidate after a period of intense deadlock. Even GPS, the Sarawak bloc that controlled 18 seats at the time, didn’t support Shafie, a fellow Bornean, aligning itself instead with the peninsula-based Perikatan Nasional.

Another opportunity emerged after GE15 in 2022. While the headlines focused on the flashy race between two former prime ministers, Perikatan chairman Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin and Pakatan chairman Anwar, there was a significant undercurrent of discussion regarding a Borneo candidate to break the deadlock.

Specifically, GPS’s Petra Jaya MP, Datuk Seri Fadillah Yusof, was widely considered a potential PM candidate during the post-election negotiations. GPS secured 23 seats, cementing its role as the ultimate kingmaker. Had the peninsula coalitions failed to find common ground, Fadillah could have been the compromise leader the nation needed.

Today, he serves as Deputy Prime Minister II and the Energy Transition and Water Transformation Minister. His appointment as DPM II was a historic milestone, making him the first leader from Sarawak to hold the country’s second-highest office. Yet the fact remains that even with the deputy PM post in hand, the top floor of Putrajaya continues to elude the Bornean territories.

If we are to move from a race- driven framework to a nation- centred one, as Anas suggests, the peninsula must first break its 70-year habit of looking inward. The talent is there, and the seats are there – the only thing missing is the political courage to cross the South China Sea.

Kedah. Pahang. Johor. Kedah. Penang. Pahang. Kedah. Johor. Pahang. Penang. And Sarawak or Sabah?

Why not?

Link - https://www.thestar.com.my/opinion/columnists/its-just-politics/2026/03/15/can-malaysian-politics-pivot

GE16: WHY NOT A PM FROM BORNEO

 

Since I can remember, throughout my entire adult life we have heard debates about whether a non-Malay can become Prime Minister in Malaysia. Then the question follows: must he or she also be a Muslim?

This is the direct effect of our main political actors on both sides of the divide, mainly UMNO and DAP, whose politics continue to revolve heavily around race and religion.

When a political party’s engine runs on race, that becomes the main commodity that is transacted.

That is why we have yet to hear any serious discussion about the possibility of a Prime Minister from the Borneo states. I seek to change that.

First, let us learn from two global corporate examples where organisations chose leaders who were within the system but came from different backgrounds. These choices helped rejuvenate the organisation and strengthen their brands in line with changing market needs.

Volvo

In the early 1970s, the board of Volvo chose a CEO from outside the traditional circle of automobile executives. The Swedish carmaker appointed Pehr G. Gyllenhammar as its CEO at the age of 36. Unlike many leaders in the automobile industry, Gyllenhammar was not an engineer or lifelong car executive. His main professional background was in the insurance sector, where he had served as CEO of the Swedish insurance company Skandia.

Coming from insurance gave him a different perspective on risk, safety and human factors. Under his leadership, Volvo strengthened its global identity as the car company most committed to safety. The company also experimented with new factory systems that gave workers greater autonomy and responsibility. Volvo’s brand became strongly associated with safety, quality and human centred values. By choosing a leader from outside the traditional automobile establishment, Volvo sharpened its purpose and built one of the most distinctive identities in the global car industry.

Citibank

A similar example can be found at Citibank. In the 1970s and 1980s, the bank faced a strategic crossroads. Traditional bankers focused mainly on corporate lending and elite financial clients. Retail customers were often seen as secondary. At this moment the board elevated John Reed, a leader whose thinking differed from the conventional culture of corporate banking. His interests were strongly shaped by technology and systems rather than by the traditional corporate lending mindset.

Reed believed the future of banking lay with ordinary consumers supported by technology. Under his leadership, Citibank invested heavily in automated teller machines, global electronic banking networks and mass consumer credit cards. This shift transformed Citibank into one of the world’s largest global consumer banks. By choosing a leader who approached banking from a different angle, Citibank repositioned itself ahead of many competitors and moved from a product driven bank to a customer centred financial services platform.

What does this have to do with Malaysia?

In both examples, the change in leadership produced something deeper than a new face at the top. It produced a change in orientation. Citibank moved from a product driven bank to a customer centric financial services platform. Volvo moved from being just another automobile manufacturer to becoming the global benchmark for safety and human centred design.

