Dear Editor,
Odessa Primus has taken to Facebook to lecture Muslims about their faith. But her message is not about protecting Islam. It is about using Islam to demand support for Azruddin Mohamed.
She attacks Muslim leaders because they have not intervened on his behalf. She questions the faith of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Shalimar Ali-Hack, because she disagrees with a recommendation the DPP has made.
Let us ask the simple questions her post tries to avoid.
Does being Muslim mean someone should not face charges? Is the DPP there to serve only Muslims? Does sharing her religion entitle anyone to special treatment?
The answer to every question is no.
Being Muslim does not place anyone above the law. It does not give anyone a free pass. And it does not require Muslim leaders to take a politician’s side.
Azruddin Mohamed has the right to defend himself. He is entitled to the presumption of innocence and a fair hearing, but those rights belong to everyone. They do not come from his religion, his family name or his political ambitions.
Primus says she is not asking the DPP to favour Mohamed because they are both Muslims. Why, then, does she describe the DPP as someone “who should be a staunch Muslim”? Why bring her faith into a disagreement about her work?
You cannot say you are not asking for religious favours while questioning someone’s faith because she has not delivered the result you want.
If Primus believes the DPP is wrong she should explain why, using the evidence and the law. Calling a case “silly” is not an argument. Questioning the DPP’s devotion to Allah is not evidence.
The same applies to her attack on Al-Hajj Shahabudeen Ahmad, Shaikh Moeen ul-Hack and other Muslim leaders.
She asks whether they are “waiting for blood to be shed” and then quotes a Quranic passage about deliberate killing.
That is an odious allegation. Her post provides no evidence that these leaders have encouraged violence or threatened anyone. Yet she brings bloodshed into an attack on them because they have not acted as she wishes.
What exactly have they done wrong? Refused to take a political side? Failed to issue the statement she wants? Since when must religious leaders prove their faith by supporting Azruddin Mohamed?
Our leaders serve a religious community, not a political campaign. Their duty is not to turn every dispute involving a Muslim into a religious cause.
Primus also tells us that Muslims who agree with her “actually follow true Islamic teachings”.
Who gave her the right to decide which Muslims are true to their faith? Does agreement with her now determine whether a Muslim is sincere? Are our prayers to be judged by our political choices?
Muslims can support different parties, disagree about public affairs and hold different views about Mohamed. None of that gives Primus the right to question their faith.
Her final claim that this is “not an attack” changes nothing. You cannot question people’s prayers, accuse their leaders of failing God and raise the prospect of bloodshed, then pretend you didn’t attack anyone. Yes, you did.
We welcome fair criticism. Public officials must answer for their decisions. Religious leaders can also be questioned. But criticism must rest on what people have said and done, not on whether they have helped someone’s political cause.
Our message is simple: do not use Islam as a shield against scrutiny. Do not use our shared faith to demand special treatment. And do not mistake our refusal to join a political campaign for a failure of our religion.
We are Muslims. We are not political tools.