My Opinion on the Recent Interfaith Dialogue

Malaysiakini had an entry titled : Bar Council's forum: More shelling for police, protesters . This is the excerpt :

Twelve non-governmental organisations today signed a joint statement, denouncing the high-handed action taken by Muslim protestors and the police to stop an open discussion on legal issues related to the conversion to Islam.

The blogger Kaytee posted some notable comments on the issue ( Who had insulted Islam? ) .

This is not the first time that a public forum revolving around Interfaith dialogue is disrupted with similar protests or rough approach.

As a Malaysian, I am quite disappointed with the outcome although such happening is not really unexpected. This incident makes me think for a while before writing. I was trying to decipher and analyse the implicit cause of such response from particular Muslims.

On the subject at hand, indeed the theme "Conversion to Islam" is sensitive but does that mean it should not be brought up as a public discussion? I think it should, considering the fact that Islam is the official religion of the nation and every citizen would be affected (directly or/and indirectly) by that.

Furthermore, over the years there are unpleasant cases of body-snatching, Lina Joy among others causing confusion and disagreements among Malaysians. The best attempt to iron all these out is to hold discussions for both sides of the party (Muslims and non-Muslims) to table their opinion, questions, priorities and maybe, voice out their dilemmas.

Issues as described above can only be solved when both sides of the parties get to know what each other are thinking. A common understanding can only be formulated if all factors are taken into account. Without discussion, none of these are achievable.

A dialogue does not instantly promise a solution but it does indeed help in getting more minds to think and therefore, the possibility of achieving an agreable amicable solution is higher and perhaps quicker. It is a long journey but more brains create greater synergy.

Why can't Malaysians see the dialogue this way? Why can't Malaysians look further and be far-sighted?

Religion/faith is a sensitive issue to all. It touches the core of one's soul and more often than not emotions run deep. But, in order to sort out related issues emotion has to be temporarily put aside.

Besides, a dialogue should not be literally seen as negatively "challenging" one's religion. It should be viewed in the positive light of promoting inter-religious tolerance, inculcating understanding and sorting out problems.

Reading news like Molotov cocktail scare and No, this 'Babi' will Not 'Balik Cina' are disappointing. Interfaith dialogue has nothing to do with race, animals or China. It absolutely has nothing to do with violence.

Perhaps, all Malaysians should try to comprehend this phrase "I may not agree with what you have said but I will defend your right to say it".

Anyway, Blogger Kickdefella said there could be some other people who is behind this in his latest post. That makes me curious when I think of it ... Could it be? Must really read and analyse....

Positive News : Top Web Sites and World Heritage Sites

Malaysiakini is No 1 news site
Alexa ranked the paid news site Malaysiakini recently. This is a positive development not only for Malaysiakini itself, but on the other fact : Malaysian netizens are plausibly more aware of socio-political developments in the nation post-PRU12.

Perhaps, with news reporting which is done on a fairer measure than mainstream media, inclusion of Malaysian blogrolls, publications of letters from readers and exclusive videos on various happenings across the nation make this a must-visit site.

Other news websites to make it into the top 50 are The Star (16), Utusan Malaysia (18), Berita Harian (30), Malaysia Today (31), Harian Metro (34) and Harakah Daily (36).

I am not too happy that Malaysia Today ( http://www.malaysia-today.net/ ) only made it at no 31. I expected it to be higher in the list (meaning more visitors). However, for an independent site that runs on limited funding, it is a high achievement by itself. I have been a follower since its inception. Congratulations to Raja Petra and Malaysia Today commenters for making it happen. News coupled with public opinion does matter.

Personally, I do not really like politics, similar with many Malaysians but I feel it is unavoidable. Where there is human, there is politics. One can be ignorant if one is not affected by politics. Judging by the current situation the nation is in, the national political situation must be paid attention. It is at a critical stage where economy and livelihood of Malaysians are affected. By being knowledgeable of what is happening in the country, one can educate people who are less aware.

Note : Anyone wondering where NST stands ? Goodness gracious, I shouldn't have asked.

Youtube is no 4 and Blogger is no 5 (most visited sites)
Having an opinion is one thing but it is only through education and pro-active actions, the national situation may improve. Perhaps, that is why Blogger ranked no 5. Blogging is a form of pro-active action although it is not necessarily enough to turn things around.

Lately, The Sun reported : Abdullah hits out at slander and lies spread in cyberspace. It is not necessar to waste time to make too much out of what he said. There is nothing really significant or nothing that has never been said before. An excerpt from the words of All Blogs president Ahirudin Attan of Rocky's Bru ( http://rockybru.blogspot.com/ ) explains it all ...

In an immediate reaction, National Bloggers Alliance pro tem president and National Press Club adviser Ahirudin Attan, who blogs as Rocky's Bru, urged Abdullah and other leaders to look at the positive side of blogging.

"Labelling blogs as something negative is going back to the stone-age, because we have been through this before," he said.

Indeed .. and indeed Youtube is no 4 and Blogger is no 5 in the World Wide Web of the Information age by Malaysian standards. Further, on negative perceptions ....

Ahirudin said the government should not accuse bloggers of attempting to create negative perceptions through their postings, but should instead act on slanderous and defamatory accusations.

“Just like there are good cops and bad cops, good politicians and bad politicians, there are good blogs and bad blogs,” said Ahirudin.

Ahiruddin, the former editor of the Malay Mail, said that politicians were to blame as well “because they are the ones who give out statements”.

A blog is just a medium for discussing issues affecting the people, adding that the traditional media were also reporting the same thing, said Ahirudin ....

Georgetown, Malacca win world heritage status
Finally, after all these years.

Did anyone care to notice there are some unique similarities?

These towns are the result of the elements of pluralism. Multi-cultural, multi-religious, multi-ethnic. It is hard for one to find places in the world that house Islamic Mosques of Malay-Pakistani-Indian designs, Christian/Catholic churches, Buddhist-Taoist-Confucian/Siamese/Burmese based temples, Hindu temples very near to each other.

In Malacca, one can see designs of Malay, Chinese, Indian, Dutch, Portuguese, English and Nyonya buildings in one place. People of different faith and religion live in various settlements and make their living peacefully in the town.

How could that be achievable? That is a question Malaysians should ask themselves. I can think of one for now.... Mutual respect. It's time to celebrate.

Babi-Buta and Pig Farms

I can't help it but laugh after reading something about Membabi Buta in Aisehman's page. It is related to Pig farm fiasco: S’gor gov’t reveals photos in Malaysiakini . Read the links above for more information.

Perhaps, in all matters which may or may not be related above, we should not oppose something for the sake of opposing as someone once said. We should investigate first, especially whether we have done anything earlier that may be affected by what we are currently opposing. It is not wise for one to be seen by others to be opposing oneself by an initial intention to oppose others. Read the links above for more information.

If I were to say that the construction of pig farms in Selangor will not affect anyone, it would be false. However, the most important element would be to do the best to ensure the surrounding areas unaffected by the faeces or remains of the pigs. Pollution should be kept at a minimum.

Now, should the government and people ensure pollution is avoided only in pig farms? What about duck farms, chicken farms or any other type of farms?

If there is any new project concerning any type of farm, pollution should also be kept at a minimum. That should not be limited only to pig farms. I am sure most religions and races place cleanliness as an important element. Therefore, we should not see the potential pollution issue limited only to Muslims but Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs and so on so forth as well. It affects all and sundry.

I personally see the consolidating of various smaller pig farms scattered across Selangor into one location as suggested will potentially minimise pollution provided the consolidated major pig farm is managed properly. Having one major farm would be easier to exert control if there are pig diseases and such. For your information, animal diseases are not only limited to pigs.

Since the State government led by Pakatan Rakyat had made a promise on this, I call for all citizens to give them a chance. Citizens should see whether the promise is delivered in time. If all else fails, I am sure everybody would know the right thing to do come PRU13 or beyond. I think we should view this issue objectively.