In both cases the leader did not merely manage the organisation. The leader helped the organisation see its purpose differently. Malaysia may also benefit from such a shift in orientation.

For decades our political system has largely been driven by race centred politics. Political competition often revolves around which group gains more power, protection or privileges. Naturally, this produces endless debates about whether a Prime Minister must come from a particular race or religion.

Over time, this orientation begins to influence almost every national conversation. Many challenges in the country are viewed through the same racial lens. Even areas where compromise should never occur, such as corruption, sometimes become entangled in political calculations shaped by race. Hypocrisy is tolerated because of racial loyalties or political alignments. In this environment, even policies that are fundamentally sound, such as affirmative action for the genuinely needy, become diluted because they are framed through race rather than need.

Because race and religion are closely intertwined in Malaysia, religious matters too are often drawn into the same political currents. Issues involving temples, places of worship and religious celebrations can easily become part of wider racial debates. The political culture in Sabah and Sarawak, however, has historically been less burdened by such deep seated racial and religious sectarianism.

But what if we shift the orientation?

Instead of asking who represents which race, we could ask a different question. Who can best serve the nation as a whole? In other words, Malaysia too can move from a race driven political framework to a nation centred leadership framework.

One way to trigger such a shift may be to look beyond the usual political mould. A Prime Minister from Sabah or Sarawak could symbolise exactly that. The Borneo states sit somewhat outside the intense race based political competition that dominates Peninsular politics. Their political culture has historically been more multi ethnic, more pragmatic and more grounded in local realities.

Choosing a leader from Borneo would therefore not simply be about geography. It could represent a shift in how Malaysia thinks about leadership itself. Just as Citibank reoriented banking toward customers, and Volvo reoriented the automobile industry toward safety and human values, Malaysia too could reorient its politics toward national purpose rather than racial contestation.

After all, Malaysia was founded as a federation of regions and peoples. Perhaps the time has come to reflect that spirit in our highest office.

So the question may not be whether it is possible.

The question may simply be:

Why not?

Peace,

Anas Zubedy

Penang

 

NOTE: This is the first article in a series on this subject. I have begun with the question “Why not?”. In the coming pieces, we must also discuss the “How” and what needs to be done to make such an idea possible.

In Malaysia, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong appoints as Prime Minister the Member of Parliament who, in His Majesty’s judgment, commands the confidence of the majority of the House. In practical terms, this means the individual who is able to secure the most parliamentary support.

There is therefore much that needs to be thought through and done if such a possibility is to become reality.

If this idea resonates with you, please reflect on it and expand the conversation. Share it with your family and friends. Let the discussion begin and gather momentum.

Perhaps this could be one of the ways we move Malaysia toward a more united and confident future. Thank you.

THE QURAN - SUNNI, SHIA & IBADIYAH

 

A few days ago, during a speech addressing regional tensions in the Middle East and the conflict involving Iran, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan called on Muslims to reject sectarian divisions and unite as one community. His message stressed a simple but powerful point:

“We do not have a religion like Sunnism or Shiism. We have only one religion, and that is Islam.”

He further emphasised that Muslims should not divide themselves by sect or ethnicity. Turks, Arabs, Sunnis, Shias, Kurds and others, he said, should not be treated as separate identities when it comes to faith.

In essence, Erdogan reminded Muslim leaders and audiences of a fundamental principle. There is no Sunnism or Shiism as separate religions. There is only Islam. Muslims should see themselves first and foremost as Muslims, not as members of competing sects.

Many people may not realise that besides the Sunni and Shia traditions, there is also a third historical branch of Islam known as Ibadiyah. Some historians trace its origins to the very early period of Islamic history, emerging from debates that followed the first political conflicts among Muslims. Today, the Ibadi community is found mainly in Oman, where it forms the majority of the population, with smaller communities in parts of North and East Africa.

At the same time, it is important to understand that the Muslim world is far more diverse than these three broad groupings suggest. Within both Sunni and Shia traditions there are numerous schools of thought, theological orientations and spiritual movements. Among Sunnis, for example, there are the well known legal schools such as Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi‘i and Hanbali, alongside movements often described as Salafi or Wahhabi. Within the Shia tradition there are branches such as the Twelvers, Ismailis and Zaidis.

