Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- Stemming the incoherence of misguided Muslim pundits’: my response
- Visualisation of the unseen
- Why the need for political reforms
- Why so kaypoh one?
- To know Malaysia is to love Malaysia
- Must be Sirim-approved first
- Do you think I care a shit?
- Lust is a good strategy
- How I imagine the trial would proceed
- A Democrat indeed
| Stemming the incoherence of misguided Muslim pundits’: my response Posted: 11 Nov 2012 06:31 PM PST
Truth, error, good, bad, etc. are not absolutes. There are no 'facts' when we talk about truth, error, good, bad, etc., in religion. They are all relative and subject to time and place. And what is good/bad in religion may not be good/bad from society's point of view. And what is good/bad from society's point of view, yesterday, may not be good/bad from society's point of view today. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin It is truly shameful that the affairs of Muslims were being discussed without the guidance of scholars of Islām possessing true and correct knowledge of the religion. How can one even be sure that they are speaking earnestly and truthfully on behalf of Islām? Furthermore, a non-Muslim making ignorant statements about Islām may be excused on the basis of not himself being a Muslim and of being obstinate. Yet, a greater cause for concern is when a ignorant Muslim makes ambivalent declarations about the nature of Islām as a religion. In fact, this betrays a categorical confusion on her part because from the Muslim understanding, Islām is the true revealed religion, and the affirmation of this fact has consequences both in this world and in the hereafter. The religion of Islām requires both belief (imān) and submission (islām) from its believers. Both are not identical, but they are mutually inseparable and indispensable, which means that one cannot do without the other. Those who argue along the lines of half-baked understanding of the Qur'ānic verse often do not even bother to read the second part of the verse that makes clear the distinction between Truth and error. There is no sense in holding on to that verse if this distinction is only mentioned in briefly or outrightly dismissed without equally serious consideration. The religion of Islām makes clear its claim to Truth, and this is why its content is cognitive to the human mind. A person who is presented with a choice between what is good and what is bad and proceeds to choose the bad is not exercising real freedom. In truth, the person is trapped within his own ignorance, thus unable to make the right choice in choosing for the better, and in doing so, has committed a grave injustice to his or her own self and others. If we allow the promissory note for such literal interpretation of the verse devoid of scholarly consensus and right guidance, then there would be nothing left to prevent the likes of fanatics, demagogues and even militant extremists from appropriating Islām in order to justify atrocities and perpetuate even further injustices. READ THE FULL TEXT OF THE LETTER HERE: ********************************************** Those are some of the extracts from the letter that Muhammad Husni Mohd Amin, Wan Mohd Aimran Wan Mohd Kamil, Muhammad Syukri Rosli and Wan Ahmad Fayhsal Wan Ahmad Kamal sent to Malaysia Today, and which we published today. I suspect many of you were quite lost by the language used and could not quite make out what the authors were trying to say -- other than that only Muslim scholars should talk about Islam and that Islam is the true religion while all others are false. Nevertheless, maybe I can respond to some of the salient points raised in that letter. And I am addressing my response to Muhammad Husni Mohd Amin, Wan Mohd Aimran Wan Mohd Kamil, Muhammad Syukri Rosli and Wan Ahmad Fayhsal Wan Ahmad Kamal. When we debate an issue or argue a point, we must be very clear in our mind as to the intended audience. The audience, on the other hand, must be very clear as to what 'platform' we are standing on in presenting our arguments. From your arguments, it is clear that you are speaking as Islamists and your audience is meant to be fellow Muslims. You do not care about the views of the non-Muslims. You are giving your views on Islam from the perspective of a Muslim and meant for the ears of Muslims. In that case, those not of the Islamic faith will never accept what you say. What you say has nothing to do with the non-Muslims. You, a Muslim, talks about Islam, from the perspective of Islam, meant for a Muslim audience. You have crafted your letter as if you are presenting facts. No doubt, to Muslims, you are definitely presenting facts. To the non-Muslims, however, what you say are not facts. These are merely opinions. And non-Muslims, for sure, will have a different opinion to you. For example, to the Christians, Jesus is the Son of God, humankind was born with sins, and Jesus died on the cross for our sins. Hence if we accept Jesus we would be saved. This is an indisputable fact to most Christians. To Muslims, however, this is not a fact. In fact, Muslims may even consider this a lie. Hence non-Muslims would not regard this Christian doctrine as fact but merely an opinion (and a misguided one at that, too, Muslims will argue). Therefore, being an opinion, and an opinion that Muslims do not agree with, the Christian doctrine could be right or could be wrong (and certainly wrong from the Islamic perspective). Hence, when you talk to a multi-cultural audience, you need to understand the proper way in doing so. For example, instead of stating 'facts', it would help if you say things like 'according to the Muslim belief', etc. Then we would be implying that this is what I, as a Muslim, believe, but I am not suggesting that you, too, believe what I believe. Now, in that letter, are you discussing a matter of theology, philosophy, a legal issue, the Federal Constitution, issue of human rights and civil liberties, or what? From my reading of the letter, you are discussing theology, and Islamic theology in particular. Would Muslims be interested in hearing someone talk about Hinduism or Christianity from the theological aspect? And would Muslims be convinced by these arguments and accept them as the truth? This is the flaw in most arguments presented by Muslims. You have your beliefs and you present your beliefs as facts and you expect others to also accept them as facts. And when they cannot, you get upset and start screaming that these people have insulted Islam and therefore action should be taken against these people. Maybe we can look at this issue not from the perspective of theology, in particular Islamic theology. Then, and only then, can we talk to a multi-cultural audience, which I suspect is what you are trying to do since you sent your letter to Malaysia Today. You spoke about truth and error. You also spoke about good and bad. Now, I am going to address my comments not just to Muslims but also to religionists in general. Truth, error, good, bad, etc. are not absolutes. There are no 'facts' when we talk about truth, error, good, bad, etc., in religion. They are all relative and subject to time and place. And what is good/bad in religion may not be good/bad from society's point of view. And what is good/bad from society's point of view, yesterday, may not be good/bad from society's point of view today. In other words, 'good' and 'bad' constantly changes. It changes according to the period. It changes according to the region. And it changes according to the society you live in. For example, 100 years or so ago, any woman wearing a miniskirt in England would be vilified and maybe even accosted. Today, a woman can walk around town practically in her panties and nothing will happen. So what was bad 100 years ago in England is no longer bad. Now, if a woman walks around town in a miniskirt in Saudia Arabia, she would be arrested and flogged. In Malaysia, she will not be arrested and flogged. However, if she walks around Kota Bharu in her panties she will, for sure, be in trouble. Hence is wearing a miniskirt (or just your panties) good or bad? It depends on what period you live in and where you live. So how can good and bad be taken as absolutes? Good and bad will change across time and across borders. Hence, when you argue about what you consider as good and bad, that is merely your opinion and that does not make it a fact or mean you are right. Let me give you another example. Marrying off your daughter