Trump’s
immigration ban
Should Malaysians be
concerned with the internal immigration policy of a foreign country? This was a
comment post to my face book page in response to Pakatan Harapan’s protest
before the American embassy. Malaysians should be concerned because Trump’s
Muslim refugee ban coupled with UMNO’s politicization of Islam is making the ISIS’s
threat in Malaysia great again.
Trump’s populist Islamophobia
driven approach to deal with terrorism will induce many young Malaysian Muslim
youth rendered susceptible to Jihadist-Salafism by the decades-old UMNO/PAS
politicization of Islam and Najib’s recent co-option of conservative
Salafist-influenced Islam, to join ISIS ranks bent on converting Malaysia into
an Islamic theocratic state not through the ballot but by the bullet.
Trump’s
ban is a lifeline to ISIS
The Islamic State of Iraq and
Syria (“ISIS”) are facing setbacks in Iraq and Syria, all indications point to
the group crumbling. A senior military official of the US-led coalition said an
estimated 50,000 ISIS fighters have been killed since August 2014. The
coalition’s spokesman in Iraq said ISIS are losing fighters at an
“unsustainable rate.”[1] The only thing keeping ISIS
from imploding are new recruits which makes winning the propaganda war
critical. Trump’s Muslim ban has thrown
a life-line to the ISIS recruitment drive. Such recruits particularly Malaysian
Muslims have serious ramifications for Malaysia’s security.
Validates ISIS narrative:
West out to destroy Islam
Some Malaysians
ask what is wrong for Trump delivering on his campaign promises to make America
safe from terrorism. Terrorism is a crime, it is wrong. There can be no
justification for the killing of innocents or attacks on civilians and public
institutions. The violence of the Jihadist-Salafist must be condemned. Each
government is of course entitled to maintain the security of its own country
but not by endangering the security of others. Trump’s Muslim refugee ban is a
disingenuous ploy to pander to his populist supporters, but it does not deal
with the root causes of terrorism. Instead of making America safe it makes
America and the rest of the world a more dangerous place.
Trump’s
executive order validates the ISIS-Jihadist terrorists’ narrative that “the West and its allies are out to destroy
Islam and it is each Muslim’s sacred duty to carry out a jihad to save it.”[2]
The ban will give impetus for fresh recruits to replace ISIS’s dwindling
number of fighters.
Trump’s ban is inhumane,
bigoted and shameful but it is the hypocrisy behind it that will resonate with young
Muslims because it authenticates ISIS’s message that “our Caliphate is the only effective means of defending Islam from both
the near-enemy and the far-enemy.”
The “far-enemy” is the United States. The “near-enemy” are the repressive regimes
in the Muslim world. Trump’s purported rationale to protect US against terrorists
from the countries listed in the ban, cannot withstand scrutiny. No terrorist
from these seven countries: Syria, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Iran, Sudan and Yemen
have carried out attacks on US soil. On the other hand, the countries that
produced and supported the greatest number of anti-US terrorists: Saudi Arabia,
Egypt, Qatar, United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Lebanon are excluded from the ban.[3] Of the nineteen 9/11
hijackers, 15 were from Saudi Arabia, 2 from UAE, 1 from Lebanon and 1 was
Egyptian. Osama bin Laden was a Saudi Arabia citizen and the current al-Qaeda
leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri is Egyptian.
The countries
excluded from the ban are dictatorial, autocratic and repressive regimes. These
regimes which have persistently denied and violated the democratic and human
rights of their own citizens and neglected their social, political and economic
development are maintained and supported by the US. The US have declared the
oil reserves in these countries are of strategic interests and an important
reason for US support for these regimes.
Trump in
excluding these regimes reveals his lack of bona fides. There is no political
will to deal with the root causes of terrorism. Support for ISIS, Al-Qaeda and
Jihadist terrorist is rooted in opposition to US Middle East policy in respect
of the US invasion of Iraq, the protection of Israel and the plight of the
Palestinians, inaction in Syria and support for corrupt repressive dictators in
the Muslim world. Trump’s ban driven by US geostrategic, economic and populist interests,
risk the US and its allies paying a heavy human price in response to the
injustice and humiliation provoked.