After Fitna , New Movie Schism ?

I was checking out Malaysiakini and chanced upon a shocking blog entry.

Reading the blog, I proceed immediately googled for the movie. I found the 9 minutes plus movie titled Schism in Youtube . Spiegel Online International reports Saudi Blogger Releases Christian Version of 'Fitna' .

Accordingly, Schism is the reply to the movie Fitna. For those seeking more information on Fitna, I have posted an entry before, titled Controversial Fitna and The Boycott on Dutch . Geert Wilders' Fitna sparked a massive outcry worldwide. There were demonstrations and call for boycotts on Dutch products in Islamic nations. It is ironic that I have to thank God because Malaysian Muslims are more civil in voicing their dissatisfaction.

The author of Schism is Raed Al-Saeed. In the same fashion of Fitna, the movie quotes the Bible text instead of Quran. The verses are then related with scenes of violence. Among the things mentioned are the Srebrenica incident , Ku Klux Klan , the Jonestown massive death tragedy in Guyana and boys being beaten by soldiers. The most prominent feature is a female speaking in TV comparing "Islamic terrorists with Nazi war-machines". Immediately, an old clip depicted Nazi troops reciting "I Swear By God this holy oath" is shown.

Towards the end, the screen image describes: "It is easy to take parts of any Holy (sic) book that are out of content (sic) and make it sound like the most inhuman book ever written. That is what Geert Wilders did to gather more supporters to his hateful ideology. To create schism". The images of this movie is as disturbing as Fitna's

There are a few things going on my mind after watching Schism :

1) If this movie is created by a Saudi blogger, would Malaysian officials or/and Malaysian Muslim common citizens call for a boycott on Saudi goods in the fashion of calling for a boycott on Dutch goods after Fitna ?

2) Will Christians respond to this criticism by launching big demonstrations worldwide in the fashion of certain Islamic nations after Fitna ?

3) Will Christians condemn this movie as a misrepresentation of Christianity and the people who promoted violence in it?

I hope there will be no boycotts and demonstrations and I advise those who plan to do so to drop the plans. I shall be posting another entry on my opinion and related observation on both movies.

P.S. Wondering when will others start posting movies on Buddhism, Taoism, the Jewish religion and Hinduism. That would certainly be interesting... Is that an evil thought? Well, that really depends on each individual's perspective. All religious institutions, no matter how supreme one thinks it is, must not be free from criticism.

Controversial Fitna and The Boycott on Dutch

Worldfutures.info published Mahathir: Boycott Dutch products but what not Coca Cola . Malaysia Today republished it with comments from its readers. Malaysiakini should have its own entry as well.

Accordingly, our ex-Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir called for a boycott on Dutch / Netherlands products in protest over the film titled Fitna .

For those not in the know, Fitna is created by Dutch legislator Geert Wilders. It is a 15 minutes short movie that cited verses from Quran, matching them with video clips of shocking statements from radical clerics. Furthermore, among the images being displayed are the Sept 11 attack on the United States, the 2004 commuter train bombings in Spain and the murder later that year of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh on an Amsterdam street. Related controversial headlines of newspaper cuttings from European nations are in the film as well.

For more information on the movie, please visit the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitna_(film) in wikipedia.

It is not a movie for the faint-hearted and certainly it does not do justice for Islam as a possible religion of peace. However, bear in mind that the images and speeches are real. It should not be dismissed that certain Dutch people may be concerned with what is happening around the world concerning certain (not all) practitioners of Islam.

I think calling for boycott of this movie and Dutch products will not bring in any good results. It is as if subconsciously "indirectly" giving support to the film. I personally think it is not the problem with the religion Islam. It is the actions of certain (not all) Muslims that should not be agreed upon.

I think the Muslims should condemn this movie and casting it as a misrepresentation of Islam. Certain people preaching in the video who called for any form of violence should be condemned as well.

I think using this method, the religion's way can be made to be understood better.

In my opinion, any form of religion has its share of violent content and means to justify or achieve certain ends. If you choose peace, you get peace. Violence begets violence.

It is not only Malaysia that needs change. The method of Muslims on handling such criticism should change as well. It may be a long journey but perhaps it is high time to start now.

Weeping for a Merdeka State or Islamic State?

Oh dear! This is what I found in Malaysiakini regarding the Malaysian Government response towards the media after the sudden infamous statement ‘This is an Islamic state : Najib’ :

‘Malaysia is an Islamic state and not a secular one’
‘Islam is the official religion and we are an Islamic state’
‘We have never been secular…’

Jeff Ooi and Haris Ibrahim (of The People's Parliament) have given proof (with black and white) to prove Najib's statements as unfounded and false. MCA said "We are a secular nation", Non-governmental Groups is standing on the same ground . Malaysia Is Not What Najib Claimed to be.


With that, Ministry bans Islamic state debate in media (from Malaysiakini)
The Internal Security Ministry has confirmed that they have given a directive to all mainstream media not to publish any news on the issue of Malaysia being an Islamic state.
-> Sensitive, can cause tension
-> No negative reactions


This directive says so much about the freedom of speech in Malaysia.
___________________________________________

There are 8 questions I would like to pose to the Internal Security Ministry:

1) If discussions by the media would be considered "sensitive, can cause tension", why did Najib issue such "sensitive, can cause tension" remark in the first place?

2) Why was Najib allowed to spout such remarks but the media are not given the same permission?

3) What is Najib trying to do? Is he trying to uphold the Constitution as created by his father Tun Abdul Razak, Tunku Abdul Rahman with the support of Tun Hussein Onn or go against it? Tunku, the Father of Independence had said in 1983 that Malaysia has always been a secular state with Islam as the official religion.

4) Information Minister, Zainuddin Maidin has periodically reminded media practitioners to respect the Malaysian social contract. Why is Zainuddin mum over this social contract issue?

Link: http://bernama.com/bernama/v3/news.php?id=263361

This is the remark passed by Zainuddin Maidin as reported by Bernama:
"Lately, I found that most of the (political) bloggers have the tendency to question the basis of the social contract which had been agreed upon by our forefathers," he said."

Why didn't Zainuddin Maidin remind Najib to "respect the status quo of the social contract which became the pillar of this nation."

5) If Najib thinks his claim is true, why did he not produce any supporting documents or thorough analysis on the issue when challenged?

6) Is Malaysia a merdeka state / freedom state? Does merdeka / freedom include freedom to speak and freedom to discuss and a free media? If not, what constitutes of merdeka?

7) Are there double standards on who should be banned, reminded or allowed to speak?

8) Does Najib have any hidden intention by bringing up an issue which has been solved aeons ago?

Tranungkite has the Malay version of the news. Even, the Muslims are ready for this dialogue.

Bobjots posted an interesting story Opposition representative Lim Guan Eng shared at a forum. :

The Thai media, Indonesian media and Malaysian media decided to ask God how to bring about media freedom.

After meeting God, the Thai media came out in tears lamenting how difficult it was to do so. The Indonesian media met God and came out in tears as well.

When the Malaysian media went for his audience with God, God saw who was coming ...

AND GOD WEPT!



Sad but true.

First it was wrongful arrest of Nathaniel Tan , and now this "strange" directive...

I can't hold back my tears. Now, I am weeping too ..... (while listening to Philip Glass's Violin Concerto - 1st Movement)

MCA Stressed: Malaysia Is Not What Najib Claimed

I happen to chance upon this BM article in Malaysiakini:

Malaysia sebuah negara sekular, kata MCA
Jul 18, 07 7:40pm
MCA menegaskan bahawa semua dokumen sejarah berhubung pembentukan perlembagaan persekutuan dan penubuhan sebuah negara yang merdeka menunjukkan bahawa Malaysia adalah sebuah negara sekular.....

Translation:
MCA stressed that all historic documents regarding the formation of the Malaysian Constitution and the creation of this independent country has proved that Malaysia is a secular state.