who already has her period (say at age 11) to a boy who has reached puberty (say age 12) is allowed in Islam. Since it is allowed in Islam then it must be good. But would society also regard that as 'good' just because Islam does not forbid it and therefore it is considered good? Would you marry off your 11-year-old daughter to a man of, say, 45 (a millionaire Datuk)? There is nothing wrong with that. And since it is not wrong then it is good. However, you would probably not consider it 'good' although it is allowed in religion. Let me take another example, this time regarding slavery. Islam has never outlawed slavery. Muslims are allowed to own slaves and you can even have sex with your slaves. This is perfectly legal in Islam. But if I were to offer you some slaves to buy -- and pretty ones who have been 'well-trained' in how to please their master in bed on top of that -- would you consider that 'good'? How can it not be good when Islam allows it? The slave trade saw about 11 million Africans captured and sold. And many of these slavers were actually Muslim Arabs. The Arabs were still trading in slaves long after the west had outlawed slavery. Society had by then considered slavery as bad when the Arab Muslims slavers were still doing a roaring business in selling captured Africans. To have an intelligent and intellectual discourse with decorum and civility is not easy in Malaysia Today. Many of the readers are crude and brash and do not understand how to be polite. Malaysia Today readers regard name-calling and mocking as debating. That is the problem we face in trying to build bridges between the different communities in Malaysia. I have given up trying to civilise Malaysia Today readers. So now I talk exactly like how they talk. And, of course, they do not like it one bit. What they fail to realise is that when they talk like that others do not like it as well. But I will continue to give them a taste of their own medicine until they 'vomit blood'. Nevertheless, I welcome such letters and I hope you will continue sending them to Malaysia Today. The only thing is do not expect intelligent or intellectual responses to such letters. But in the spirit or dakwah do not let that discourage you. |
| Posted: 10 Nov 2012 08:15 PM PST
What we 'see' today, therefore, are the creation of painters of 500-600 years ago who had a fertile mind and an unbridled imagination. They imagined all this in their brain and then transferred their thoughts to canvas and/or walls and ceilings. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin You have probably read the news of the 'appearance' of the Virgin Mary at the Sime Darby Medical Centre in Subang Jaya a few days ago. I find it quite amusing that Christians all over the world have 'seen' Jesus Christ and/or his mother 'appear' from time to time. Actually, until about 500-600 years ago, Christians had no notion of what Jesus or Mary looked like. Then, during the Early Renaissance period in France from 1385-1520 and the High Renaissance period in Italy from 1475-1525, Christians began to visualise what they could not visualise before that. The people who can be attributed (or blamed) for this would be the Renaissance painters such as Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci, Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni, Hieronymus Bosch, Jacobus de Voragine, etc. (about 70-80 in all from all over Europe). Some of their famous paintings are The Last Supper by Leonardo da Vinci, Lamentation of Christ by Mantegna, Sistine Chapel ceiling by Michelangelo, The Descent from the Cross by Rogier van der Weyden, Flagellation of Christ by Piero della Francesca, Isenheim Altarpiece by Matthias Grünewald, Melun Diptych (Virgin and Child Surrounded by Angels) by Jean Fouquet, and so on. Basically, these painters of 500-600 years ago gave Christendom a visualisation of what God, Jesus, Mary, Satan, the Angels, etc., looked like. Before that there was no visualisation of what could be considered 'divine beings'. What we 'see' today, therefore, are the creation of painters of 500-600 years ago who had a fertile mind and an unbridled imagination. They imagined all this in their brain and then transferred their thoughts to canvas and/or walls and ceilings. Today, what we 'see' is what those people of 500-600 years ago 'saw'. But did they actually see all this or was this merely a figment of their imagination? I suppose my 'image' of Prophet Muhammad, King Arthur, Merlin the Magician, Robin Hood, etc., would be as accurate as those Renaissance painters of 500-600 years ago. If I was a painter (and I am not) and I was commissioned by the church to paint the walls and ceilings of cathedrals and churches, I would probably use the images below as my guide. The Virgin Mary would look like a woman from her region and not like a Hollywood actress while Jesus would not be a tall, handsome, blue-eyed, blonde man but someone like Yasser Arafat, as he would most likely have looked like. The mind is a very powerful thing and you can certainly be made to see what does not exist if you can condition the mind with centuries of brainwashing. I wonder how many of those painters were actually atheists who did not believe in God. Yet they could influence us into seeing what they themselves did not believe in. ********************************************* Virgin Mary image draws Catholics to hospital (The Malaysian Insider) - Catholic Malaysians have been flocking to the Sime Darby Medical Centre in Subang Jaya to catch a glimpse of an image that has appeared on one of its windows said to resemble the image of the Virgin Mary, The Sunday Star reported today. The mysterious image of the figure revered by Catholics who believe Mary to be the mother of Jesus Christ was reported to have been spotted a few days ago on a window pane at the hospital. The image has been captured on camera and spread on Facebook. Yesterday, a group largely composed of Catholics visited the medical centre and sung hymns and prayed before the image. "It is so wonderful that our Mother has come to us in a hospital, where many of the sick are crying out for her help," Janet Tong, 45, told the English-language newspaper. Sheree Rao, a businessman who was present at the hospital, reportedly said the image could not be seen from the inside of the window. "I touched the glass, thinking it could be paint or something else. But there was nothing,'' the 21-year-old was reported as saying. A 20-year-old student, Nicole Jo Pereira, said she thinks it's a sign for people to practise good deeds. The hospital authorities and the editor of the The Herald, Malaysia's sole Catholic newspaper have declined to give their comments, The Sunday Star reported. ********************************************* Awestruck by Virgin Mary image (The Star) - An image of what seems to be the Blessed Virgin Mary on a window at the Sime Darby Medical Centre (SDMC) here is drawing crowds. A large group of people, mostly Catholics, gathered below the area at the new wing of the hospital yesterday, lighting candles, singing hymns and reciting prayers. Traffic was heavy around the vicinity, with even tourist buses pulling up by the roadside. Secretary Janet Tong, 45, described the apparition as "amazing". "It is so wonderful that our Mother has come to us in a hospital, where many of the sick are crying out for her help," she said. Several claimed the colour and position of the image also changed. Businessman Sheree Rao, 21, who went up inside to get a close look at the window, said the image was only visible from the outside. "I touched the glass, thinking it could be paint or something else. But there was nothing,'' he added. Student Nicole Jo Pereira, 20, said she believed the image was a call for people to do good deeds. Teacher Kenneth Fong, 27, said he was sure of an image on the window. "But whether it's from God, I don't know." Photographs of the image, believed to have appeared several days ago, have gone viral on Facebook. Access to the window from inside the building has been restricted by the hospital. A hospital official declined to comment on the matter. Catholic newsletter The Herald editor Rev Father Lawrence Andrew said the Catholic Church would withhold official comment until the image had been tested and verified by theologians and church authorities. Catholics believe that Mary, as mother of Jesus Christ, is the Mother of God. *********************************************
Did the Virgin Mary look like the above or the below?