Validates ISIS Narrative: Atrocities
against Muslim civilians is Collateral Damage
Trump’s pledge over a
Christian broadcasting network to give priority to Christian refugees over
others serves to confirm a second ISIS-Jihadist narrative that the US and the
West are indifferent to the atrocities committed against Muslims and carry out
policies that actively harm Muslims. This narrative has been a centrepiece of their
recruitment policy. What motivates many to join the ISIS-Jihadist terrorists is
the idea of responding to defend Muslim communities under threat from the West.
An example of this narrative is found in Dabiq, the ISIS online magazine,
justification for the execution of James Foley:
“The US has killed women, children and the
elderly, during its direct occupation of Iraq prior to its withdrawal. There
are countless accounts of American soldiers executing families and raping women
under the sanctity of the US military and Blackwater. Muslim families were
killed under the broad definition of ‘collateral damage,’ which the US grants
itself alone the right to apply. Therefore, if a mujahid kills a single man
with a knife, it is the barbaric killing of the ‘innocent.’ However, if
Americans kill thousands of Muslim families all over the world by pressing
missile fire buttons, it is merely ‘collateral damage’.”[4]
Trump’s ban on
Muslims fits this ISIS-Jihadist narrative precisely. Trump is banning refugees
fleeing from the horrors caused by the US which played a key role in
destabilizing and destroying these seven and other Muslim countries. Violence,
terror and death have become commonplace in these countries where civilian
casualties and deaths is denoted as a footnote under collateral damage.
The US has
repeatedly attacked civilian facilities such as hospitals and schools in
Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Yemen. A US airstrike in Afghanistan on 6 July
2008 killed civilians in a wedding party including the bride. On October 9
2016, US-armed Saudi coalition bombed a Yemen funeral killing 140 and wounding
525. The 2014 Israeli military operations in Gaza to stop Palestinian rocket
attacks into Israel resulted in the deaths of thousands, the vast majority were
Gaza residents. Various human right groups contended both sides violated
international laws and committed war crimes but US stood by Israel with its
veto rights in the UN. The US Congress expressed vigorous support for Israel
and passed legislation providing Israel with an additional USD 225 million in
military aid and missile defence. Bush declared the War on Terror and invaded
Iraq based on non-existent weapons of mass destruction. Obama has bombed five
of these seven countries and two (Iran and Sudan) were punished by heavy
sanctions.
In executing the
presidential order, every Muslim family unfairly detained at an airport, every
Muslim who worked for the US and forced to return to face certain persecution
and death and every statement that privileges Christians over Muslims will
inspire ISIS-Jihadists terrorism. Trump’s ban provides the reality that gives
ISIS-Jihadist propaganda teeth.
Islamophobia: “Us” against
“Them”
Trump’s ban is the very
response the ISIS-Jihadists want from their terrorist attacks. ISIS’s goal is
to divide the world into two camps: “the crusaders” and “the caliphate.” No
Christians living in Muslim lands. No Muslims living in Christian countries. Its
message to Western Muslims is that they do not belong there. “Come to the caliphate where you can live as
a true Muslim.” ISIS argues that Muslims in the West are living in a “grey zone.” “Grey zones” are areas
where Muslims practice their religion peacefully in non-Muslim countries. ISIS
wants to eliminate these zones, in part by turning non-Muslims against their
Muslim neighbours. Each terrorist attack chips away the grey zones as
Westerners marginalize Muslims, pushing them, ISIS hopes, into the Caliphate’s
open arms.
The objective of
the ISIS-Jihadists in carrying out the terror attacks is to drive a wedge
between Muslims and non-Muslims. It is about provoking fractures between
Muslims and the citizens of the West. It is about making Muslims feel they will
never be welcomed in European, American or Western society. Their goal is to
feed a fear of and hatred for Islam, for the West to associate Islam with
danger and violence. It is to spread insecurity and social instability along
religious fault lines. It is to ferment Islamophobia.