There was an issue with this a few years back with some leaders who spoke like Najib. All of a sudden, he claimed Malaysia is an Islamic State in public. His intention of such unexpected utterance is unclear. Malaysian readers can pass their own judgment on our current Deputy Prime Minister. After all, politics in Malaysia mainly runs on the concept of race and religion.

MCA was responding to these statements in a Malaysiakini report entitled ‘This is an Islamic state : Najib’ :
‘Malaysia is an Islamic state and not a secular one’
‘Islam is the official religion and we are an Islamic state’
‘We have never been secular…’

Jeff Ooi and Haris Ibrahim produced important points and old newspaper cuttings with statements from Malaysia previous statesmen, Tunku Abdul Rahman (who created the Constitution with other members of the independence committee) and Tun Hussein Onn.

The ex-Prime Ministers statements prove that Malaysia is an Islamic country (with Islam as an official religion) but not an Islamic State. In fact, Tunku was so concerned that he made a direct plead to the government to refrain from making Malaysia an Islamic state !

This is his exact statements:
‘The country has a multi-racial population with various beliefs. Malaysia must continue as a secular State with Islam as the official religion’.

Tunku was seconded by Tun Hussein Onn. It is definitely ironic that Najib's father, the late Tun Abdul Razak, who is also an ex-Prime Minister, participated in the 1956 delegation to London for independence of Malaysia. The British colonialists only allowed Malaysia to be free after the Constitution has been agreed by representatives from all races and both countries.

The message by Tunku was very clear. The words used are free from any ambiguity.

An important point that should be highlighted; Finally, MCA has taken the initiative to speak up. Somehow or rather, this action can be considered good. As the proverb goes, "It is better late than never". Currently, the general perception on MCA is not very positive. In the past, MCA had tolerated brandishing of keris with calls of "bathing in blood" in UMNO meetings even though the chinese community was obviously upset. It was a blunder to the credibility of MCA as a representative of Malaysian Chinese.

MCA should opt for persistency in speaking up against injustice and correcting wrong statements from BN component parties if there is an intention for the association to garner support from the grassroots.

I am comfortable with Malaysia being an Islamic country with certain Islamic family laws with the nature of a secular state. After all, Islam is a good religion if practitioners choose to practise the peaceful verses of Qur'an.

Islamic state equals to countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia. For the very least, that is what people all over the world and the mentioned countries thought of as Islamic states. In my opinion, Saudi Arabia looks more like a Medieval Arab State (pre-Islam). Perhaps they should not use the name of the religion as a label for their ultra-suppressive governance. Saudi Arabia does not allow any religion other than Islam to be practised.

Saudi Arabians come from the Wahhabi sect of Islam. Iranians are Shiah / Syiah Muslims (or Shiites).

Malaysian Muslims practise the Sunni version of Islam.

One of the "Prinsip Rukunegara" in Malaysia is "Keluhuran Perlembagaan". Translated, it means "Uphold and respect the Constitution". The same line can be seen at the back of a Sekolah Kebangsaan exercise book. Both primary and secondary school students are being taught to recite this at least once a week in general assemblies.


(Picture taken from Jeff Ooi )

Perhaps, Malaysians of various race and religion should just do that and everyone can live in peace and prosperity.

Officers Fumed with Steam Over "Unclean" Girl

Still recovering from a shock from an incident reported in Malaysiakini, I chanced upon this article in The Star. Marina has an entry titled "Raid First, Talk Later". Rocky Bru's entry is "Why you shouldn't go sleeveless in an entertainment outlet". Sean-the-man posted an entry, comparing the entertainment outlet singer with various Malaysian artistes.

My comments in Purple.

Singer held over dressing


IPOH: The Perak Religious Department (JAIP) has ordered a singer to appear before the Syariah Court for “exposing her body” during a performance and “encouraging immoral activities”.

Goodness, that is overdressing? I mean, seriously. I think that is a decent dress which is not too showy of "anything". What were these people thinking anyway? Do people simply get over-erected, ermmm.. over-excited just by looking at a woman's shoulder and just a tiny patch of flesh at the back? This is scary. Besides, the word "exposing her body" is so subjective. I mean the face and hands are part of the body, right? Skin is part of the body, right? Are they expecting the women in Malaysia to "cover up" like Afghan women under Taliban?

Wow, that doesn't look human to me. It looks like "how a person dresses after a nuclear holocaust". You know, that type of suit that can avoid nuclear radiation. Now, let Lil'Kim show you what is "exposing your body". Let Lil'Kim show you how you can even do it with a burqa. Way to go Lil'Kim !



However, an indignant Siti Noor Idayu Abd Moin, 22, said she was wearing a sleeveless top and long pants when JAIP officers raided an entertainment outlet in Sunway City where she was performing on Tuesday.

Entertainer: Siti Noor Idayu was dressed in a white, sleeveless, top and long black pants when the officers from the religious department raided the entertainment outlet in Ipoh and detained her on Tuesday.

Bear in mind that in these two paragraphs the writer mentioned Siti's dress twice. Why? Perhaps the writer could not believe what is happening either.

“Our band had just finished and it was a little past midnight when they came in and rounded up all the Muslims.

“They asked to see our MyKad but one officer refused to touch the cards, referring to them as najis (unclean),” she said.

It is immoral to say someone is unclean before one is sure whether she has committed any offense. Furthermore, using such words towards another is downright rude.

Siti Noor Idayu said the JAIP officers later detained seven people, including four employees of the outlet, and brought them to the department office.

“They put us in a tiny room and turned up the air-conditioner. I heard one officer tell the other: Bekulah dia orang (Let them freeze),” she said.

It is immoral to torture a person you have caught.

Siti Noor Idayu also said the male officers kept taking photographs of her, adding that she was made to stay overnight in that room until 10am.

It is immoral to frantically take pictures of a female without her consent (violation of human rights) or detain a person overnight when she has not been proven guilty of anything.

She said the officer who finally came to record her statement at 8am, accused her of consuming alcohol and drugs, being involved in immoral activities, and that her MyKad was a fake.

“I took the breathalyser test twice and when the reading remained at zero, the officers looked frustrated.

“I heard one tell the other: Tapi dia tak minum lah (But she did not drink),” she said.

It is immoral and unlawful to accuse someone of something she didn't do. One is innocent until proven guilty, not the other way round. Furthermore, the JAIP officers did not state what are the "immoral activities" committed. For all we know, the harsh treatment by this bunch of JAIP officers are immoral and possibly unlawful.

Siti Noor Idayu said an officer even told her that the money she earned working in the outlet was duit haram (illicit money) and that her parents, children and future generations would all be tainted for using such money.

Why? I mean, she is not a stripper. She is not a drug dealer/pusher. Furthermore, the government of State and Country gets the expensive taxes paid by these so called "illicit" entertainment outlets.

There was a pay raise for government officers this year. So, where does government officers like JAIP get their money from? From taxes paid by the private sector. Ironic, really ironic.

Entertainment outlets are part of the private sector. Did someone mention about "generations tainted by illicit money"? "Tainted" people cannot become religious moral officers. Did I say anything wrong with that?

“They finally wrote me a notice accusing me of dressing sexily and encouraging immorality just because I sang there,” she said.

The notice ordered her to appear before the Syariah Court here on Aug 6.

When contacted, JAIP director Datuk Jamry Sury said he was confident that his officers had not acted outside of their jurisdiction in issuing the notice.

“According to Islamic laws, a Muslim woman is not allowed to serve or entertain a man who is not her husband in a place where immoral activities usually take place,” he said.

Ohh really?! That is Islamic law? Are you sure about this, Jamry? Perhaps, JAIP director can launch a so-called "moral" task force. Is Siti Nurhaliza, the most popular singer in Malaysia liable? Don't forget to take Ella, Ning Baizura, Aishah, Ziana Zain, Sheila Majid and Noraniza Idris into consideration. I mean, they do perform in the presence of men who are not their husbands.