*********************************************
Yasser Arafat in the 1940s (above) and later in life (below)
|
| Why the need for political reforms Posted: 06 Nov 2012 05:53 PM PST
So, let me spell it out to you clearly, yet again. Malaysia needs political reforms. Of course we also need electoral reforms. We also need good governance, transparency, an end to abuse of power and corruption, an end to racial discrimination and religious persecution, and a million other things. But what Malaysia needs most is political reforms and if we can achieve that then many ills facing the country can automatically cure itself. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin Eight in 10 Chinese want political reform: survey (AFP) - BEIJING - Eight out of 10 people in China's major cities support political reform, according to a survey reported Wednesday, on the eve of a once-in-a-decade leadership transition. Seven in 10 people believe the government should face greater public scrutiny and strengthen its checks against corruption, said the poll, published in the state-run Global Times newspaper. Corruption topped the survey's list of threats to social stability. "Most Chinese people believe China should initiate political reform," the newspaper said. The survey figures come as President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao wind down 10 years of leadership that saw roaring economic growth but also growing popular discontent over problems including corruption and income disparity. The leaders' expected successors, Vice President Xi Jinping and Vice Premier Li Keqiang, are due to be anointed at a five-yearly Communist party congress beginning in Beijing tomorrow. They will face mounting pressure to address such issues and spur economic growth, which has slowed to 7.4 per cent, its lowest quarterly rate since 2009. Analysts say the administration has failed to enact the economic and political reforms needed to ensure steady growth in the coming years. China's all-powerful ruling party censors public criticism and its top leaders make key policy decisions and appointments through negotiations behind closed doors. Two thirds of respondents rated China's development over the past decade as "satisfactory or somewhat satisfactory" while seven in 10 said they felt reform should occur gradually. After corruption, they ranked the widening rich-poor gap and an inadequate social safety net as the most pressing problems. About 70 per cent said the government should expand access to healthcare, pensions and social security within the next five years. Eighty-five per cent said they felt "China is likely to face more challenges in the future". The survey, of more than 1,200 adults living in seven major cities including Beijing and Shanghai, was consistent with results of prior polls, the Global Times said, citing a Chinese Academy of Social Sciences scholar. Surveys on such subjects appear periodically in state-run media. ******************************************* I have read many 'theories' posted in Malaysia Today. One is that Singapore is a great nation because it is a Chinese-run island-state. Another is that Malaysia is in bad shape because it has a purely Malay government/administration. A third theory is that back in the days when Malaysia had a Chinese Finance Minister the country's finances were better managed -- hence the answer to Malaysia's problem is to have a Chinese Finance Minister. I suppose that AFP report above regarding China dispels this Chinese-is-best theory. The fallacy that race determines all is a very Nazi-like theory. Good and bad has nothing to do with race. Evil is colour-blind and if you do not know that by now then you are too dumb to be reading what I write. So go away and go read articles on Malaysia Chronicle -- more your 'level'. And this is the message I have been attempting to get across to you -- of course in my usual most provocative manner. Well, I did say I enjoy throwing the cat amongst the pigeons and to see 'siapa yang makan cili rasa pedas'. And I must admit that many felt pedas, mainly because they were the ones who makan cili. Yes, that's right, it is not that difficult to make Malaysians melenting. Rub them slightly the wrong way and they foam at the mouth like mad dogs. Okay, so I am a sadist. I enjoy torturing you. So sue me! Or just stay away from Malaysia Today. That would be better because I am not honoured by having idiots making up my numbers. I would rather that Malaysia Today be a small website of thinking readers than a large website with idiots as readers. Two years ago I told you that I had joined the Liberal Democratic Party in the UK and voted for them in the last general election. And I also told you the reason why. Labour was propagating status quo. Conservative was propagating electoral reforms. Lib Dem, however, was propagating political reforms. I too support political reforms hence I joined Lim Dem and voted for them. Yes, how many Malaysians would dare declare that they voted in the UK general election, never mind who they voted for. Doing so is grounds enough for you to lose your Malaysian citizenship. Hence most Malaysians would not vote in a foreign country's general election -- even secretly and for sure not openly. But I did it and I do not hide the fact that I did it. And if the Malaysian government cancels my citizenship then so be it. Anyway, back to the issue of political reforms. The Bersih movement is fighting for electoral reforms. The ABU movement is trying to get Umno kicked out. Suaram is fighting for human rights. And so on -- there are many NGOs, movements, societies, associations, etc., fighting for all sort of things. To each his own, I always say. You have your struggle and I have mine. I may agree with what you do. I may even support what you do. But that does not mean your fight must also be my fight. I may not stand beside you but that does not mean I stand opposed to you. For example, I support the rights of LGBTs. But that does not mean I want to enter into a gay marriage with you. And just because I do not want to sleep with another man that does not mean I am opposed to gays. Do you brain-dead wankers get what I mean? And don't even attempt to use the 'either you are with me or you are against me' argument on me or else I will whack you to kingdom come. So, let me spell it out to you clearly, yet again. Malaysia needs political reforms. Of course we also need electoral reforms. We also need good governance, transparency, an end to abuse of power and corruption, an end to racial discrimination and religious persecution, and a million other things. But what Malaysia needs most is political reforms and if we can achieve that then many ills facing the country can automatically cure itself. So forgive me if I choose a different route to yours. We may all be heading in the same direction and aiming to reach the same destination. But I would rather take a different route to yours. And the route I choose to achieve what I feel Malaysia needs is the route of political reforms. And because of that I do not embed or attach my struggle into a political party, whether Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat. I strongly believe that what I hope to see can only be achieved outside the political platform. I suppose it is just like religion. We all want to go to heaven and not go to hell. But each one of us chooses a different route in getting there. Just because one of us chooses Islam and the other chooses Christianity the objective does not change. At the end of the day both believe in the existence of God. Both, however, do not share the same route in 'reaching' God. Only stupid Muslims will say unless you convert to Islam then you are my enemy. |
| Posted: 05 Nov 2012 08:23 PM PST
I have not heard one comment from any of these people who appear outraged with what they imagine Nurul Izzah had said. Ibrahim Ali of Perkasa too has whacked Nurul Izzah. So have some co-called scholars. But did you notice one thing? They NEVER mentioned the punishment for someone who leaves Islam. Why do they not have the balls to say it? NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin
Malaysians have this very kiasu and very kaypoh characteristic. They worry about what other people are doing (or cannot do). For example, most of the comments about Nurul Izzah Anwar's misunderstood and misinterpreted comment regarding freedom of religion come from the non-Malays/non-Muslims. And you know what? All those who are making these comments were not even there. So how do you know what she said? Yet you make comments as if you were there and you fully understood what she said. The non-Malays/non-Muslims do not face any problems with their religion. They can worship trees, rocks, goats, cows, pussies, dicks, statues, etc., or even not believe in God if they wish to. No one can do anything about that. It is the Muslims who do not enjoy that same freedom. So why are the non-Malays/non-Muslims talking so much about a problem that does not affect them or involve them? Can you imagine the Malays/Muslims making so many comments about the problem the Hindus are facing when they go to pray at Batu Caves? What problems you face at Batu Caves and what you do at Batu Caves is a Hindu problem. The Malays-Muslims will not masuk campur. Anyway, in the first place, the Malays-Muslims are of the opinion (or misconception, if that word pleases you more) that what the Hindus are doing is wrong. Malays-Muslims consider that as an act of idol worshipping and idol worshipping is forbidden in Islam. So why bother to comment about something you do not believe in anyway? Okay, okay, okay, we must allow freedom of thought and freedom of expression. So the non-Malays/non-Muslims have every right to say what they think. And they think that it is wrong for Malays-Muslims to be denied freedom of religion. If the Malays-Muslims want to leave Islam then they should be allowed to do so. And since the Malays-Muslims do not have that freedom, then the non-Malays/non-Muslims must speak up and whack Islam. But that is just it. Did anyone force you to convert to Islam? Are you even a Muslim in the first place? If you are not a Muslim then why do you bother about what Islam does and does not allow? It does not affect you one bit. And have you stopped to think that maybe the Malays-Muslims are not unhappy about this? You, the non-Malays/non-Muslims, are so unhappy that the Malays/Muslims cannot leave Islam. So you whack Islam. But the Malays-Muslims can accept that. It is the non-Malays/non-Muslims who cannot accept that. Why? Hindus are forbidden from eating beef, just like Muslims are forbidden from eating pork. Is this not denying Indians their right to freedom of food? Should the Muslims condemn Hinduism and label it as an outdated religion from the Dark Ages? In today's day and age no one should be denied their right to eat whatever they want to eat. Why use a law from the Dark Ages to control Hindus as to what they can and cannot eat? Why are the Hindus so stupid? In the old days you needed cows as beasts of burden. So you needed to ban the killing of cows or else the people would starve if there were no beasts of burden. Today you don't need cows. You can use tractors and lorries to do that work. So why can't Indians or Hindus kill the cows and eat the meat? Sounds like a stupid argument, does it not? Well, no more stupid than the non-Malays/non-Muslims trying to teach the Malays-Muslims what 'proper' Islam should be. Anyway, all this Islam-bashing only works in Umno's favour and most likely the Malays-Muslims will demonstrate their disgust in the coming general election. Then, when Pakatan Rakyat fails to march into Putrajaya, I will write another "Ha, ha, ha…I told you so" article. Trust me to rub salt into your wounds. I love doing that. Nevertheless, just for the record, let me stress here that I am a strong supporter of freedom of thought and freedom of expression. Take note, though, that freedom of expression does