In responding
to the terror attacks, it is important to keep in mind that the jihadists and
extremists do not represent Muslims and Islam. Knowing that ISIS and terrorist
groups want to instil fear and deepen divisions at the international level, it
is important to guard against a natural reaction to define oneself as Muslims
and non-Muslims, “Us” against “Them.” Hate and anger add blindness to an
emotional reaction stoked by fear. When we turn to populism without grappling
with the root causes, we succumb to politics of fear and prejudice giving rise
to Islamophobia, precisely ISIS’s goals.
Trump’s Muslim
refugee ban is institutionalized Islamophobia. It will become the tipping-point
for many Muslim youths turning to ISIS-Jihadists groups and the world will
become a more dangerous place. Malaysian Muslims have shown to be particularly
susceptible to the lure of the ISIS-Jihadists group therefore Trump’s Muslim
ban will increase the risks of ISIS attacks in Malaysia.
Malaysia’s terrorist groups have direct
links to ISIS-Jihadist groups
Malaysia’s
jihadist terror groups are directly linked to Al-Qaeda and ISIS. Jemaah
Islamiya (“JI”) formed in January 1993 became the leader among militant Islamic
groups seeking to establish a “caliphate” in Southeast Asia. JI went on to
serve as a platform for international terrorist groups.
JI’s Malaysia
cell has international links to Al-Qaeda through its associations with Al-Qaeda
in Pakistan as well as splinter groups within Southeast Asia such as the Moro
Islamic Liberation Front (“MILF”), the Moro National Liberation Front (“MNLF”),
the Abu Sayyaf Group (“ASG”), the Free Acheh Movement (“GAM”) and the Southern
Thailand Patani groups. International recruitment and operations were conducted
in Malaysia for more than a decade. It may be noteworthy that some 9/11
terrorists were in Petaling Jaya prior to the attacks and the original planning
of 9/11 took place in Petaling Jaya before the attackers transferred their base
to Germany.[5]
During the
early years of the War on Terror Malaysian authorities with US assistance have achieved
operational success in diminishing the threat posed by JI but efforts to clamp
down on JI and its ideology have been hampered by a lack of political will.
This deficiency appears to stem mainly from the politicians’ desire to
accommodate the perceived religious sensibilities of the country’s majority
Muslim population. The complacency of political powers within the country
allowed the radical and extremist elements to survive as “sleeper cells”
waiting for the right moment to emerge.
Al-Qaeda and
ISIS have tapped into JI’s organisation structure to increase their influence
in Southeast Asia. JI have put itself at the disposal of ISIS in return for
funding, training and cooperation. The JI sleeper cells have now been
reactivated. ISIS supporters in Malaysia are largely former JI members. ISIS’
recruitment in Malaysia targeting Muslim youths is similar to JI’s except with
the additional and very potent element of social media.
ISIS Threat in Malaysia
In August 2014,
Special Branch assistant director-general Datuk Ayub Khan Mydin Pitchay said
that suspected militants arrested from April to June were formulating plans to
bomb hotels, discotheques and a Malaysian brewery of Danish beer, Carlsberg.
In October
2014, Malaysian authorities have warned that ISIS constitutes a major threat to
Malaysia and that non-Muslims in Malaysia are likely to be targeted by
militants returning from Syria and home grown “lone wolf” attacks. ISIS have
praised lone wolf attackers such as Man Haron Monis who held 18 people hostage
in a Sydney café before being gunned down by the police in December 2014 and
have claimed credit for the attack.
Since the
terrorist attack in Jakarta on 14 January 2015, Southeast Asian authorities
have come to realize that ISIS inspired attacks on home soil, however
uncoordinated or by different factions vying to boost their legitimacy with the
parent Middle Eastern organization or even “lone wolf” attacks pose a real
threat.