Furthermore, what constitutes a "place where immoral activities usually take place"? I have heard some unmarried people like to make out in the toilet, public gardens and even lecture rooms. This is such a subjective matter. If that's the case, JAIP might as well say "women cannot perform" and tie it with Islam.

Is that really Islam? From what I recall, Prophet Muhammad intended to save women from suppression, not the other way round.

Is public speaking or being a stand up comedienne a form of entertainment? Then, the women cannot be allowed to speak. Oh my, I do not know what to say.

Perhaps, JAIP and certain MPs in the Parliament can stop being sexist and treat the women with more respect. They have to understand that they come to this world from a women's womb. Without the female sexual organ, they will not be able to be created.

Nuff said...

Abolish the Criteria of Race and also Religion in Forms

Jeff Ooi spoke in the 'Re-thinking Malaysia: Media and Civil Society' public forum co-organised by organised by Youth For Change (Y4C) and National Young Lawyers Committee (NYLC), Bar Council.

In his Merdeka 1234 blog entry, it was suggested that forms requiring the entry of ( 1 ) for Malay; ( 2 ) for Chinese; ( 3 ) for Indian; and ( 4 ) Lain-lain for the field of "Race" to be abolished.

I am living in this country which is governed almost entirely based on racial structures. Everything; From the areas of business to education runs from the racial aspect.

As a Malaysian, I am no stranger to racism or in its slightly more polite form racialism. I definitely welcome this move. As you can see, for these past few years, racism has been rampant. There had been the infamous racial incident in Kampong Medan, May 13 threats in meetings, cries of "Supremacy", racist demands in job application etc. etc. Rude and racist statements are also prevalent in the websphere. There are those who call the other race as "pigs" and names which do not belong to the "nice" category.

When I refer to racists, bear in mind that it encompasses all Malaysians, be it Malay, Chinese, Indian and everything in between. I do believe, every single Malaysian has been one way or another do or say something racist once in our life. It is high time for us to change our third-world mentality.

We are now drilling into the weakness of racism rather than capitalising on the strength of multi-culturalism. I agree with Omega Lee who wrote a letter by the title of "Malay-Chinese antagonism won’t serve either side" to Malaysiakini. That is why the economic growth of our country is not exactly good. Foreign investors are shunning our country. Thierry Rommel, the European Union envoy commented on the discrimination policies in Malaysia.

These days, discrimination is not only limited to race. If it's possible, in addition to the original idea, I would like to suggest the abolishment of the "religion" category from all forms as well.

There is no doubt, calls to abolish aspects detrimental to national unity is great. This is not the first time such ideas are tabled and discussed. They sound good in theory but how are these organisations planning to put it into practice?

Still, we are required to fill in our "race" and "religion" in almost all forms nationwide. Failure to comply would mean we are rejected from participating in any events, dismissed from memberships, denied entries into institutions or unable to update our passports, bank books and ICs.

Are Malaysians ready to go through "hell" for that?

Perhaps, these are the main issues that should be addressed. Otherwise, it will all be talk and no concrete plan for effective execution and Malaysia will return to square one.

Carmen bin Laden and Tribal Practices

In the Malaysia Today article, Understanding the Malay-Muslim mind, Raja Petra described about the Wahhabi sect practised by Saudi Arabia, which houses the holy land of Mecca and Medina.

It was said that Saud is a tribe who fought the way into the establismenf of its Saudi kingdom. These days, Muslims all over the world are returning to the roots of their religion and seem to get the idea that practices in Saudi Arabia reflects the true way of Islam. Ironically, a big number of the Muslims come from the Sunni sect.

Actually, the practices of Saudi Arabia is more tribal than Islamic in nature.

I have made two essential highlights and made additional comments on it based on a book I read about Carmen bin Laden, the ex-sister-in-law of the Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

HIGHLIGHT 1:
Abdul Aziz then declared Wahhabi the official religion of the land and all other religions and other versions of Islam were banned.

HIGHLIGHT 2:
Tolerance was not on the agenda as what Abdul Aziz said, “The Arabs understand two things only; the Word of Allah and the sword.”

COMMENT:
Perhaps that is why the West always view Islam in the way that Abdul Aziz mentioned (The holy book and the sword thing). You see, my father and his friends mentioned to me that they were taught to brand Islam that way.

My father mentioned to me that it was mentioned to them that the third World War may arise from the basis of religious differences, which could be somehow true.

For more information on medieval Saudi Arabian practices, please read the book below.

-----------------------------
CARMEN BIN LADIN
Inside the Kingdom: My Life in SAUDI ARABIA(Hardcover)
-----------------------------

Link: http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Kingdom-Life-Saudi-Arabia/dp/0446577081

I got mine from MPH Mid-Valley. Even Carmen (originally an Iranian Muslim) was culture-shocked with the MEDIEVAL practices adopted by Saudi Arabia. It took her 14 years to get herself and her daughters out of the country albeit legally.

If you read the book, you will certainly feel very sad, women does not even get a right to their own name. Her mother-in-law's name is Om Yeslam. Mothers use the names of their first son on his puberty. Women are placed in harem arrangements in the house. They are not supposed to move out of the house. If they were to go somewhere, they had to be driven in a car fully clothed in a burqa, which covers the face as well. The surroundings must be 100% made clear of men. All this are done as if the women are seriously diseased; avoid at all cost. Quarantined as sex slaves meant for breeding and full enjoyment of the husband.

Please don't tell me this is the true Islam. Islam is not about suppression of women. This is the Saudi Arabia version, which I detest and protest against.

She mentioned that Arabians are very uptight (most of the time very unreasonable) in their own Saudi Arabia. Once they got out of Saudi Arabia, it is freedom. Women dress without head scarves. In fact, if they are in America, they wear jeans and act like any average American. Woman and man can shake hands.

In matters of personal opinion, I do not think Wahhabi represents the so-called true version of Islam. Muslims around the world somehow have this idea because Saudi Arabia is where the holy cities, Mecca and Medina resides.

So, by simple logic, most Muslims assume the practice that come from the people who lives in the place where they perform the hajj should be the purest. It's definitely not true.

The best way is to learn the religion by referring the Qur'an all by yourself. Do not be controlled or misled by other people.

Islam is OK but please "Say No to Saudi Arabisation" or "Wahhabi-ism"

I will uncover more details from the book in my upcoming blog postings.

Lina Joy Case: Disappointments on Muslims, Non-Muslims and Opposition

The Perspectives of Muslims and Non-Muslims

For the past few days I have not been posting to my blog for a few reasons. I am running out of ideas and lazy. Despite the fact that there are lots of articles on Lina Joy, I do not feel like writing about it initially.

For those not in the know, Lina Joy, whose original name is Azlina Jailani wants to leave Islam by removing the name of that religion from her IC. It is a case of its first kind in Malaysia. Highly controversial. She wants to change it to Christian and get married with her Indian Christian boyfriend.

The case was debated for years and finally came to an expected official conclusion. The Civil Court transferred the responsibility to Syariah court with a 2 to 1 majority.

After all, I do feel disappointed because of the case. Why disappointed you may ask?

The Non-Muslims will probably think I am disappointed because Lina Joy did not get her wish fulfilled of removing the name "Islam" from her IC. Some may assume I do not like that Islamic laws had been regarded as on-par or probably higher than the civil court. Another possibility would be the status of religious freedom in Malaysia. It would look as if Islam is a one-way-ticket religion. Metaphorically, it is like you can "check out" many times but you can never leave the "hotel".

The Muslims will guess that I am disappointed with the Non-Muslims remarks from all over the world. Of course, it is not something new for Europeans or Americans to write "damaging" remarks towards Islam. The disappointment may be caused by certain Non-Muslims Malaysians bashing Islam although the Civil Court did not rule that Lina Joy "cannot" change the status in the IC. The responsibility was shifted to the Islamic Syariah court. "Why can't the Islamic court rule over and judge issues regarding to Islam?" , one may ask. After all, it was enshrouded within the Malaysian Constitution since inception stating Islam has a special place in the heart of the administration.