not quite mean freedom to mock or freedom to vilify, which is what many of you do and you call it freedom of speech. Even sex with an underage girl is considered rape so you can't hide behind the concept of freedom of sex. Freedom of sex comes with conditions -- meaning between two CONSENTING ADULTS. Those are the two key words -- consenting and adults. If not then it would be rape. So make sure you understand what freedom of thought and freedom of expression really means. Many of you are confused about the concept. Anyway, back to the issue I want to talk about today. I said I am a strong supporter of freedom of thought and freedom of expression. And this is a problem that Muslims face and which Muslims must address. Let me repeat that. This is a problem that Muslims face and which Muslims must address. Muslims are not allowed freedom of thought and freedom of expression. And this is why Nurul Izzah is currently in hot soup. She said something, and the media misinterpreted (or twisted) what she said. I have heard what she said. And what she said was correct. She did not say that she supports Muslims becoming apostates. She did not say that she supports Muslims leaving Islam to become, say, Christians. Personally, she upholds Islamic values and teachings. However, the reality is, in this day and age, people are able to think for themselves and invariably people will follow what they think is correct, even if that 'correct' thing to these people is to leave Islam. Hence what do we do? If people still leave Islam do we round them up and cut off their heads in a public square? What do we do? In the real world people do leave Islam so that is something we need to live with even though we may be opposed to it. Is not Nurul Izzah just being practical? You may not like it, but it happens. The question is what action do you take? Why not the various muftis and scholars (ulamak) then tell us what to do. Let us hear these muftis and ulamaks clearly state that all those Muslims who leave Islam must be rounded up and be put to death. I have not heard one comment from any of these people who appear outraged with what they imagine Nurul Izzah had said. Ibrahim Ali of Perkasa too has whacked Nurul Izzah. So have some co-called scholars. But did you notice one thing? They NEVER mentioned the punishment for someone who leaves Islam. Why do they not have the balls to say it? Can you now see why I say that Malays-Muslims are great hypocrites? They do not dare say that apostates must be put to death. Why do they not say it? Idiots! Nurul Izzah then quoted Tariq Ramadan. And she quoted what Tariq Ramadan said about there not being any compulsion in religion, which is a verse from the Qur'an. Would any mufti or ulamak like to dispute that? If so, say so now, or else forever keep your dirty mouth shut. Actually, my bone of contention is not with the mufti or ulamak. Most of them are hypocrites anyway so why waste our time with them? They make so much noise but they stop short of telling us what should be done about apostates. My bone of contention is with the politicians. If the politicians did not play up this issue then the whole thing would be a non-issue. It is because this has been turned into a political issue that we now have a serious racial-religious problem in Malaysia. And all politicians -- Malays/Muslims plus non-Malays/non-Muslims -- are to be blamed for this because everyone is doing it. Read the statement below: Timbalan Presiden PKR Azmin Ali pula berkata masyarakat beragama Islam di negara ini masih lagi terikat dengan undang-undang syariah dan itu tidak boleh dipertikaikan. So there you have it. Azmin Ali, Ibrahim Ali, Hasan Ali, Baba Ali, or whoever, they are all the same. They all say that Muslims are bound by the Sharia and hence Sharia laws cannot be disputed. This means Muslims cannot leave Islam. Azmin Ali represents PKR and Pakatan Rakyat. And PKR's and Pakatan Rakyat's stand is the same as Umno, Barisan Nasional, Perkasa, or whatever. As far as the Sharia is concerned, both sides of the political fence are unanimous in their views. So what more to talk? Whether you vote Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat the Sharia cannot be disputed and Muslims cannot leave Islam. So maybe the non-Malays/non-Muslims can stop whacking Islam on grounds that Islam does not allow Muslims to leave Islam because Pakatan Rakyat also shares this view. Yes, I know what you are now going to say. You are going to say it is political suicide for Pakatan Rakyat to state its stand. So better Pakatan Rakyat just keep quiet and not lose the election. Okay, I can buy that. Let's just keep quiet and pretend so that Pakatan Rakyat does not lose the election. That is not hypocrisy. That is…err...political expediency. So why talk about the Islamic State then? Why talk about Hudud then? You talk about nine very sensitive things but you refuse to talk about the tenth thing lest you lose the election. Kan ke bodoh tu?
|
| To know Malaysia is to love Malaysia Posted: 04 Nov 2012 04:22 AM PST
While the Malays practically monopolise politics, the Chinese monopolise the economy although you are bound to hear most Chinese grumble about the discrimination that they face. Even though the Chinese control the wealth of the nation it is best you do not point this out to those you talk to, as they are more comfortable with the notion that the non-Malays suffer discrimination and unfair treatment in spite of their vast wealth. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin Ladies, welcome to our orientation session. These sessions are meant to help the wives of foreign diplomats serving in Malaysia to better familiarise themselves with local culture, traditions, customs and taboos. Actually, Malaysians themselves have not yet come to a decision as to what their culture, traditions, customs and taboos are. Hence you have to play by ear most of the time and tune in to TV3 every night to monitor what statements come out from the mouths of politicians, which will then give you an idea as to what the flavour of the day is, so to speak. Invariably, this constantly changes from time to time depending on what the political issues of the day are and who is doing the talking. Malaysia has what they call the New Economic Policy or NEP. This was a policy introduced in 1970 and was supposed to have run for 20 years and end in 1990. Nevertheless, 42 years on and that 20-year policy is still being enforced. It is best you do not try to understand how a 20-year policy can run for 42 years and will probably run for another 42 years with no end in sight. The NEP was intended to bridge the gap between the haves and the haves-not and to reduce the disparity between the different races. What you will see instead when one day you get to tour the country, however, is that the poor remain poor while the rich get richer. You will also come to realise that it is not the NEP but political power that bridges the gap between the haves and the haves-not and reduces the disparity between the different races. It would be wise, however, if you keep these observations to yourself as it can be a very sensitive issue to most Malaysians. That is probably the first taboo you need to note. Malaysia, as most of you know, is a Constitutional Monarchy. It has a Parliament that is elected into office with a Prime Minister as its head every five years. However, unlike Britain, which gave Malaysia this system, the general elections are not held every five years. They are held when the government feels it is strong enough to win the elections. Malaysia has nine state monarchs with one of the nine becoming its Supreme Head for a period of five years on the basis of a rotation system and based on the concept of first amongst equals, who is called the Agong. Malaysia, therefore, is the only country in the world where the Prime Minister can rule till the day he dies while the monarch rules for only five years. Furthermore, the monarch cannot remove the Prime Minister while the Prime Minister can remove the monarch, although this is seldom done, at least not since the British gave Malaysia its independence in 1957. Of course, during the time of the British occupation, a number of monarchs who did not demonstrate pro-British tendencies were kicked out of office and were replaced by pretenders to the throne who were British lackeys. Malaysia still practices old British laws of 1,000 years ago that makes it a crime to criticise the rulers so it would be best that none of you engage in any discussion regarding the royal family. In the next session we will teach you the proper protocol and the manner in how you address members of the royal family and non-royal Malaysians who have been given titles by the palace. It is a very complicated culture but if you were to view movies of England of, say, 500 years ago, that would give you a pretty good idea about how it works. Malaysians are fond of talking about race and religion, two subject matters that most of us in the west do not like to talk about. Hence it would be advisable that when you meet Malaysians you try to steer the discussion into another direction lest you get dragged into discussing this most unpalatable subject. One strategy would be to talk about the traffic jams and Malaysian driving habits, another subject Malaysians are most passionate about. As I said earlier, Malaysia is a Constitutional Monarchy with Islam as the official religion of the country. However, Malaysia is neither a Theocratic State nor a Secular State and after 55 years of independence Malaysians are still arguing about what the country is. Some will insist that Malaysia is an Islamic State, some that Malaysia is a Secular State, while some will insist that Malaysia is neither or is something in between. Actually, Malaysia is more accurately in a confused state, as I doubt they will ever come to any agreement on the matter. Most of our governments, however, consider Malaysia an Autocratic State but it would be best we do not mention this fact, as it can be a very sore point to most Malaysians. Malays are the dominant ethnic group in Malaysia and they hold most of the political power plus the majority and key positions in the government, police and armed forces. However, more than a dozen political parties form the government of the day under a coalition, the only country in the world where more than a dozen political parties are needed to form the government, as not one of the two dozen or so political parties has enough votes or seats to form the government. Hence Malaysia's political system comprises of two coalitions, both which claim to be multi-racial but are in reality very racial in composition and structure. While the Malays practically monopolise politics, the Chinese monopolise the economy although you are bound to hear most Chinese grumble about the discrimination that they face. Even though the Chinese control the wealth of the nation it is best you do not point this out to those you talk to, as they are more comfortable with the notion that the non-Malays suffer discrimination and unfair treatment in spite of their vast wealth. Malays are officially and legally Muslims and no Malay may convert to any other religion once they are born into a Muslim family. Malays are also forbidden from indulging in vices such as the drinking of liquor, gambling, extra-marital sex, and so on, while homosexuality is illegal. Nevertheless, you will find that many Malays secretly do what is officially forbidden and you are advised to not make any mention of this lest you rub their sensitivities the wrong way. Okay, we will stop here for today. Next week we will discuss some of the other taboos, which some of you may find very amusing. Oh, and Malaysians are very superstitious, especially the Chinese, even the educated Chinese, so you must take special note of this as they tend to get very emotional if you make any mistakes such as giving out white coloured envelopes instead of red ones during Chinese New Year.