Beyond these distinctions, there are also Sufi traditions that emphasise spirituality and inner purification, and whose followers may come from either Sunni or Shia backgrounds. In recent times there are also Muslims who identify themselves primarily as Qur’an focused or Qur’anist, placing particular emphasis on the Qur’an as the central source of guidance.

All of this reminds us that the Muslim community has historically contained a wide range of interpretations, schools and spiritual paths. Yet despite these differences, we all share the same foundational testimony of faith and belong to the broader community of Islam.

While Erdogan’s rhetoric has appeared periodically in Turkish diplomacy, especially when Ankara positions itself as a bridge across the Muslim world, the message is timely. The Sunni Shia divide has long shaped the politics of the Middle East, often reinforced by rivalries between states such as Saudi Arabia and Iran. Erdogan’s framing seeks to shift the focus back to a more fundamental principle: placing the Ummah first, recognising the shared history of early Islam, and strengthening unity at a time when division only weakens Muslim societies.

Personally, I have always been open to learning from all these different groupings within Islam. I listen, study and reflect, choosing what appears best while using the Qur’an as the primary guide. The Qur’an itself encourages such an approach. In Qur’an 39:18, it praises:

“Those who listen to speech and follow the best of it. Those are the ones Allah has guided, and those are people of understanding.”

The Qur’an is also clear in warning Muslims against sectarian division and repeatedly stresses the brotherhood of believers. Verses such as 3:103, 3:105, 6:159, 49:10 and 42:13 all caution against splitting the religion into competing factions.

Yet like many crucial teachings in the Qur’an, it does not merely issue a pronouncement. It also explains what sectarianism actually looks like.

Two verses capture this clearly.

“Of those who have divided their religion and become sects, every faction rejoicing in what it has.”
Qur’an 30:32

“And indeed this, your religion, is one religion, and I am your Lord, so fear Me. But they divided their affair among themselves into sects, each faction rejoicing in what it has.”
Qur’an 23:52–53

The first verse describes a psychological reality of sectarianism. Each group becomes convinced that its own interpretation is the correct one and celebrates it. The second verse is even stronger. It begins by affirming that the religion is one, and then explains how people later divide it into sects, each believing that it alone is right.

What the Qur’an criticises here is the arrogance of sectarian certainty, the belief that one group has a monopoly over truth and over Allah’s guidance. The Qur’an recognises that differences of opinion will always exist. Human beings think, interpret and disagree. That is part of how we were created. What the Qur’an warns against is allowing those differences to grow into rigid camps that believe only they are right and everyone else is misguided. When sectarian arrogance goes too far, some begin to label all those outside their own school of thought as deviationists, or even worse, declare them unbelievers through the practice known as takfir. History has shown that once communities reach that stage, unity collapses and conflict soon follows.

The Qur’anic method does not merely issue a decree. It also explains what the problem actually looks like and the criteria by which we should understand it. This approach appears repeatedly throughout the Qur’an.

Take for example Qur’an 5:82, which speaks about Christians:

“You will surely find the most intense of the people in animosity toward the believers to be the Jews and those who associate others with Allah; and you will find the nearest of them in affection to the believers those who say, ‘We are Christians.’ That is because among them are priests and monks and because they are not arrogant.”

While the Qur’an notes that Christians were often among the most friendly or compassionate toward Muslims during the time of the Prophet, it does not leave the statement unexplained. The verse immediately gives the reason. It points to character traits rather than identity alone. It highlights humility, spiritual devotion and the absence of arrogance. In other words, the Qur’an is teaching a broader principle. Anyone, not only Christians, who possesses these qualities is more likely to approach others with kindness and goodwill. Yes, Jews included.