All in all, there may be some truths in any of the points of view from both sides. I find it pointless to analyse the points one by one. It would be like a "Chicken and Egg story". Which one comes first? The Chicken or The Egg?

For instance, certain Muslims argue that Islamic laws were implemented before European colonials come to Malaysia. This makes Syariah court valid. Other Muslims and Non-Muslims supporting freedom of choosing religion claims such court was only created by colonials to divide the nation. By logic, it is easier to rule over a nation with divided people. I do agree with this statement. After all, Europeans ruled here for centuries.

The Malacca Sultanate has ended centuries ago. We are in Malaysia now, why can't we implement laws that would be fair to all? Isn't Malaysia descended from ancient Malacca Sultanate? Why can't we implement a law that had already existed when Malay ancestors toil the earth? The chicken or the egg comes first?

Lina Joy's Case Divided The People

Returning to the original question of "why I am disappointed?". It is not resulted from any of the points above. My deep disappointment comes from the fact that Malaysians can be easily divided. Bring in any issues regarding race and religion and voila, you can see the effect immediately.

Almost every Muslim and non-Muslim common citizen agree that corruption is bad for the country. The Opposition had been using this issue to gain ground. There are even talks of collaboration between chinese-outlook parties (DAP) and malay-outlook parties (Keadilan). Campaigning seems to be succesful. Some citizens have started to look beyond racial ties until the appearance of this case. People are displeased with the poor performance of the ruling party.
Now, all the campaigning has gone down the drain. Now, some Malays may view that the chinese-based-party will challenge the "Syariah" court and therefore refuse to vote for the party. Without the Malay support, DAP will never rule Malaysia. It is almost impossible for non-Malays to vote for PAS in droves for PAS wanted to implement an Islamic government with an ambiguous blueprint.

That leaves Keadilan as the only party with a chance to reap Malaysia from Barisan Nasional. However, Keadilan may have to claim they would be doing something similar to UMNO to garner Malay votes. With that, the chinese may not vote for Keadilan.

Comparatively, most non-Malays consider UMNO and Keadilan as coming from the same mould. The only difference is Keadilan offers a chance of reforming the government. Keadilan claims to fight for social justice. These days, Keadilan is suffering from internal political instability. From the non-Malay point of view, if Keadilan were to not allow Lina Joy to changer her IC, it would look like Keadilan is not practising what it is preaching all along. If non-Malays feel that Keadilan will function like UMNO once in power, then Keadilan would be in big trouble. The non-Malays may recast their votes back to UMNO in any Malay-populated zone. If both "cars" are not good, why buy a new one and take risks? Might as well use the old one, right?

The credibility is at stake. So, which alternative would Keadilan adopt? To accept that Lina Joy be given freedom and lose the support of the Malays or; to reject Lina Joy's appeal and lose the support of the Chinese? Heads you lose, tails you lose too.

The ruling certainly came out at the strangest time when there are rumours of a general election coming soon. The case divided the people.

This is the bleak world of Malaysian politics. This country will never have an opposition strong enough to replace the ruling party. What is democracy without a possible change in the government?

Conclusion

My stand on the Lina Joy case is she should be given the freedom to embrace another religion. My decision does not make me a non-Muslim. It does not mean I am a liberal Muslim either. For now, I can still accept the existence of the Syariah Court. Even if Keadilan claims that Lina Joy should not be given freedom, I would still opt for Keadilan instead of Barisan Nasional. I sympathise with the condition of Lina Joy if this unfair society leaves her with no choice but to migrate.

P.S. So far, Keadilan has not commented on the issue of Lina Joy...

Islam: The West's Suspicion

I have just read an article by Mark Alexander, posted in Malaysia Today titled "The West’s commitment to freedom of religion will be its undoing"

Sad to say, I understand the writer's concern pertaining to this matter. He is trying to say that the whole world's religion has freedom in its practise excluding Islam.

Islam is a good religion. The problem is, many Muslims try to put themselves in an uncompromising position with the adoption of certain Medieval Arab cultures or selectively opt for "hardened" approach towards issues.

They MAKE Islam intolerant. They MAKE Islam a religion that does not support freedom. Why was the word MAKE used?

I sincerely believe Islam does tolerate choice of faith. It was written in Quran, albeit 'indirectly'. By making Islam a "one way street" (you can go forward, but not backwards), the West is concerned that their countries will be taken over by a deviated intolerant version of Islam. A "one way street" affair equals to a disproportionate scale.

Currently, freedom of religion meant the West can accept all forms of faith including Islam but certain Muslims will again make this a "one way street road". You can / must accept all that I practise, but I will not accept anything from you (the West).

Would anyone use a disproportionate scale?

The world is moving towards globalisation. Secular laws are made to be fair to all cultures, religions and races alike, a natural process of integrating the nations on earth.

Religious laws may be good for its religious practitioners but may not be fair to people of other religions.


THE WEST WAS LIKE MODERN-DAY ISLAM

In the past, around 15th to 16th century, the West experienced a period similar to modern-day Islam. The West, being majority if not, all, Christians imposed similar religious laws on their society.

Priests played a part in determining if certain sciences are acceptable. Galileo Galilei theory that the world is circulating around the Sun was dismissed by priests who conducted no scientific research for their own part. Citizens had to believe the priests because it was said their words are "the words passed on by the Almighty God". How absurd !

Isn't this similar to the perception of majority Muslims of the current mufti or ulamas position?

Without proper scientifically logic reasons, some nationalistic warriors are declared as heretic. For instance, there is Joan of Arc who was burnt at the stake due to the conviction. Would certain deviant muftis announce his enemy "heretic"? Human is easily overruled by emotions.

Priests determine what should and should not be banned according to what they think is right. It does not have to go through a proper democratic process for decision.

Inquisitions were ordered for those who are considered as pagans. For those not in the know, Inquisition is "the mass killing" of heretics. Doesn't that sound equivalent to certain Muslims that supports the executions and stoning of murtads?

The Saint who brought Christianity to South East Asia, Francis Xavier ordered an Inquisition in India against the pagans he regarded as enemies of God. Bishops ordered Inquisitions in Spain against Spanish Muslims too.

Whatever utterances by the priests and bishops said were law. Inquisition by past law standards is actually legal.


RELIGIOUS LAW IS UNFAIR TO NON-BELIEVERS OF OTHER FAITHS

Mankind certainly never learns from past mistakes.

Those are the best examples that highlighted religious law may not be kind and fair to people who do not practise the "main" faith.

The West threw away the religious laws later after the Enlightenment because it was not beneficial to the society and mankind at large. In place, secular laws. Turkey's Kamal Attaturk and its supporters chose secular

Instead, many Muslims these days, want laws of their countries to be enacted according to Islam.

It would be unfair if I mention Muslims alone. Even majority Hindus of India want their country to be declared as a Hindu state, with it the "faith" laws. Notwithstanding, there is already a divisive caste system embedded within its government ruling influenced by the Hindu faith. Wouldn't that be unfair to the Muslims in India? It is not hard to answer this question.

It is a norm that scripts in all religious books to be ambiguous in meaning, at times, flowery. With ambiguity, variants of interpretation will be derived. Is it brilliant to implement a law based on ambiguous understanding? Conflicts may arise resulting in more division to the creation of tolerant global society mindset.

Can Islamic Law religious law be fair to other religions? How can there be a guarantee if there is not even freedom of changing religions under the law?

Religion should be a matter of personal understanding, a personal communication with God for its followers to get to Heaven. Choosing Heaven is an option and personal willpower. Implementing religious laws is an attempt to "force" someone to get to Heaven. Highly contradictory approach. People cannot be "forced" to go to Heaven.

Why aren't we learning from the history that religious laws will not be suitable for the world?