|
| Posted: 01 Nov 2012 07:41 PM PDT
Wouldn't life be so much simpler if there were no man-made religions around? Anyway, there are still some good uses for religion. Politicians can use religion to win votes. So you might not go to heaven but at least you can get into political office and rip off the country of billions of Ringgit. So religion is not as useless as you think it is. You can gain power and wealth by exploiting religion. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin Because of the influence of Hollywood and the movies it churns out, most people have the misconception that the Crusades was about Christians going to war against Muslims. What we are not told is that the Crusaders killed (or massacred entire communities) more fellow Christians than they did Muslims. There was more than one Crusade over about 200 years so it was actually a series of religious expeditions organised by different people from different parts of Europe. So it was not just Richard the Lion Heart versus Saladin (of the Prince John, Sheriff of Nottingham and Robin Hood era) as what most think. The objective of the Crusades was to recapture the Christian 'Holy Land' occupied by the Turks after the defeat of the Byzantine Empire. The 'backbone' of the Crusades was the Roman Catholic church. Hence if you were not Roman Catholic -- such as you were Coptic Christians -- then you too would be exterminated just like the Muslims. In fact, all over Europe, even in England then, if you followed a different form of Christianity than the official 'government-approved' version, you were declared a heretic and thus would be killed. Christians, and of course Muslims as well, have zero tolerance for those who deviate from the correct form of Christianity or Islam. Christians would kill 'deviant' Christians but would tolerate Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., and Muslims would kill 'deviant' Muslims, but would tolerate Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. That is how it goes. Of course, since the last couple of hundreds of years, Christians no longer kill 'deviant' Christians. But that does not mean Christianity accepts 'deviant' Christians as true Christians. Even as recent as 100 years ago Anglican Christians considered Roman Catholics as idol worshippers and would never sanction anyone of their family marrying a Catholic. For example, homosexuals are still not accepted in Christianity. The priest would remind us about the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Bible and how God went berserk and punished homosexuals. No doubt the church no longer arrest and burn homosexuals like they used to. But just because homosexuals are no longer burned alive this does not mean the Bible has been amended to allow homosexuality. Hence heresy is still a crime in Christianity, just like homosexuality, and the fact that you are no longer tied to a stake and burned alive is not because that crime is no longer a crime. It just means the church no longer has the political power to kill you like it used to. In Islam it is slightly different from Christianity (but only different in terms of authority to punish you). In Islam, the 'church', meaning the religious authorities, still has power to punish you for crimes against Islam. Heresy, homosexuality, sexual misconduct, etc., which the Christian church can no longer punish you for even though they are still crimes under Christianity, can result in you facing punishment as decided by the religious authorities. So, the difference is as follows. Crimes against Christianity and crimes against Islam still exist and both Christianity and Islam basically share the same view on what these crimes are. However, while in Islam the religious authorities are still allowed to punish you for these crimes, in 'Christendom' the religious authorities have lost this power. That power now comes under the state under the concept of separation of church and state. And that explains why the Selangor Religious Department arrested 20 people in Rawang last night that were accused of trying to revive the Al Arqam movement. The followers of Al Arqam are considered heretics and in Malaysia the religious authorities can take action against heretics like they could in Christendom until less than 200 years ago. (Even witches were still burned alive, and in America as well, until not too long ago). In fact, the religious authorities will not just arrest followers of Al Arqam. Even Shias, Salafis, etc., will face the wrath of the religious authorities. In short, anyone who deviates from 'true Islam' and who do not follow the official 'government-approved' version of Islam will get into trouble. Isn't it ironical? Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, or whatever, are considered people who have followed the wrong path and who are going to spend an eternity in hell. Muslims are not allowed to leave Islam to embrace any of these other unaccepted and false religions. If they do then they can be killed by order of Allah. But all these false religions are allowed to exist as long as you do not propagate your false religion to Muslims and try to convert Muslims to your false religion. The government will leave you alone and will not harass you if you leave Muslims alone and do not mislead Muslims. Live and let live. Unto you your religion and unto me my religion. (Surah Al Kafirun -- O disbelievers! I worship not that which ye worship; Nor worship ye that which I worship. And I shall not worship that which ye worship. Nor will ye worship that which I worship. Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.) Yes, can you see how tolerant Islam can be to those of the other religions? You do your thing and the Muslims will leave you alone even if they consider you followers of a false religion. Only if you interfere with Islam or Muslims will you face the wrath of Muslims. However, Muslims will not live and let live when it comes to fellow Muslims. Even if you do your own thing and you do not disturb other Muslims that will not save you. The state or religious authorities will seek you out, hunt you down, and clamp down hard on you if you are a fellow Muslim who is a heretic and who deviates from the 'government-approved' version of Islam. Non-Muslims have absolute freedom to do what they like as long as they are not a 'threat' to Islam -- threat meaning to 'undermine' Islam or 'mislead' Muslims. Muslims, however, have no such freedom. You are told what you can and cannot do. And what you can do depends on what the government says you can do. Now do you understand why the Selangor Religious Department took action against the followers of Al Arqam last night, one of those 20 a PKR Selangor leader? Religion is a state matter and the Selangor Religious Department comes under the Pakatan Rakyat Selangor State Government. So it is Pakatan Rakyat that took action against those deviant Muslims and heretics last night. Yes, we need a Muslim Martin Luther to help reform the Muslim 'church'. We need a Muslim Martin Luther to challenge the religious institution and tell those religionists to mind their own fucking business. Who are they to decide which is the 'correct' Islam and which is the 'wrong' Islam? You decide which is the 'correct' Islam and which is the 'wrong' Islam and you force me to follow your interpretation of Islam. What if you are wrong? What if you force me to follow your interpretation of Islam and what if you happen to be wrong? What will happen to me if I follow your interpretation of Islam and you happen to be wrong? Well, that means, just like you, I will go to hell. Is that not correct? Is that not what the Qur'an says? Does not the Qur'an say that if I follow my ancestors' beliefs and if my ancestors happen to be wrong then I will join my ancestors in hell? Does not the Qur'an forbid us from following our ancestors because if our ancestors are wrong then we will be punished for following the wrong beliefs? Yes, the Qur'an has made it very clear. We must not blindly follow our ancestors' beliefs because they may be wrong and if they are wrong then we too will be wrong. But the government will not allow us to do that. The Pakatan Rakyat Selangor State Government through the Selangor Religious Department will not allow us to do that. The government says we must follow the 'government-approved' version of Islam. The Qur'an, however, says we must not do that. Is the government above the Qur'an? Is the Selangor Religious Department changing, amending or twisting the word of Allah? You are going to pay for the wrongs you do. If the government forces you to do the wrong thing and you do it then you and not the government will pay for your sins. You cannot tell Allah that I only did what the government asked me to do. Allah will punish you for doing the wrong thing in spite of someone else forcing you to do it. Hence religion is between you and God. The government cannot tell you what to believe and what to do. The government can, of course, arrest you if you do not follow the 'government-approved' religion. In fact, until quite recently, the government could even kill you for not following the 'government approved' version of the religion. They would declare you a heretic and put you to death. At one time they fed you to the lions while the Romans clapped and cheered until the animal-rights activists protested this cruelty to lions. So there you are. What has changed over the last 2,000 years? Nothing much really! The government decides the correct version of religion and will pronounce you a heretic and punish you for heresy if you do not follow what the government dictates. Then all those in government who think they are going to heaven do not get to go to heaven and will drag you along with them to wherever they are going to end up after they die. Wouldn't life be so much simpler if there were no man-made religions around? Anyway, there are still some good uses for religion. Politicians can use religion to win votes. So you might not go to heaven but at least you can get into political office and rip off the country of billions of Ringgit. So religion is not as useless as you think it is. You can gain power and wealth by exploiting religion. |