In February
2015, Home Minister Zahid Hamidi warned of intelligence that militants planned
to kidnap tycoons and rob banks in Malaysia to finance their activities.[6] In early September 2015
both Indonesia and Malaysia are listed as targets in the IS publication Dabiq. In
January 2016, a 16 year-old school boy launched a “lone cub” attack in the name
of ISIS when he tried to kidnap a sales assistant at a shopping complex in
Sungai Petani, Kedah. He viewed non-Muslims as “kafir harbi” (those who are at
war with Islam and can be justifiably killed)
On 21 June 2016,
ISIS released a video, featuring Malaysian, Muhamad Wanddy Mohamed Jedi, urging
ISIS supporters to kill non-Muslims in Malaysia. On the same night there was a
grenade attack wounding seven persons in an entertainment outlet in Puchong
which ISIS have claimed responsibility.[7]
The police
announced on 1st February 2017 they have arrested three men
suspected of having ISIS links and face charges of suspected involvement in
terrorism. At least three Malaysian women are reported to have travelled to the
Middle East to offer themselves as sexual comfort women to ISIS fighters. The
so-called Jihad al-nikah, permitting extramarital sexual relations is
considered by them as a legitimate form of holy war.
In 2015, an
estimated 91 Malaysians were serving as foreign fighters in Syria, 7 had been
killed and 2 conducted suicide bomb attacks killing 33 people in Raqqa and
Baghdad. Malaysians formed a core component of the Islamic State’s Southeast
Asian unit called “Katibah Nusantara”
which has reportedly grown to 200 fighters by 2016.
Returning
Katibah Nusantara fighters and home grown ISIS links established a Malaysian
presence operating in Selangor and Perak sharing the vision and mission of JI
and ISIS to establish a regional super caliphate, the “Daulah Islamiah Nusantara” that would include all the predominant
Muslim states in Southeast Asia encompassing Malaysia, Indonesia, Southern
Thailand, Southern Philippines and Singapore.
These incidents
demonstrate ISIS poses real security concerns for Malaysians of minority races
and religions, moderate Muslims who do not subscribe to their deadly ideology
and threatens the country’s multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-religious
identity.
The Scale of the Problem
Several
prominent scholars have voiced concerns that a disproportionately large number
of Malaysian Muslims have been radicalised and attracted to this virulent and
brutal ISIS form of Jihadist-Salafism ideology which poses a clear and present
danger to Malaysia. The growing appeal of Jihadist-Salafism is reflected in
several surveys.
James Chin
points out that Malaysia with a population of about 31 million and 60 percent
Sunni Muslims has about 200-250 ISIS fighters in the Middle-East while
Indonesia with a Muslim population of 300 million has less than 400 ISIS
fighters. It is estimated that the rates of ISIS recruitment equates to 1.4
people per million Muslim citizens for Indonesia while for Malaysia the figure
is 8.5 per million. Malaysians seem to be joining ISIS at a higher rate than
Indonesians. This imbalance alone gives a clear indication of the scale of the
problem Malaysia faces.[8]
Joseph Chinyong
Liow in his article “Malaysia’s ISIS conundrum” noted a 2013 Pew Global
Attitudes Survey that in Malaysia 27 percent of the Muslims takes the view that
attacks on civilians in defence of Islam are “sometimes justified” or “often
justified” while a further 12 percent take the view that violence is “rarely
justified” as opposed to “never justified.” Essentially 39 percent of Malaysian
Muslims surveyed believed that violence can be justified against enemies of
Islam. Significantly, Indonesians polled only 18 percent on the same question
(1 percent “often”, 5 percent “sometimes” and 12 percent “rarely”)[9] More Malaysian Muslims (11
percent) express a favourable view of ISIS than do Indonesian Muslims (4
percent). Proportionately more Indonesian Muslims (53 percent) express worry
about Muslim extremist groups than do Malaysian Muslims (8 percent) who are more
worried at 31 percent about Christian extremism.