Another important example of this Qur’anic approach is the instruction for Muslims to obey and follow the Prophet. Numerous verses stress this, including Qur’an 33:21, 3:31, 4:80, 4:59, and 59:7. Yet the criteria for how to follow him can be seen in Qur’an 7:158 where the Qur’an declares:

“Say, ‘O mankind, indeed I am the Messenger of Allah to you all, [from Him] to whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth. There is no deity except Him; He gives life and causes death.’ So believe in Allah and His Messenger, the unlettered Prophet, who believes in Allah and His words, and follow him that you may be guided.”

So, the way to follow the Prophet is to believe in Allah and His words, the Qur’an. Elsewhere the Qur’an explains:

“And We have not revealed to you the Book except for you to make clear to them that wherein they have differed and as guidance and mercy for a people who believe.” - Qur’an 16:64

Thus, whether we are Sunni, Shia, Ibadiyah, Salafi, Wahhabi, Sufi, Deobandi, Barelvi, Ismaili, Zaidi, Qur’an focused or belong to any other school or movement within Islam, let us support Erdogan’s call. The Qur’an warns us about becoming groups that rejoice in their own faction while forgetting that the religion is one. Let us remain Muslims first. And, when we differ, we refer back to the Quran.

Peace,
anas

 

𝗛𝗨𝗠𝗔𝗡𝗜𝗧𝗬 𝗢𝗡 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗕𝗥𝗜𝗡𝗞

 

𝗛𝗨𝗠𝗔𝗡𝗜𝗧𝗬 𝗢𝗡 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗕𝗥𝗜𝗡𝗞

You are invited to an urgently convened webinar this "Sunday 15 March."

The aim: to set the barbarism unfolding in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran within a regional and global context.

Register here:

https://us06web.zoom.us/.../reg.../mQn4QWBBTA6z19KFloXM-Q...

Speakers: Prof Richard Falk, Prof Joseph Camilleri, Dr Chandra Muzaffar

In the space of a few days Israeli and US attacks on Iranian soil and the killing of the Supreme Leader have unleashed senseless destruction, including deadly attacks on schools and hospitals, engulfed neighbouring countries, brought air travel to a standstill and caused mayhem on energy markets.

And this is just the beginning of a war that Trump says could last several weeks, perhaps longer. It is a war long in the making. How are we to make sense of it?

Is it the continuation of the unrelenting hostility of successive US administrations towards the present Iranian regime, indeed any Iranian government that seeks to resist US strategic and economic interests? Is it further evidence of Samuel Huntington’s foreshadowed clash of civilizations’? Or just another attempt to reverse America’s eroding supremacy on the global stage? Perhaps, it is an attempt to establish a large and secure sphere of influence in the face of China’s rise and Russia’s resurgence.

SHAPE Co-Conveners and leading public intellectuals, Professor Richard Falk, Professor Joseph Camilleri and Dr Chandra Muzaffar have been considering these questions at length. At the webinar they will engage in a probing analysis of the underlying causes and explores possible responses. Their presentations will be followed by two insightful respondents, and Q&A.

Date: Sunday 15 March

Time: LA 6:30 am New York 9:30 am London 1:30 pm Cairo 3.30 pm KL 9:30 pm

Melbourne 0.30 am (Monday).

The webinar is hosted by SHAPE (Serving Humanity and Planet Earth) and JUST (International Movement for a Just World). Other sponsoring groups and further program details to be confirmed shortly.

Please alert others in your network. Registration Essential

With our best wishes.

On behalf of SHAPE Coordinating Committee

Email: savinghumanityandplanetearth@gmail.com

Website https://www.theshapeproject.com/

THE TRUE TEST OF A CONVERT

 

A change of religion, no matter which one, should bring a positive change of heart. It should make a person more compassionate not only toward their new community, but toward humanity as a whole.

And it should make them far more understanding and caring toward the community they left behind. Those people may feel that they have lost a good member  of their faith, yet they still wish you well—because they care, and because you were a good person (instead of good riddance)then, as you should remain now.

In fact, people from your former community should be able to see the change in you. They should be able to say with admiration that your new faith has made you an even better person.

After all, they are your family, your friends, and members of the same community. They know you well, and you know them. That shared experience should produce kindness and humility—wishing them the best, and perhaps quietly hoping that one day they too may find what you have found.

If none of this happens, then the conversion has changed very little. The problem was never the religion.

Peace, anas

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