Everyone can be a martyr except Palestinians

This just might do nobody any good. This is one of those things that we're not supposed to talk about objectively because it has become a litmus test for extremism. If you hold any view on this subject that is anything less than unconditional absolute condemnation, you will immediately be categorized as a violent radical. But this categorization only applies to Muslims. I'm talking about suicide bombings.

If you're a Muslim, then you are obliged to regard suicide attacks as never understandable, never justified under any circumstances for any reason whatsoever, point blank period. There is no context that can ever rationalize suicide attacks. If you refer to them as martyrdom operations, you are an extremist who promotes violence. Case closed. This was recently reiterated by Singapore's home affairs minister, K.

Shanmugam, in his explanation for why Indonesian scholar Abdel Samad was denied entry into Singapore.

He has claimed that suicide bombing attacks are legitimate, and they are legitimate martyrdom operations. You know, this kind of support for violence, in our view, is very dangerous.

In a statement released the day after Abdul Samad was refused entry into Singapore, they said specifically so they're acknowledging that in the context of the Israeli Palestinian conflict, Abdul Samad characterized suicide attacks as martyrdom operations. But context doesn't matter if you're Muslim, because apparently if a Muslim believes something to be true in one context, he must necessarily believe that it is true in any and all contexts. Minister Shanmugam generalized Abdul Samad's contextualized opinion to infer that he supports and promotes violence across the board. Never mind the fact that Abdul Samad was actually just conveying the opinion of sheikh Yusuf al Qaradawi in which he stated that the Palestinians during the Intifada had no other weapons with which to resist Zionist occupation, and that therefore Palestinian suicide attacks should be regarded as martyrdom operations because the intention of those attackers was not to end their own lives, but to resist occupation and oppression. But never mind the context, as I said, because according to minister Sean Magam, such actions are always invalid, always outrageous, and always criminal.

And anyone who thinks otherwise is a promoter of violence who deserves to be

Behind boss.

Okay. This is going to get awkward. The three main racial groups in Singapore include the people of Nusantara. That's the people of Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, parts of The Philippines. It includes Indians and, of course, the Chinese.

But would it surprise you to know that all three of these groups not only have a history of suicide attacks, but they also get to call their suicide attackers martyrs and national heroes. Let's start with what is perhaps the earliest recorded instance of a suicide attack. This was carried out by a Tamil Indian woman in Kuili in 1780 against the British East India Company. She covered her body in ghee, ran into a colonialist armory, set herself on fire, fire, and blew it up. Now she's from Tamil Nadu, so I'm quite sure that minister Shamogam is aware of her story.

This is her memorial where she is venerated by Tamil Indians as a hero until today. So what about the people of Nusantara? Well, the Achenes, who are part of Indonesia, used suicide attacks against vicious Dutch occupation in the late nineteen hundreds, and they used the same tactics against brutal Japanese occupation in 1942. Were they heroes or villains? This is a memorial to Japanese kamikaze pilots in World War two, where busloads of tourists go every day to honor their selfless sacrifice.

Are the Filipinos or the Japanese promoting violence because they happen to view these men as martyrs? Moros in The Philippines regularly used suicide attacks against brutal Spanish occupation for three hundred years, and they used suicide attacks against bloody American occupation at the start of the twentieth century. Justified or no? Does context start to seem like it matters at all? Okay.

So what about the Chinese? Well, the Chinese basically created the original suicide vest. Using a couple dozen hand grenades per man, they would send suicide squads to attack Japanese forces throughout the Second Sino Japanese War. Prior to that, in the Xinhai Revolution, which led to the creation of the Republic Of China, Dare to Die Corps were recruited and organized by leaders such as Chiang Kai shek, with one famous incident resulting in 72 martyrs who are memorialized in this giant mausoleum in China, which is visited until today by citizens and tourists who marvel at their brave sacrifice. Dare to die squads were used to resist the communist revolution revolution and were used during the protests at Tiananmen Square.

Are these all heinous and reprehensible? Are all the Chinese who believe that these operations were justified and that those people were martyrs, are they all supporters and promoters of violence? I told you it was gonna get awkward. But, okay, let's talk about something even more recent. What about Ukrainian Vitaly Skakun who blew up a bridge along with himself in order to prevent Russian troops from accessing that bridge?

He was universally lauded across mainstream media as an incredibly courageous national hero. So with every media outlet in the world and every Ukrainian who believes that Vitalis Kakun is a martyr, are they all promoters of violence? Suicide attacks are regarded as martyrdom operations when they were carried out against Spanish occupation, Dutch occupation, Japanese occupation, American occupation, British occupation, and Russian occupation, but just not Zionist occupation. You can believe that all of these other instances were legitimate martyrdom operations because of their context, and that does not mean that you are a supporter of violence and extremism. But if you regard suicide attacks in the context of the Israeli Palestinian conflict as martyrdom operations, well, you're just a radical extremist who incites and promotes violence and terrorism.

And somehow, that is not bold faced bigotry and Islamophobia. In all historical examples of suicide attacks, they were undertaken because of an imbalance of power. Do you believe that there is no imbalance of power in the Palestinian Israeli conflict? This is what Israel has. This is what the Palestinians have.

This is the damage that the Palestinians can do, and this is the damage Israel does. And before the Palestinians had these little Qassam rockets, this is all they had. And it was at that time that al Aradawi gave his fatwa about martyrdom operations, and this is the fatwa that Abu Samad cited. This opinion applies to those people in that place, in that conflict, within that context. Just like every other suicide operation in history that is regarded as legitimate, it was not and is not a generalized view of such actions, nor is it a legitimization of violence across the board.

Now why did I make this video? Is it because I agree with suicide bombings? Now if you think that, then your bias makes you unreachable. What I'm saying is that a glaring double standard is being applied on this issue, and context is being deliberately ignored for the sole purpose of presenting an opinion as extreme or radical when it is about Palestinians or about Muslims, while that same opinion when it is applied to non Muslims results in memorials, mausoleums, and bus loads of tourists. Minister Shah Mugham said that Abdul Samad expresses divisive views.

But let me explain to you. When you apply one rule for Muslims and another rule for everybody else, that is the definition of divisive.