| Posted: 31 Oct 2012 07:33 AM PDT
You Pakatan Rakyat supporters are still too immature. And that is why Pakatan Rakyat is not ready to run the country. Pakatan Rakyat supporters first need to gain some maturity before Pakatan Rakyat can be allowed to form the federal government. You need to suffer another term under Barisan Nasional. This suffering might then wake you up and only when you wake up can we talk about a change of government. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin "More I read your articles, more I have an inclination that you really are on a BN payroll." -- bengali kunday. ************************************* That was what a reader going by the nickname of 'bengali kunday' said. Well, allow me to reply to that. First of all, even if I am on the payroll of Barisan Nasional, so what? There are people like those in Malaysiakini, Malaysia Chronicle, and so on, who are on Pakatan Rakyat's payroll. In fact, sites like Harakah and many others actually belong to and are financed by Pakatan Rakyat or parties within Pakatan Rakyat. And they do not hide that fact or are apologetic or ashamed about serving the interest of a political party, notwithstanding the fact that it is an opposition party. Are you implying that it is okay to be on Pakatan Rakyat's payroll but not okay to be on Barisan Nasional's payroll? Are you also implying that democracy and freedom of choice and freedom of association means you must be on Pakatan Rakyat's payroll but not on Barisan Nasional's payroll? What type of democracy is this when you are restricted to serving one party's interest but not the other? What type of democracy is this when you have no freedom of choice or freedom of association and are obligated to serve one party's interest but not the other? You take the moral high ground whenever you feel that someone is serving Barisan Nasional's interest but you do not demonstrate that same moral outrage if someone is on Pakatan Rakyat's payroll. So-called 'independent' human rights organisations such as Suaram openly work for Pakatan Rakyat but that is not repulsive to you. Only if they serve Barisan Nasional's interest is it repulsive. Secondly, when I write articles very damaging to Barisan Nasional and Umno -- such as my two recent articles this week in The Corridors of Power regarding Umno Sabah -- you do not consider that as being on Pakatan Rakyat's payroll. However, if I write just one article that is slightly uncomplimentary to Pakatan Rakyat (in fact, the article that I wrote in which you posted that comment is not even about Pakatan Rakyat or uncomplimentary to Pakatan Rakyat) you consider that as being on Barisan Nasional's payroll. To you Pakatan Rakyat supporters, the decent thing to do is to serve Pakatan Rakyat's interest. Serving any other interest is an indecent thing to do. You decide the moral boundaries and limits of decency and anyone who does not pass your interpretation and yardstick of morality and decency is vilified. Who appointed you the guardian and trustee of morality and decency? How different are you from the religionists who decide what is moral and what is decent and impose their standards of morality and decency on others? Since Muslims represent the majority population in Malaysia can Muslims then, going by the doctrine of democracy where majority rules, impose their Islamic interpretation of morality and decency on the minority? Since the majority dictates the ground rules then surely what is compatible to Islam should prevail and anything repulsive to Islam should be barred. In that case the Islamic Sharia law, Hudud included, should be the law of the land. Muslims who are the majority in Malaysia should decide what is moral and what is decent and Islam must be the code of conduct that all Malaysians should live by. Religionists such as Muslims, even if they are the majority in Malaysia, should not impose their will on Malaysians, even on fellow Muslims, let alone on the non-Muslims. So why should you impose your will on others? The believers of Islam should not vilify those who are not of the Muslim faith. Why should the believers of Pakatan Rakyat vilify those who are not of the opposition faith? When misguided Muslims adopt the 'either you are with us or you are against us' religious doctrine, you find that revolting, indecent and immoral. But you can adopt the 'either you are with us or you are against us' political doctrine and it is not revolting, indecent and immoral. What kind of hypocritical double standard is this? You resent it when others impose their will on you and when they decide what is tolerable, moral and decent. But you can impose your will on others and decide what is tolerable, moral and decent. Can you see the hypocrisy that is so thick you can cut it with a knife? Do you think I care a shit about Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat? Do you think I care a shit whether Barisan Nasional retains power or Pakatan Rakyat gains power? Do you think my life is only about the general elections and about who gets to march into Putrajaya? That is a very narrow way to look at life. Do you honestly think that my mission in life is to make sure that Barisan Nasional does not get kicked out? Do you honestly think that my mission in life is to ensure that Pakatan Rakyat gets to form the next federal government? You have a very narrow mission in life. Do not imagine that my mission in life is as narrow as yours. Politicians are politicians, never mind from which side of the political divide. And the narrow objective of all politicians is merely to get into power. What makes you think that that is also my very narrow objective? If you think that then you have not been reading properly what I have been writing over these last 35 years. You Pakatan Rakyat supporters are still too immature. And that is why Pakatan Rakyat is not ready to run the country. Pakatan Rakyat supporters first need to gain some maturity before Pakatan Rakyat can be allowed to form the federal government. You need to suffer another term under Barisan Nasional. This suffering might then wake you up and only when you wake up can we talk about a change of government. Yes, do keep whacking me. Continue to vilify me. And when you do I will do everything within my power to make sure that the coming general election is going to result in a huge shock and disappointment for you. Never give a flower to a monkey, the Malays would say. That is like throwing pearls to swine, the English say. And that is how I look at some of you Pakatan Rakyat supporters, monkeys and swine that are not ready to be entrusted with power. So you want to fight. So let's fight. I have nothing to lose because I don't care a shit which side is going to win the coming general election. That is what you want. That is not what I want. Just because that is what you want you have this mistaken notion that that is what I also want. What stupid people you are. If I support Pakatan Rakyat then I am God. If I do not support Pakatan Rakyat then I am a Barisan Nasional stooge. Well, let me break it to you gently. I am neither God not a Barisan Nasional stooge. I am an independent-spirited individual who does not care a shit about losers like you. |
| Posted: 30 Oct 2012 06:29 PM PDT
Well, since the majority of the Genneva gold bullion investors are Chinese I suppose this proves that the Chinese are greedy and are driven by lust -- lust for quick and easy money. And since the Chinese have demonstrated that they have this great lust then they must also be having lust for power. And this explains why the Chinese want to kick out the Malay Umno government. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin Genneva involved 35,000 investors, investments of RM10bil (Bernama) - Some 35,000 investors with total investments clinching RM10 billion were found to be involved with the gold bullion investment company, Genneva Malaysia Sdn Bhd, a deputy minister told the Dewan Rakyat today. Deputy Finance Minister Datuk Dr Awang Adek Hussin said based on the information received thus far, total investments received amounted to RM4 billion and could swell to RM10 billion. He said Bank Negara Malaysia needs time to investigate the case based on two considerations deemed necessary to solve the controversy over the gold bar trading scheme. "Firstly, Genneva Malaysia has been "disguising" behind the gold bar business. Gold is a sentimental attraction. Many people are keen on gold regardless of their background including leaders." "They (the investors) feel this is a genuine business." "Secondly, Bank Negara has to study the situation. The central bank cannot raid straight away. For instance, if Bank Negara conducts a raid today and starts a probe, the central bank is also scolded at, because of their raid, investors lose their returns." "So Bank Negara has to consider, the central bank cannot act very quickly or very late. A balanced consideration is important. I feel all of us will learn from this experience." "Hopefully, we can better handle these type of cases in future," he said when replying to a supplementary question from Datuk Ibrahim Ali (Independent-Pasir Mas) during question time. Earlier, Awang Adek told the House that Genneva Malaysia's liabilities were more than the company's assets and this clearly showed that the company cannot afford to pay the due returns to its investors. The authorities recently conducted a raid on Genneva Malaysia and its associate company on suspicion of violating the Anti-Money Laundering Act. Datuk Wira Ahmad Hamzah (BN-Jasin), who posed the original question, had asked the Finance Ministry to unveil measures taken to curb get-rich-quick schemes which indulge in deposit-taking and illegal investments. In his reply, Awang Adek said Bank Negara was considering imposing a more deterrent sentence on get-rich-quick scheme operators in efforts to wipe out such scams from continuing to cheat the people. The ministry, in collaboration with related government agencies, including enforcement divisions, was monitoring closely and gathering intelligence, besides getting information from public complaints, he added.
