Singapore's Abdul-Somad Problem

You think this is acceptable in Singapore?

You know, I wasn't even gonna actually talk about this issue anymore until I saw this.

Kumar has publicly promoted extremist divisive teachings.

I can't not comment on this performance. Where to begin? Well, I guess the obvious first question would be, when did Samuel l Jackson become the home affairs minister for Singapore? You gonna tell me reasons? But, okay, seriously.

This is a clip from a press conference where the Singapore government tries again to give its reasons and rationales for refusing entry to a popular Indonesian Muslim preacher and scholar named Abdul Samad. Now bear in mind, this is about a week since the incident took place and about a week since Singapore first published their reasons for refusing Abdul Samad entry into Singapore. And now they're adding some new details and more information to try to make it more convincing. Most of the stuff that he's saying is the same stuff that they said at the time, but there are a few additions that deserve some comment. I'm gonna actually work backwards in this clip because the last bit is what really stood out to me more than anything else.

Some of the people that ISD has investigated in Singapore for radicalization, one of them is was a 17 year old, detained under the Internal Security Act in two years ago, January 2020. He had watched Somart's YouTube lectures, and the young boy began to believe that if you fought for ISIS and if you are a suicide bomber, you will die you can die as a martyr and receive rewards in heaven.

When I first saw this clip, this is all I heard. Singapore detained a minor without trial for a thought crime, not because he did anything, not because he committed a criminal act, but because of what was going on inside of his head. Allegedly, this child had formed the opinion that it would be virtuous for him to go and join and fight for ISIS. He didn't actually go and join ISIS or go and fight or commit any act of violence whatsoever. He just had a radical opinion as teenagers are want to do until they don't.

So according to this minister, the content of Abdul Samad was one of the things that this kid consumed online, and they've decided that that is what radicalized him. I wonder what else he might have watched. Did he ever watch Breaking Bad and think maybe it would be a cool idea to start a methamphetamine lab? But more importantly, did this kid ever watch a video of Abdul Samad saying, hey, go join ISIS and become a terrorist? Of course, didn't because there is no such video and Abdul Samad has never said that.

I mean, is it really a good idea to start holding YouTubers and content providers and anyone on the media and anyone who gives a speech, is it really a good idea to start holding them accountable for any criminal act that might be committed by someone who ever listened to them? I mean, hypothetically, what if a Singaporean decides to go and fight in Ukraine? Would Singapore ban Vladimir Zelenskyy from ever entering the country? Because he's literally urging people to volunteer and come and fight in Ukraine, and that is a crime. But Abdul Samad never urged anyone to fight.

He never urged anyone to go and join ISIS, and that kid that they arrested never fought anyone, didn't go and join ISIS, isn't a terrorist, hasn't committed a crime. He was just detained for what he used to watch online. Now still working backwards, right before minister Shammagam brings up the human rights violation committed by Singaporean authorities against a 17 year old Muslim boy, he says that Abdul Samad warned Muslims against accepting non Muslim rulers because

Non Muslims could conspire to oppress Muslims.

Ironic that. And it's particularly ironic coming from a government that has never had a Muslim Malay prime minister and has made it virtually impossible for that to ever happen precisely because they don't trust them. So if Abdul Samad said that Muslims should not accept a non Muslim ruler, well, Singapore prohibits Muslims from ever becoming rulers.

You know, if someone said this in Singapore, ISD would be visiting him or her, and they'll be behind bars.

And notice what he said here, that if anyone said that in Singapore, they would be visited by the internal security division and put in jail. He didn't say that they would be visited by the internal security division. They would be investigated, and they would be put on trial. And if found guilty convicted, they would be put in jail. He just said they'd be thrown in jail.

So in other words, what he's saying is, if you're Muslim and you say that you might be oppressed by a non Muslim government in Singapore, you will immediately be oppressed by that government. A government that enforces demographic population control so that they can ensure a Chinese majority precisely because they are afraid if there is a Malay Muslim majority, they will be oppressed. You can't make this up. Now the rest of his points are pretty petty, like about how Muslims don't wanna be around crucifixes, which as I said before, has to do with the fact that statues are forbidden in Islam, and we believe that the angels don't enter a home where there are statues. And then he's mad about Abdul Samad saying that Muslims shouldn't wish people Merry Christmas because apparently, Singapore embraces the concept of compelled speech and believes that compulsion is the key to religious harmony, not tolerance.

And then again, he's upset about the word kafir, which is really funny given the fact that we learned the word kafir from Surat Al Kafirun in the Quran, which tells us to say to non Muslims, to you your belief and to me mine. That's what genuine tolerance actually looks like. But then the other major complaint that he has against Abu Samad is that he said, suicide bombings are martyrdom operations. Now I explained this in the last video on this topic, but I'll say it again. This is a distinction that is only relevant in a religious context because it has to do with determining the intention of the person who's committing the act.

Are they intending to commit suicide, or are they intending to sacrifice their life? This distinction only matters in a religious context. But I will just point out here that there is an emerging consensus in the psychological literature that suicide bombers do not demonstrate and do not possess the psychopathologies associated with suicide, that there are a plethora of other reasons motivating them to commit these acts. And if you are at all serious about trying to prevent these kinds of acts, then you might wanna try to understand what's actually motivating them. Now unless the Singapore government can produce a video in which Abdul Samad urges his audience to commit suicide bombings, it is completely dishonest and manipulative to characterize his statement as support for terrorism or violence or anything of that sort.

So, no, sorry. This performance did not demonstrate to me that Singapore's decision was fair and just and reasonable. And to me, it still smacks of Islamophobia.