NOTE: This is an Anti-Intolerance article. This is NOT an Anti-Islam article. Islam is a liberal religion. If a person chooses liberty, liberty will come unto him. If you choose hostility, be rest assured to expect the same from others.

Malaysian Cows, Politics and Government: Democracy, Bolehland Style

Due to boredom over repeating racist rhetorics from our government, some users posted some funny comments in the article 'The classic divide-and-rule strategy' in Malaysia Today

Let's take a look and enjoy.

nasigoreng wrote:
Cows & Politics Explained

A CHRISTIAN DEMOCRAT: You have two cows. You keep one and give one to your neighbor.

A SOCIALIST: You have two cows. The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor.

AN AMERICAN REPUBLICAN: You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. So what?

AN AMERICAN DEMOCRAT: You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. You feel guilty for being successful. You vote people into office who tax your cows, forcing you to sell one to raise money to pay the tax. The people you voted for then take the tax money and buy a cow and give it to your neighbor. You feel righteous.

A COMMUNIST: You have two cows. The government seizes both and provides you with milk.

A FASCIST: You have two cows. The government seizes both and sells you the milk. You join the underground and start a campaign of sabotage.

DEMOCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE: You have two cows. The government taxes you to the point you have to sell both to support a man in a foreign country who has only one cow, which was a gift from your government.

DEMOCRACY, MALAYSIAN STYLE: You have no cows, but the government has two. The Cabinet has a meeting as what to do with the cows. After a lengthy debate, it was agreed that the two cows be given to your poor neighbors on a pawah system. Before the meeting ended, the Pak Lah reminded Muhyiddin the Agro-Industry Minister to make sure that the cows have their rumps (buttocks) branded with ‘UNDILAH BN’ and ‘SATU LAGI PROJEK BN’.
18/05 20:23:48

----------------------

shiver wrote:
nasi goreng, to add to your cow & politics explained for malaysia.

DEMOCRACY, MALAYSIAN STYLE: The two cows was with one race, then they were forced to give one cow away for many years, and now they realized that the first cow wasnt productive so they plan to hold the cow longer while demanding for the 2nd cow. Parliament discuss in length what to do with the cows so that the cow's milk can be protected. However, the cow's milk price has gone down but the Govt has not said anything about the price of milk and have kept quiet on that. And then when there is a by-election, one of the cows is promised to the people with the promise of free milk.

Finally, now that the two cows are nearing the age of dying, they looked for more cows overseas to joint venture with them.

---50 tahun, dah cukup lama la tu...---
18/05 21:36:46

----------------------

Sagaladoola (that's me) wrote:
Hahaha ... I have to add too...

DEMOCRACY, BOLEHLAND STYLE:
Got two cows. One cow government say must reserve for one special group. One cow government say reserve for a non-special group.

One cow, government say all the free milk will give to the poor. End up, out of 100% milk only 5% go to the poor. Where did the rest of the 95% go? No one knows.

Someone from government come out and pull the bull around. Bull starting to shit. So smelly. Then force this 'special' cow to perform, have to come out 110% milk. Found out 'special' cow guardian is special friend of the government. Very 'healthy' fat guy but dunno how to take care of 'cow' (inefficiency).

People make noise. Government say OK OK, Semuanya OK. Take the other 'non-special' cow (for another non-special group), Perah sama dia cukup-cukup. Perah, perah, perah, milk until this non-special cow half-dead to get 110% milk. The 'non-special' group get only 10%, the rest of the milk go back to the Government.

But then, at the end the poor and non-special people still dun have enough milk. Government blame non-special group for not sharing milk.

Where did the 'non-special' group's milk go? Where did the milk for the cow go? No one knows. The one who knows may have to answer to Jesus's Malay name: I.S.A. The milk is not there, but the bull is there, shit some more. What is the shit of a bull called? Bullshit. Hehehe.

So, everyone fight lohh.... but who is rich? Siapa yang kaya? Hidup dalam Istana dengan jual satay saja? Who is sleeping, but can possess stables of cars and rows of international houses?

The poor becomes the peasants and non-special group becomes pariahs. They can keep on fighting until cows come home while the Fat Lady and friends stay rich "dahulu, kini dan selamanya" (past, now and forever and ever), "dulu, sekarang dan masa depan" (past, present and future).

Hehehe.
19/05 18:46:48

----------------------

:-D

Hadhari Malaysia: Aku Keliru! Banyaknya Jenis Islam

Petikan di bawah adalah komen aku berkenaan dengan artikel "Abdullah bidas pihak perolok Islam Hadhari" di Malaysia Today .

Sagaladoola berkata:
Adakah perkataan "Hadhari" ada dalam Qur'an? Fikirkanlah sejenak."

gaya berkata:
Biarlah bersikap adil sikit, janganlah kalau sesuatu tu menguntungkan walaupun tak ada dalam al-quran ia jadi halal, manakala sebaliknya ia jadi haram pula.

KOMEN:

Islam sendiri sudah cukup untuk memenuhi apa yang dinyatakan dalam Hadhari termasuk yang menguntungkan dari segi akhlak.

Saya tidak lihat apa-apa yang menguntungkan dalam Hadhari, selain dari menjadikan satu mazhab baru yang mengelirukan orang-orang Islam tentang ajaran sebenar agama Islam. Dengan pengeliruan ini, orang-orang Islam akan berpecah-belah kerana pemahaman yang berbeza.

Saya berharap lain kali tidak akan ada perpisahan di antara kumpulan Hadhari dengan kumpulan bukan-Hadhari dalam Islam pada masa hadapan. Macam mana pula kalau satu hari nanti, dilantik pula Perdana Menteri yang baru yang ingin menerapkan Islam bentuk dia.

Andai kata PM baru tubuhkan nama Islam bernama "TulinBetul". Setiap kali Bah, setiap kali Pasir berubah. Fikirkanlah apa akan terjadi kalau setiap kali Perdana Menteri ditukar, ditambah dengan nama Islam yang berbeza.

Fikirkanlah hakikatnya. Bukankah ummah dan yang bukan Islam akan keliru kalau dibuat sedemikian? Bagaimana orang bukan Islam hendak faham ajaran agama dan menerimanya dengan berbagai-bagai jenis nama Islam?

Mengapa nak bagi nama baru bagi Islam? Islam itu Islam. Islam hanya satu. Ajaran Islam sebenarnya bukan ganas tetapi segelintir orang yang tidak baik memutarbelitkan ajaran dan menjadikannya ganas untuk kepentingan diri sendiri.

Adakah penubuhan ini bermaksud Hadhari itu melegakan keganasan yang terterap dalam Islam? Apakah yang cuba diketengahkan? Perlukah kita berbuat sedemikian rupa?

Sememangnya, apa yang sepatutnya dibuat ialah mengajar anak-anak dan memberitahu kawan-kawan yang Islam itu bukan ganas sebagaimana yang terterap dalam Qur'an. Itu saje. Jangan tambah mazhab, nama atau pengeliruan. Ummah patut bersatu. Yang bukan Islam patut diberi kemudahan untuk pemahaman.

Pada pandangan saya, penubuhan Hadhari ini, menambahkan pengeliruan dan TIDAK MENGUNTUNGKAN. Noktah. Itu saje.

Sekian...

Valentine's Day Special: Some Imams went against Islamic practice by misleading Muslims, twisting the Truth

I have made some comments on Malaysia Today based on the issue "Muslim authorities decry Valentine's Day celebrations in Malaysia, Brunei".

Some Muslim authorities in fact claimed that Valentine's Day is against Islam. In my opinion, the claim is totally senseless and illogical.

Below is the reply I have posted to a few bloggers who supported the authorities. I have provided some solid arguments against their claims. Hope it will be able to change their mind to view things in a bigger picture !