*************************************** Get-rich-quick schemes (Skim Cepat Kaya) such as tontine schemes, Ponzi schemes, etc., have been around for a long time. Tontines (known locally as 'kutu') have been around since the 1800s and Ponzi schemes for about 100 years now. Actually, get-rich-quick schemes have been around since time immemorial. The only thing is the name changes from time-to-time but the objective always remains the same -- make a lot of money from a little bit of money in the shortest possible time. I remember 40 years ago in the early 1970s the Gemini Chit Fund scandal hit the country. I had actually 'invested' in that scheme and made quite a bit of money. I got out just in time, though, before they were closed down and the tail-end investors lost their pants. Then we had the 'Pak Man Telo' Ponzi scheme that first emerged in the late 1970s and ran for about 20 years before the government sprang into action and closed it down. Most of the people caught with their pants down were Malays, a huge number of them rank-and-file police personnel and those from the kampong. Since the 'Pak Man Telo' Ponzi scheme affected mostly Malays it did not become an 'election issue' like the current Genneva gold bullion fiasco. Somehow, anything that affects the Chinese always becomes an election issue. Even giving out white envelopes instead of red envelopes for Chinese New Year can be turned into an election issue. But this would be only if the white envelopes were given to Chinese. If given to Malays then it is not an issue. The strategy in these get-rich-quick schemes is to prey on humankind's lust -- lust for wealth, power, recognition, position, etc. Humankind works on the basis of wants, not needs. Hence lust is very crucial in the whole scheme of things. We need food on the table, clothes on our back, and a roof over our head. Those are our basic needs. But once we meet those basic needs that would no longer be enough. Once we meet those basic needs then our wants take over. Then we want expensive clothes, jewellery, designer shoes and handbags, mansions, exotic cars, power, titles, and much more. Do we need all these? Of course we don't but we want them anyway. And that is why get-rich-quick schemes work. Those behind these schemes prey on peoples' lust or wants. And if you can convince them they can make a lot of money from very little money in the quickest time, they would entrust their money to you -- especially if there are 'references' from others who already made a lot of money from the scheme. To be successful in politics you also need to play on peoples' wants. Most voters might already have what they need. In fact, most Malaysians already have what they need. No one (except those such as drug addicts, etc., who choose to do so) is sleeping on the streets. We do not hear of anyone dying of hunger or starvation. No one walks around naked. So what more do the people need? They actually need very little more. They already have what they need. But it is what they want that counts. And they will vote for the government that can provide them these wants. If it is merely about your needs then you can survive living off the land in the middle of the jungle. You will not need a huge mansion or exotic car in the jungle. You do not need Birkin handbags, Rolex watches, Jimmy Choo shoes, Polo shirts, etc., in the jungle. In fact, you do not even need these if you live in town. But you want them anyway and if you can't have them then the government is bad and needs to be kicked out. Oh, but we are not kicking out the government for these reasons. We are kicking out the government because it is corrupt. Take the RM40 million 'donation' scandal involving Umno Sabah as an example. That is why we need to kick out the government. But the RM40 million 'timber kickback scandal' involving Umno Sabah is not something new. This has been going on for almost 50 years since 1963. That's right, it has been going on for almost half a century. And we have been telling you this for almost 40 years since the 1970s (at least I have, anyway). But this has never concerned you before. The more we tell you about all this the more you vote for Barisan Nasional. In fact, you looked at us as if we were crazy -- barking like a mad dog. Many times you scolded us and told us to just shut up. Now you appear to be screaming more than we are. So, no, I do not believe you want to kick out the government because the government is corrupt. I suspect that this is bullshit and that you have an ulterior motive. I suspect you are up to something no good. I suspect that this is merely a Chinese conspiracy to grab political power from the Malays. If corruption is really an issue then you would have kicked out the government a long time ago and not wait 55 years to do so. I know you all are a suspicious lot. Whenever I write something you are always suspicious of me. You suspect that I have a hidden agenda and that I am doing this for some personal benefit. Well, I, too, am just like you. I too am suspicious. I too suspect that you have a hidden agenda and that you are doing this for some personal benefit. Hence you want to kick out the government not because the government is corrupt -- because the government has always been corrupt for over 55 years and you never cared about it before this. I suspect you are not sincere and this is all about the Chinese kicking out a Malay Umno government. Well, since the majority of the Genneva gold bullion investors are Chinese I suppose this proves that the Chinese are greedy and are driven by lust -- lust for quick and easy money. And since the Chinese have demonstrated that they have this great lust then they must also be having lust for power. And this explains why the Chinese want to kick out the Malay Umno government. Hmm…Chinese logic does make sense, does it not? You swim. A duck swims. So you must be a duck. Raja Petra Kamarudin whacks Pakatan Rakyat. Barisan Nasional also whacks Pakatan Rakyat. So Raja Petra Kamarudin must be supporting Barisan Nasional. I just love what 5,000 years of Chinese civilisation and Chinese philosophy can teach us. Want to see another example of Chinese logic and philosophy? This is what Malaysiakini wrote: In the middle of April 2011, blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin, better known as RPK, dropped a bombshell in denying his sensational statutory declaration dated June 2008. He claimed that he had been misled into making a false allegation against Rosmah Mansor, wife of premier Najib Abdul Razak. So there you are -- another example of Chinese logic and philosophy at work. That is what 5,000 years of Chinese civilisation has given to the world. I don't know how Malaysiakini came to that conclusion but who am I to argue with 5,000 years of Chinese logic and philosophy? |
| How I imagine the trial would proceed Posted: 28 Oct 2012 07:51 PM PDT