The Causes of the Problem
The higher than
usual susceptibility of Malaysian-Muslim youth to ISIS’s Jihadist-Salafism and
Islamist radicalism are attributable to three main causes:
The first cause: According to Joseph Liow, Islam
has unfortunately become heavily politicised in Malaysia. Malaysia’s dominant
political party, UMNO is a Malay-Muslim party that was created with the main
objective, at least in theory, of promoting and defending Malay-Muslim
supremacy. According to the party’s narrative, this supremacy is coming under
siege from various cultural (read: non-Malay vernacular education) and
religious (read: non-Muslim) quarters and hence has to be staunchly defended.
Given that Malaysia has a Malay-Muslim majority population it should come as no
surprise that UMNO’s chief political opponents are also Malay-Muslim parties
who equally brandish religious credentials as a source of legitimacy. To the
extent that there is a political ideology at play in Malaysia today, it is
Islam, and specifically Islamism that dominates.
Islam casts a
pale shadow over Malaysia today not because it is Islam, or even Islamism, per
se, but because its proponents and defenders are articulating a particularly
exclusive brand of Islam that is divorced from the religion’s historically
enlightened traditions, and which has no intention to encourage pluralism and
compromise. The net effect of this is that non-Muslim Malaysians are
marginalised as Islamist parties try to “out-Islam” each other. As UMNO
struggles to cling to power by focusing on its religious credentials above all
else, religion has become heavily politicised and is viewed as a zero sum game.
Rather than
extol the virtues and conciliatory features of Islam’s rich traditions, many
Malay-Muslim political leaders have instead chosen to use religion to amplify
differences, to reinforce extreme interpretations of Malay-Muslim rights and to
condemn the “other” (non-Muslims) as a threat to these rights. For fear of further
erosion of legitimacy and political support, the Malay-Muslim leadership of the
country have in their public statements circled the wagons, allowing vocal
right-wing ethno-nationalist and religious groups to preach incendiary messages
against Christians and Hindus with impunity. In extreme cases, they have even
flippantly referred to fellow Malaysians who are adherents to other religious
faiths as “enemies of Islam.” Even-state sanctioned Friday sermons have
occasionally taken to referring to non-Muslim Malaysians as “enemies of Islam.”
It is against this backdrop that the findings of the Pew surveys cited earlier
take on greater, more disconcerting meaning.
The second cause: According to James Chin[10] the role of the Malaysian
government in particular JAKIM (Malaysian Islamic Development Department) and Biro
Tata Negara (National Civics Bureau or BTN) in its Islamization agenda set the
stage for the acceptance of Islamist extremist elements into mainstream public
discourse.
JAKIM a
government department under the Prime minister’s office is tasked with defining
to the minuscule detail what being a Sunni Muslim means in Malaysia, not only
in theological terms but also practical terms, like how to dress and what type
of behaviour are “halal (permissible) or “haram.”
BTN also under
the PM’s office is supposed to nurture the spirit of patriotism but some of its
program promotes racism towards non-Malays and filter their message to selected
groups of Malay participants. BTN teaches these Malay participants that the
Malaysian Chinese and non-Malays are like “Jews” and that Malays must be
politically supreme at all times. An expose of BTN documents showed the BTN
trainers were told to teach that “racism” is “good” if it promotes Malay unity.
James Chin points out that Malaysia’s
ethnocentric Islamic discourse, obsessed with the idea of “Ketuanan Melayu”
(Malay supremacy) has now been given to a new brand of legitimacy, “Ketuanan
Islam” (Islamic supremacy) aimed at creating a Malay-Islamic state fusing
Islamic supremacy with intolerant Malay nationalism. James Chin says this
discourse is one of the prime sources rendering Malaysian Muslims, particularly
the youth, susceptible to radicalisation by Jihadist-Salafism.