____________________________________

bru99 wrote:
I agreed fully with the writing of Pak Maun. Time stamp: 14/02 16:11:03. Its our islamic duty to tell to all what is an islamic practise and what is not.
15/02 08:38:47

I agree with you that Valentine's Day is not an Islamic practice. It is definitely a role of a Muslim to inform another on it. It is also a duty for a Muslim to educate the other that one should not indulge in promiscuous activities. It is also a duty for a Muslim to educate himself and do not let himself succumb to TWISTED TRUTH (A LIE)

However, let's see. Let us read what some IMAMS say:

" Muslims should not "follow Western cultures in the name of modernization without knowing that such culture is AGAINST the Islamic teachings," the message added. "

Extracted from: http://malaysia-today.net/blog2006/newsncom.php?itemid=2437
____________________________________

My conclusion:
SOME IMAMS WENT AGAINST ISLAMIC PRACTICE BY MISLEADING MUSLIMS, TWISTING THE TRUTH
____________________________________

Some Imams told the Muslims that Valentine's Day is AGAINST the Islamic teachings. Refer comment above.

They twisted the truth. It is true that Valentine's Day is not an Islamic practice. It is neither a Christian/religious practice. However, Valentine's Day is NOT AGAINST ISLAMIC PRACTICE ! Notice the difference?

Let's evaluate:

1) Valentine's Day is not a Christian/Religious festival, therefore it is NOT AGAINST Islamic practice.

2) Valentine's Day main theme is for us to express grattitude and love to people who we treasure, by giving presents and various means. It is NOT AGAINST Islamic practice to express love. If anything, if Islam encourages expressing gratitude/love, then Valentine's Day can somehow or rather considered to be helping Islam.

3) Valentine's Day is not for sex, making it NOT AGAINST Islamic practice. Valentine's Day is not created for people to engage in promiscuous activities.

If you want to blame someone for promiscuous activities, it is ok. If that person is bad, he will engage in such activities at any point of time, "Prophet Muhammad's Birthday", "Hari Raya"; Not necessarily Valentine. Blame the person but do not misinform / mislead the Muslims on the facts.

Lying and misleading (menyesatkan) Muslims is an offense under Islam, I am very sure of that. Lying and misleading is AGAINST Islam. Valentine is not.

YOU SHOULD (INSTEAD) TELL THE MUSLIMS THAT:

"CELEBRATING VALENTINE IS PERMISSIBLE AND NOT AGAINST ISLAMIC PRACTICE. PROMISCUOUS ACTIVITIES IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. CAUTION: PLEASE DO NOT ENGAGE IN ILLICIT SEX ESPECIALLY DURING VALENTINE. ILLICIT SEX IS AGAINST ISLAMIC PRACTICE".

Why can't those Imams say this instead? Why do they have to lie and mislead Muslims into boycotting Valentine's Day? Isn't that against Islam?

The Muslims surprisingly follow the Imam blindly. Why can't all of you research and think? If Imam says that his neighbour (whom he does not like) is against Islam and order you to do kill that person, you will follow blindly is it?

Our faith and loyalty is supposed to be for God, not for the Imams. An Imam is a human. A human may be biased. There are people and practices that he likes and does not like.

The Imams above refers to "Imam Sesat" that mislead the Muslims and give the wrong information and lying, saying "Valentine's Day is against Islamic practice" even when it is NOT !!!

THANK YOU:

As for the Imams that caution the Muslims to avoid promiscuous activities ONLY, I would like to give my SINCERE THANKS to you. You have done your RIGHT duty as a religious leader to give the RIGHT information and remind your people to avoid promiscuous activities. You are exempted from the message above and may God bless you and the people you lead ...

Hari Valentine Bukan Pesta Main Seks

Komen ini adalah berdasarkan satu artikel di Malaysia Today yang bertajuk "Muslim authorities decry Valentine's Day celebrations in Malaysia, Brunei".

Diterjemahkan ke Bahasa Malaysia, ia berbunyi "Ketua-ketua agama Islam membantah sambutan Hari Valentine di Malaysia dan Brunei".

Ketua-ketua agama Islam berpendapat bahawa perayaan ini akan menggalakkan orang-orang Islam berkelakuan sumbang dan tidak senonoh. Sehubungan dengan itu, ada juga ketua yang mengatakan Muslimin dan Muslimat langsung TIDAK BOLEH menyambut perayaan ini.

Sememangnya, seorang blogger telah memberi komen yang bersifat hasutan. Saya berfikiran logik yang diketengahkan untuk membantah sambutan Hari Valentine ini adalah tidak betul dan wajar walau di sudut agama Islam.

Berikut merupakan apa yang telah saya tulis di
http://malaysia-today.net/blog2006/index.php?itemid=2437
____________________________________

hantu suci wrote:

"apa la ada dengan valentine ni. . memang tak salah pun bagi org kristian berzina. .dah ajaran bible dia macam tu,jgn lupa bawa pastor korang sambut skali k, mana la tau nafsu seks dia berubah."

SOALAN: Adakah ajaran Islam suruh orang berfikiran begitu? Tidak menghormati penganut agama yang lain?
____________________________________

hantu suci wrote:
"daripada sambut valentine's day ni bagus sambut pesta jesus kena bunuh. . ok apa"

SOALAN: Jesus ataupun Isa adalah dianggap sebagai NABI dalam konteks Al-Quran (Islam).

Adakah ajaran Islam menyuruh umatnya merayakan PEMBUNUHAN, terutamanya NABI ISLAM sendiri?

Rupa-rupanya orang Islam Sesat (macam "hantu suci") yang tak sambut Valentine hatinya lebih jahat daripada orang Islam yang sambut Valentine.

Perayaan PEMBUNUHAN kau sokong tapi Perayaan PENGHARGAAN kau tak sokong. Sesatlah tu. Saya harap kau ni bukan dari Golongan HadHari.

Maklumlah takde orang bagi hadiah pada dia waktu Valentine. Bagi alamat, nanti aku kirim. Kesian engkau.
____________________________________

Valentine's Day bukan pesta untuk main seks, tuan-tuan dan puan-puan.

Valentine's Day ialah hari untuk kita menghargai cinta kita terhadap ibu bapa, kekasih, kawan atau cikgu kita.

Adakah Islam menghalang kita merakamkan penghargaan kepada orang yang menolong dan mendidik kita?

Adakah Islam kata kita tak boleh bagi hadiah dan belanja kekasih, ibu bapa kita makan? Tidak bukan?

Setahu saya, Islam kata kita patut menghargai orang yang berbudi pada kita. Perayaan ini pula tidak berkenaan dengan penyembahan mana-mana Tuhan. Walaupun Saint Valentine seorang Kristian, tetapi adakah hari Valentine dicipta untuk menyembah Kristian/Jesus/Isa? Tidak.

Hari Valentine dinamakan sedemikian kerana orang yang memberi idea ini bernama Valentine. Macamlah kereta Ford dinamakan berdasarkan nama penciptanya Henry Ford. Takkan itu pun salah?

Macam Hari Kemerdekaan, ia tidak berkaitan dengan agama tetapi ia adalah satu perayaan untuk mengenang askar-askar yang terkoban demi mencapai kemerdekaan.

Kalau kita nak halang Valentine, maka Hari Kemerdekaan pun kita kena halang? Harijadi Kekasih, Ibubapa semua pun kita halang? Fikirkanlah sejenak...

Tiada unsur seks yang dilibatkan oleh Saint Valentine dalam konteks perayaan ini. Yang melibatkan seks itu bukan kerana perayaan, tetapi hanya mengambil kesempatan, itu pun kerana penganjur (manusia) itu sendiri.

Kalau anda orang Islam yang sejati, sekadar beri hadiah ataupun mengucapkan terima kasih, saya berasa tiada apa yang tidak betul.

Yang penting kamu sendiri tidak pergi berzina, itu saje. Jangan salahkan perayaan kalau penganut agama pergi berzina. Perayaan Valentine bukan pesta Main Seks. Salahkan orang yang berzina itu sendiri. Kalau anda sendiri yang berzina, salahkan sendiri.

