Image: The Bacchanal of the Andrians, Titian (1523-24), an illustration of hedonism

Morality can stand on its own without religion, but religion cannot stand on its own without morality. True story.

I had some time to kill so why not examine Raja Petra's recent schematic defense of Najib Razak and lambasting of non-Muslims for ridiculing the disgraced former Prime Minister and his taking the sumpah laknat at a mosque.

“By right, Najib deserves to be praised for his action, because not all would be willing to take the 'sumpah laknat' in a mosque, as he did," Raja Petra states in a video he posted on social media.

He said that the oath-taking ritual is regarded with great solemnity among Muslims, and lambasted non-Malays for making fun of it.

"While the Malays are still considerate in issues involving other races in the country, the non- Muslims clearly do not practice sensitivity when they make certain comments on religious beliefs.”

NOTE: Pathological liars, Cluster B personalities, frauds—whatever you want to call them—generally invoke religion or God to claim their innocence when they’re fucked. They exploit anything and everything that is considered good and of great influence. “I swear to God/Allah,” grabbing the Bible or Quran or other holy books to insist on their blamelessness when confronted, as though it’s verification of their imagined virtuous character, is standard of frauds. It’s a desperate remedy for those who can’t defend themselves any other way because, well, they’re fucked through and through.

Let's take an honest look at the Malays, though, since this issue is regarding Malay Muslims specifically, though it applies to Muslims in general. And when I say Malays, understand that I’m talking about those who fit the criteria mentioned below. Eg: the hypocrites who lead double lives.

I’ll start with an underrated fact: practicing a religion isn’t easy.

If it was then every follower of religion wouldn't have to try to be disciplined, rational, humble, patient, honest, courageous, dignified, etc, in varying situations, especially if they don’t instinctively possess those qualities already. Most people turn to religion for guidance, to feel a part of a group and that they’re on the right path, or so they can ensure a spot in heaven after death.

Having read the Quran in its entirety doesn’t mean much when you hear certain Muslims, and non-Muslims who haven’t studied — only read — the Quran and brag about this achievement. Religious texts aren’t meant to be read like a Dan Brown novel. Nay, they're meant to be dissected, contemplated, and applied to different contexts, supplemented with the study of philosophy and with the necessary critical thinking skills.

A full-scale liberal arts curriculum was mandatory if a student wished to study Islam at a university a hundred years ago in the Middle East and Africa. If religious texts like the Quran are read half-assedly, it becomes a dangerous book and the reader a pillock as a by-product. What was once an intensely responsible education of religion has been categorically dumbed down to the point that religious instruction at schools or even in the home are laughable, producing only hypocrites like those we read about in the media.

Listen, you read the Quran from start to finish, in Arabic, a language you don’t speak. You memorized a bunch of verses. That's a simplistic sort of feat, one that disregards the complexity of religious and moral instruction compiled sometime around 610 AD.

On top of that, the question of whether or not you’re a moral person doesn’t come down to whether or not you read a difficult book, look or sound the part, quote lines from religious texts or ancient philosophers, or made the pilgrimage to Mecca or a mosque and have the photos to prove it to everyone. Whether you’re a good person or not is not up to you to decide.

If only everything was that convenient. No one would have to try hard at anything.

Meaningful achievements are generally attained through profound discipline, sacrifice, pain, knowledge-seeking, self-awareness, not giving a fuck, humility, courage, integrity, and more often than not, seclusion. In other words, what is the opposite of the human inclination towards pleasure. Which is not the same as being unhappy, but the process, or journey towards self-improvement and becoming a high-quality person requires varying degrees of unpleasantness.

No professional athlete ever won a championship title by sitting on his ass, eating fast food, and taking selfies all day waiting for likes.

When I say meaningful achievements I don't mean material and financial success, the types of success that can also be achieved through social climbing or networking, duplicity, people-pleasing, palm-greasing, exploitation, and selling your soul — the convenient route, which is also why it's the most popular route.

I'm talking about strength of character: emotional and mental success, which is an accomplishment most people in the world never achieve, let alone endeavor to undertake. Why? See the two paragraphs above. It's hard as hell, is inconvenient, and denies that which is highly sought by many — instant self-gratification.

Think it was Immanuel Kant who once pointed out that the wrong education of religion will only produce a religion full of hypocrites. So it's no surprise then that some of the most wicked, ignorant, or unevolved people I've ever known in Malaysia were performers — those who keep up the act of portraying themselves as something they’re not, generally using the by-association method, which is utilized when they need to be seen as good, trustworthy, popular, disciplined, etc, and think everyone is dumb enough to fall for it, or are blind to their true character.