The third cause: According to Mohamed Nawab
Mohamed Osman, assistant professor and Coordinator of the Malaysian programme
at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, the growth of Salafism in
Malaysia is another important factor that has an impact on the strong support
ISIS has received from some Malaysian Muslims. Salafism is a religious
orientation denoted by puritan and legalistic interpretation of the Quran. Salafist
reject interpretations of classical Muslim scholars and seek to rid Islam of
any cultural practices that are deemed innovations. The Salafis are
particularly notorious for their fervent rejection of Sufi and Shite Muslims
whom they deem as deviant. While most Salafis belong to the non-violent strand
of Salafism, ISIS subscribe to the Jihadist-Salafism strand which legitimise
the use of violence in the name of Islam. Jihadist-Salafism doctrine argues
that given the fact that most of the regimes in the Muslim world are in a state
of “Jahiliyyah” (ignorance or idolatrous condition), it is the duty of all
Muslims to rebel using violence to uphold “Hakimiyyah” (God’s sovereignty). It
must be added that the boundaries between the two Salafi ideologies are porous
and Salafis can easily slide from one group to another.
In more recent
times, UMNO itself has promoted the Salafi doctrine through the recruitment of
a number of prominent Salafi scholars including Ustaz Fathul Bari, as part of
its young ulama wing. These scholars have formed an organisation, “Pertubuhan Ilmuwan Malaysia” (ILMU). Sources
report that several senior UMNO politicians proposed the inclusion of the
Salafi ulama in an attempt to buttress UMNO’s Islamic image. It was argued that
many PAS ulama are traditionalist subscribing to the Shafie mazhab or Sufi
orientations, hence having a group of Salafis to counter their religious views
can be beneficial to UMNO as it enhances the party’s Islamic credentials and
improves its credibility with Malaysian Muslim voters.[11]
Among the
issues ILMU have focused on were:-
(a)
ILMU
discouraged Muslims from participating in the Bersih 2.0 rallies on the ground
that such demonstrations were not in line with Islamic teachings and that the
leader of Bersih is a non-Muslim woman and Islam has stipulated clearly that
leadership must be in the hands of Muslim men;
(b)
ILMU
was also instrumental in the rejection of the use of the word “Allah” in the
Malay translations of the Bible. The ILMU ulama while acknowledging that the
word has been used in the Arabic bible for many years in the Middle East,
argued that the word has never been used in the Malay bible. This they argued
is an act of disrespect against Muslims in Malaysia for the word Allah to describe
God within the context of the Christian belief of the trinity;
(c) These Salafi ulama are resolute in their defence of a
Muslim-led government to remain in power. Ustaz Fathu Bari argued that Muslims
in Malaysia cannot oppose the government since the current Prime Minister Najib
Razak is a Muslim. Any act of opposition must thus be viewed as un-Islamic.
Echoing Fathu Bari’s position, Rasul Dahri espoused that any attempt to
challenge a Muslim ruler is treason;
(d) Salafi scholars such as Al-Albani and Bin Baz have explicitly
rejected democracy because it challenges the Oneness of God. Al-Albani had even
prohibited his followers from voting or participating in elections. The view of
Rasul Dahri, one of the Salafi scholars that joined UMNO, is that democracy is
un-Islamic because it does not emanate from Islam. For him, ultimate
sovereignty lies in God’s hands and not the hands of the people, a core concept
of democracy. However, in the Malaysia context, Rasul Dahri argues that the
democratic system ensures that the government remains in the hands of Muslims.
He argues that to strengthen the position of the Muslim community, Muslims in
Malaysia must vote UMNO. This is to ensure that political power is not divided
within the Muslim community resulting in non-Muslims usurping power.
Malaysia’s
highest religious authority, the National Fatwa Council Malaysia, did not
gazette the Wahhabis as a deviant sect, but it has issued five different
statements- in 1985, 1986, 1996, 1997 and 2003- declaring Wahhabism as a sect
that must be curtailed due to its divisive nature. However, such statements did
not deter UMNO from co-opting these Salafis scholars to form the young ulama
wing within the party in 2010. The above show that the ILMU ulama dealt with
contentious issues in favour of the UMNO/BN government from an Islamic
standpoint thereby enhancing the Islamic credentials of Najib Tun Razak and
UMNO. The Salafis ulama in return are able to gain a national platform to
promote their ideology and to push the government for a stricter implementation
of their puritan form of Islamic laws.