Bukankah Islam kata kita patut mengawal nafsu kita sendiri?

P.S. PAKAILAH OTAK, KALAU AKU NAK BERZINA, TAK PAYAH NAK TUNGGU SAMPAI VALENTINE.

HARI RAYA DAN MAAL HIJRAH PUN AKU BOLEH BERZINA.

HARI BIASA AKU PUN BOLEH BERZINA.

Inilah masalahnya, sebab ketua-ketua agama kat Malaysia dengan Brunei tak pakai otak .... Sesatlah umat Islam ....

God-In-A-Box: Religion, Institution and Prophets

Comments based on discussion of "Do You Believe in God" topic in Malaysia Today.

Link: http://malaysia-today.net/blog2006/reports.php?itemid=110

Religion is an Institution to put God in-a-Box. We categorise God, we say our Institution is the Best, the other Institutions are Not Praying to God.

The truth is No One will know except God Himself.

We use God to justify our actions. We may use God to make money, we may use His Name to condemn others by hiding behind our Institution.

However, "How Deep is Our Understanding of God?". "How Worthy Are We in the Eyes of God to Condemn Others, to make decisions in His Name?".

--------------------------------------

Prophets merely describe or write down their encounter and understanding of God.Even Buddha did not seek people to pray him as a God. He describes himself as a teacher.

There is only so much limited that can be spoken with words and writings. I believe understanding of God is complex as it deals with our spiritual/sixth sense. The understanding is hard to be conveyed with speech, what more through the writing interpretations of age-old mere mortals in the past.

Their mortal followers institutionalise it and set about standards, rules, way of life and approaches according to their own common human understanding.

If knowing God is so easy, this world would definitely be a much better place to live in, don't you think?
Besides that, isn't that what your Religion told you?

So, I believe God is a personal communication that can only be understood by personal means. No one is worthy to judge, control the faith of others. No matter what title you claim (priest, monk, mufti), you are only mortals in seek of superior knowledge from God.

Do you believe in God?

Comments based on a discussion in Malaysia Today.

Link: http://malaysia-today.net/blog2006/reports.php?itemid=110

I do believe there is God.

I believe it connects with us through our sixth sense if we are willing to listen.

I believe it connects with us by method of sixth sense whether something is right or wrong, good or bad. but sub-consciously. It may seem illogical at times, sometimes not easily explainable by Science but you would understand the concept when you are able to link.

I believe, No matter what religion you are, it it is a personal communication that can be understood through derivation, through personal means.

Prayers and praisings are to open the mind, open the sixth sense, open the soul to establish the personal connection/communication with God.

He can help us when we are sick, soothe us when we are sad.

This is my understanding of GOD, the Almighty. I, personally believe, it is the Concept. You may disagree with me, but reflect upon the God of your religion, isn't that what all of you are practising?

Regards...

Australian Mufti Issue with Cats and Rapists with Uncovered Meats

Comments based on article in The Autralian (News site):
Mufti's Remarks Totally Unacceptable

Link: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20647684-1702,00.html

COMMENTS by Australia's Mufti blaming immodestly dressed women for sexual assault have been branded as "totally unacceptable" by Treasurer Peter Costello.

Mr Costello wants Muslim leaders to condemn the comments by Sheik al-Taj al-Din al-Hilaly, disassociate themselves from them, and pull their leader into line.

Sheik al-Hilaly's comments were delivered in a Ramadan sermon to 500 worshippers in Sydney last month, The Australian newspaper reported.

He blamed women who "sway suggestively" and who wore makeup and no hijab (Islamic scarf) for sexual attacks.

"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat," he said.

"The uncovered meat is the problem.

"If she was in her room, in her home, in her hajib, no problem would have occurred."

============================

Poor example... Cats are animals, they do not have religion and LIMITED intelligence. They did what they had to do. They eat the uncovered meat to survive. Besides, the tomcats do not simply rape pussycats? Well you see, the cats are not dressed in any clothes. (The last two statements are placed in intentionally .. :-D )

Human are HIGHLY INTELLIGENT CREATURES. They can think and perform magnificent works unachievable by cats or dogs. They have religion. If an intelligent human saw an uncovered meat, they will first think why the meat is uncovered. For Islamists, they will think whether the meat is pork. If they feel it is pork, they will refrain from eating.

Human have a mind of their own. They can choose to refrain from doing bad things which is against their religion. If they cannot resist temptation, who do you think should be blamed? They themselves are supposed to be blamed, or the temptation factor itself?

For example, stealing is a crime and abhorred by all religions.

If let's say there is RM10000 placed on on a table uncovered. As a human being, when you are tempted and take the money, who is to be blamed? Do you blame the money? Ustaz oh Ustaz, can you say, yeah it is the money's fault to be uncovered. I steal it, it is not my fault? Who ask the money to be uncovered? Is this the right way to justify your action?

And, please, God DID NOT SAY that uncovered money can be taken. Similarly, God DID NOT SAY women who do not cover themselves can be RAPED.

If you cannot resist the temptation, it is your own fault, don't blame others or simply use God's holy name to justify such immoral criminal actions.

You do not deserve to be ustaz. Many will be misled by you to succumb to temptation (against Islamic teaching).

Please resign, you are not up to standard!

The Impossible Absolute Democracy: Malaysian Racist and Extremist Eyes

Referring to a link from Malaysia Today:
http://www.malaysia-today.net/Raja_Petra/2006/09/monkey-and-flower.html

MALAYSIANS IS A SELFISH LOT
Majority of Malaysians like to blame other races or religions for anything bad that happens to their own community without thinking and going into detail of the reasons of the happenings.
There are plenty of resources that can be read/discussed but not being approached, or rather being approached with a one-sided thinking.

A lot of Malaysians think themselves as Malaysians First. However, from a conclusive research made, it is very obvious that many still do not exactly think that way.
http://www.fnfmalaysia.org/opinion_polls/docs/Ethnic%20Relation%20Perceptions%20Poll%20March%202006.pdf#search=%22malaysian%20chinese%20survey%20ethnic%20integration%22

We are still deeply binded by the concept of race and religion (both are Self Interests) rather than National Interest as a whole in priority.

As Malaysians, generally, now, we still do not think of the other races/religious practitioners as our brothers. We think only of our own priority, we do not care which race will get left behind in our pursuit of development and riches. For some, we do not care which communities will get hit if hardcore laws were to be implemented.
__________________________________________________________

ABUSE OF SPEECH PRIVILEGE
In terms of criticism, many of us tend to slam the religions and races of others when we do not like what was being said instead of slamming on the person that we disagree with. Besides that, nasty names were called and abuses were hurled disregarding the results of the remarks made.
Imagine if those nasty remarks were to be made on national television. Pictures speak louder than words. Pictures combined with nasty words speak even louder. What would be the impact of it?

Will it further divide the races/religious practitioners? Will we cause civil war? Will this do any good to our Beloved Malaysia, our Motherland. Will this enable certain parties to "Divide and Conquer" us for their own benefit?

Does hurling profanities make people change their mind or make them reject us even further?

This is one of the reasons on why Absolute Democracy is not possible here. Sadly, Dr M is absolutely right in this context.
__________________________________________________________

THE MIRROR AND THE EYES
Perhaps, we should use a mirror, reflect upon ourselves whether we are in the same categories before we call other racists or religious extremists. More often than not, we are ...

I recall this from a lyrics of a song:
"I'm starting with the man in the mirror,
I'm asking him to change his ways,
And no message could have been any clearer,
If you wanna make the world a better place,
Take a look at yourself, and then make a change"

Bless you Malaysia, Pluralism is your strength as well as your Deep Inherent Weakness when exploited.

"When you Look into the Mirror, the Eyes of Truth is Always Watching You".

God Bless our Malaysia, please do not kill Malaysia by ourselves. Think about it. Thanks and Regards...