It’s not difficult to spot phonies — they’re the ones who’re generally the first to preach to others about God, reference religious texts, and offer advice on how to be good people but get angry when they have their contradictory behavior pointed out to them.

The idea that your character and actions will always eclipse your visual and aural presentation confuses two-faced types. Their minds can’t comprehend that a person can be authentic and autonomous, and it enrages them that a person must put in the hard work to be principled and respectable. They’re one dimensional, so assume that everyone else is too. Words are meaningless to them which is why their actions can’t validate any of the crap that comes out of their mouths.

So when you misuse the values you profess to abide by, especially when utilizing said values when it can conveniently benefit you, your ethnic race, and culture and the double life you're living communicates to others your utter lack of respect not just for your own beliefs and religion, but your self.

Anthony Burgess, who taught at Malay College Kuala Kangsar in British-occupied Malaya once stated that he had considered converting to Islam upon witnessing how liberal the Malays were in regards to practicing their religion, as they made being a Muslim seem like something not to be taken seriously.

It has to be said that when the subject of religion arises it should be approached through specific lenses, depending on the context. Because context matters. And as already mentioned, character. I borrow this phrase a lot, but it is the character-impaired age—we spend less and less time paying attention to people’s character and more on their presentation—that which is the veneer that conceals a person’s true self. Performing is what inauthentic people do best, and the audience is eager to buy whatever is being sold to them, especially when it comes to celebrities and other people with status.

Understand something about people who put themselves in the public eye: Many of them are narcissists, which is why they’re in positions of power or influence, in showbiz or selling you something. Many of them are attention-seekers, willing to do almost anything for easy recognition.

Emotions come into play as well.

Emotion trumps reason for most people. People are generally fueled by their emotions unless you’re a practitioner of Stoicism, which you most likely aren’t, so our judgment becomes clouded and we stop being real with ourselves and each other. We like what we see and hear and how it makes us feel, thus all other factors become secondary, including enforcing high standards for ourselves and others.

We should be able to ask in certain contexts, such as ones involving corrupt, greedy, two-faced politicians and others who crave the spotlight, why questioning their misuse of religion is off-limits when they’re the worst representatives of that religion and its guidelines, of which they themselves see as an impediment to their personal desires, as evidenced by their lifestyles and pursuits.

Rais Yatim recently urged the Malays to start wearing the songkok to preserve the Malay identity and culture. “It is not about wearing beautiful Malay attire, but a way of life and we want to create high standards for ourselves,” he said. I don’t know how a Malay guy wearing the songkok equates to high standards in a society where people, including leaders, protect the incredibly low standards that makes Malaysia so dysfunctional and corrupt so that no one gets it in their heads that they should try harder.

Maybe Rais Yatim’s intentions are good, but the question of identity and having high standards is more abstract than what we wear to depict something many people don’t understand, or reject because having high standards requires inconvenience. It reminds me of some Malay boys I knew from high school who, lacking any self-awareness or what would be considered good, respectable qualities, would pompously advise me to wear a hijab and dress more like a “good Muslim.” I always thought it was hilarious, knowing all I knew about them and their true characters.

One-dimensional people are, it goes without saying, shallow thinkers. They’re concerned with physical representation—they’ve learned that that’s how you deceive others when putting in the hard work to be authentic is too tedious—so appearances are all that really matter. As long as you look pleasing to them, you’re good. Put a hijab on, wear a taqiyah, memorize the Quran, and brag about those yearly pilgrimages to Mecca—you can be a demonic, hypocritical cunt all you want without judgment. Just appear good. Easiest route in the world when you have no understanding of morality, only religious practice.

Easiest route in the world when you have no understanding of your own identity.

But what is “Malay identity”, anyway? Define “high standards.” What does that entail in Malaysia, a country where words have lost all meaning and are redefined for the convenience of those who like shortcuts? Those who put in a minimal amount of effort but expect maximum profits. How important is it to teach strong religious and collectivist Asian values, since many Malays are abusive, two-faced, selfish, arrogant, ignorant, entitled, envious, passive-aggressive, and lack principles, even as they pray, preach about being good people, or project a specific image, while weirdly complacent with their comically low standards?

Raja Petra’s facile lecturing about how the former Prime Minister should be praised for doing something that doesn’t align with what the public can observe as his or his family’s overall lifestyle and character is comical.

Don’t fuck around with meaning and established methods that are universally observed. Start living in the real world and understand that those who hold themselves to high standards will be treated with high standards by people with high standards, and those who don’t, won’t.