The vast
majority of Salafis in Malaysia do not subscribe to the ISIS ideology.
Nonetheless, the mind set created by Salafism is susceptible for recruitment by
groups like ISIS.[12]
Conclusion
Trump is able
to easily tap into a groundswell of anti-Muslim fears and bigotry to issue a
profanely religiously discriminating presidential executive order because they
have been cultivated for 16 years as the central fuel driving the war on
terror. Factions from both the Republican and Democratic administrations have
devoted themselves primarily to demonizing Muslims and Islam. A government can
get away with bombing, invading and droning the same group only by constantly
demonizing and dehumanising that group. Similarly in Malaysia, UMNO and Najib
have in the course of the politicization of Islam and the co-option of Salafist
influenced Islam in order to hold on to power have sought to demonize and
dehumanised non-Malays and non-Muslims.
The end result
is that although neither Trump nor Najib/UMNO may have intended it, they have
rendered Malaysian Muslims susceptible to Jihadist-Salafism. As long as Islam
is politicised and puritan understanding of the religion is promoted, Malaysia
will see the radicalisation of more Muslims in the country.
We must not
lose sight that ISIS and the Jihadist terrorists do not represent the values of
Islam, their actions are anti-Islamic and must be condemned unreservedly. However,
fear is a natural response to the threat of terrorism, but fear-based policies
that target groups of people according to their religion, race or region of
origin are counter-productive. When political entrepreneurs fan fear and
prejudice it gives rise to racism, xenophobia and Islamophobia. In the end
there is no substitute for political will and enlightened leadership, the kind
that, instead of pandering to people’s worst instincts, appeals to their better
angels.
The danger now
is that this Muslim refugee immigration ban is merely the first step in this
heinous path and not the last. That is why it is urgent that everything be done
to denounce it, battle it and defeat it. This is why Malaysians must be
concerned about Trump’s Muslim refugee ban.
William
Leong Jee Keen
Member
of Parliament Selayang
February 9, 2017
[1] “Official: 50,000 Islamic Fighters Killed in Syria, Iraq- VOA News
December 8, 2016
[2] Countering Islamist Extremist Narratives: A Strategic Briefing”
Quilliam Foundation January 11, 2015
[3] “Trump’s Muslim Ban is Culmination of War on Terror Mentality but
Still Unique Shameful” Glen Greenwald January 28, 2017
[4] “Trump is making ISIS great again” Boston Globe Robert A Pape
January 30, 2017
[5] “Militant Islam in Malaysia: Synergy between Regional and Global
Jihadi Groups” Middle East Institute Andrin Raj SEA Regional
Director-International Association for Counterterrorism and Security. January 16,
2015
[6] “Indonesian and Malaysian Support for the Islamic State” United
States Agency for International Development by Greg Fealy and John Funston.
January 6, 2016.
[7] “The evolution of jihadist-Salafism in Indonesia, Malaysia and the
Philippines and its impact on the security in Southeast Asia” Superintendent
Craig Riviere. November 2016. Vice Chief of Defence Force. Australian defence
College
[8] “Malaysia: Clear and present danger from the Islamic State”
Brookings Institute James Chin December 16 2015
[9] “Malaysia’s ISIS conundrum” Joseph Chinyong Liow. April 21,
2015
[10] “Malaysia: Clear and present danger from the Islamic State” James
Chin December 16, 2015
[11] “Salafi Ulama in UMNO: Political Convergence or Expediency”
Contemporary Southeast Asia Vol 36, No. 2 (2014) pp 206-31. Mohamed Nawab
Mohamed Osman.
[12] “Islam, politics and violence in Malaysia” Mohd Nawab Osman 9
January 2015