Lawyer: What I am driving at is God's hand is at work here and the church is powerless to prevent God from doing His work. God and not the church or the statue cured your wife just like God and not the church or the statue caused the statue to fall over. Both acts, according to your faith, are what we could call ACTS OF GOD. Can someone else be sued for an act of God? NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin Man Who Lost Leg After Crucifix Fell on Him While Praying Sues Church for US$3mil (Daily Mail) - A cruel twist of fate cost David Jimenez his leg when the crucifix he prayed to every day when his wife was fighting cancer toppled over and crushed him. Jimenez stopped every day to pray to the statue of Jesus on the cross outside Church of St Patrick in Newburgh, New York. When his wife, Delia, recovered from the cancer, the 45-year-old father of two offered to clean the crucifix as an act of faith and a goodwill gesture. However, as he scrubbed the heavy marble object, it fell off its shaky pedestal and landed on his leg, the Mid-Hudson News Network reported. The pizza parlour employee is now suing the church for US$3 million, claiming the priest who gave him permission to work on the unstable statue was negligent. The injury on Memorial Day in 2010 so badly mangled Jimenez's right leg that doctors were forced to amputate it just below the knee. The church told CBS New York that the congregation collected food and US$7,000 in cash donations for Jimenez and his family. However, Jimenez's lawyer, Kevin Kitson, said the insurance company for the diocese had made collecting additional money difficult. As a result of the legal action, the church has removed the crucifix from the Church of St Patrick and moved it to another parish. Kitson said his client, a devout Catholic, still believes it played a role in his wife's recovery. "David attributed the cure to his devotion to that cross," he told CBS New York. Nonetheless, the lawyer maintains that the church was negligent. He said only one screw held the marble statue in place. That gave way when Jimenez scrubbed the statue, causing it to fall over. ********************************************* This is how I imagine the trial would proceed. Lawyer: Mr Jimenez, you say that the church was negligent and that this negligence caused the statue of Jesus on the cross to fall over and crush your leg. Could it not be that you were negligent instead and that it was your negligence that caused the statue to fall over rather than the negligence of the church? Plaintiff: No. I was very careful. I was not negligent. Lawyer: So, in spite of your carefulness, the statue still fell over. Hence it was not your own negligence. Is that correct? Plaintiff: That is correct. Lawyer: You volunteered or offered to clean the statue as an act of faith and a goodwill gesture. Is that correct? Plaintiff: Yes, that is correct. Lawyer: So the church did not ask you or request you to clean the statue. Plaintiff: No, but the church gave me permission to do so knowing that it was dangerous. Lawyer: How do you know that the church was aware that it was dangerous to clean the statue? Did the priest or anyone else from the church tell you it was dangerous? Plaintiff: No. No one told me it was dangerous. But they would have known it was dangerous and they should have told me. Lawyer: How do you know they would have known it was dangerous? Plaintiff: Well…I sort of just know. It's a sort of feeling I have. Lawyer: So, you have no evidence of this. It is just a feeling you have that the church knew it was dangerous and you also have a feeling that they did not tell you that it was dangerous in spite of knowing that it was dangerous? Plaintiff: Well…err…well yes. Lawyer: So, in spite of you being able to have all these feelings, you did not have any feeling that the statue might fall over if you start cleaning it. Plaintiff: Err…no. Lawyer: And you volunteered or offered to clean the statue because you have faith that your prayers in front of the statue helped cure your wife's cancer. Plaintiff: That's right. Lawyer: Are you saying that the statue cured your wife's cancer? Plaintiff: No, not the statue. God cured my wife's cancer because I constantly prayed in front of the statue. It was God's will. Lawyer: So it was God's will that your wife was cured, not the statue's will. Is that correct? Plaintiff: That's right. Lawyer: But the statue fell over when you cleaned it. Plaintiff: That's right. Lawyer: So it was not the statue's will that it fell over but God's will. Plaintiff: Err…I think so…you are confusing me. Lawyer: Mr Jimenez, it's a simple question. Is it God's will or the statue's will that it fell over? Plaintiff: It's God's will. Lawyer: So, it was God and not the statue that cured your wife's cancer and it is God's will and not the statue's will that it fell over and crushed your leg. So why sue the church then? Since God is the cause of both your wife's cancer being cured as well as for the statue falling over would it not be God's doing and therefore you should be suing God instead of the church? Plaintiff: I can't sue God! Lawyer: Why not? Plaintiff: Well, because you just can't, that's why. Lawyer: But the church had no hand in this. In fact, even the statue had no hand in this, as you admit. It was the hand of God that both cured your wife and made the statue fall over. So why sue the church for something that God did? Plaintiff: It just does not work like that. Lawyer: Even if the church had not been negligent but God had willed the statue to fall over could the church have prevented God's will? Plaintiff: I don't understand. Lawyer: Let me put it another way then. Can the church defy God? Plaintiff: Of course not. No one can defy God. Lawyer: So, if God had wanted the statue to fall over then there is nothing the church could have done, is that correct? Plaintiff: What are you driving at? Lawyer: What I am driving at is God's hand is at work here and the church is powerless to prevent God from doing His work. God and not the church or the statue cured your wife just like God and not the church or the statue caused the statue to fall over. Both acts, according to your faith, are what we could call ACTS OF GOD. Can someone else be sued for an act of God? Plaintiff: Err…err…you are confusing me. Lawyer: Your Honour, I ask the court to set aside this suit and award costs to my client as the Plaintiff has admitted that what happened to him was an act of God and not negligence on the part of the church. I have also received instructions that if the Plaintiff would like to sue God I am authorised to represent Him. |
| Posted: 27 Oct 2012 06:27 PM PDT
We need New Politics. We need a New Malaysia. We need New Malaysians. We need a Malaysian of Democrats. And this New Politics, New Malaysia, New Malaysians, a Malaysian of Democrats, etc., have to be one that is tolerant of criticism -- even if that criticism is 'God does not exist, religion is bullshit, and those who believe in all this nonsense are enslaving themselves to a doctrine from the Dark Ages'. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin Anwar: 'Kenyataan Soi Lek hina Islam' (Sinar Harian) - Ketua Pembangkang, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim menyifatkan kenyataan dilontar Presiden MCA, Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek tentang hudud satu penghinaan nyata terhadap agama Islam. Dakwa Anwar, tindakan Soi Lek itu amat memalukan dan tidak mampu dipertahankan lagi. Katanya, kenyataan Soi Lek yang dilakukan di hadapan Datuk Seri Najib Razak, juga bermaksud menghina beliau sebagai Perdana Menteri dan tetamu khas konvensyen tersebut. "Saya sifatkan ianya sebagai satu serangan yang biadab dan telah menyinggung perasaan umat Islam," katanya yang dipetik dalam blog miliknya, semalam. Soi Lek sebelum ini mengeluarkan kenyataan bahawa pelaksanaan hukum hudud akan menjejaskan 1.2 juta peluang pekerjaan dalam sektor perkhidmatan dan pelancongan serta boleh mencetuskan keresahan rakyat terhadap Islam. Beliau selepas itu meminta semua anggota parti MCA supaya meningkatkan lagi publisiti dalam usaha menepis dakyah pembangkang. Katanya, lebih parah lagi, kenyataan Soi Lek itu seolah-olah dipersetujui Najib. "Kebisuan Najib tentang perkara ini jelas menunjukkan beliau berada di pihak yang salah," katanya. *********************************************** Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim says that the MCA President, Chua Soi Lek, has insulted Islam. Just for the record, I too have whacked Chua Soi Lek for instigating the Penang Malays in my article We didn't start the fire. And this is what one reader commented: RPK, No matter how much you try to instigate May 13 - Version 2.0, realize that you are wasting your time. The Malays today are far, far different from those in 1969...they are wealthy and drive new-ish fancy cars...do you really think they are going to Mengamuk like the old days? Today's Melayus have lost their balls. So, when I whack the MCA President, I am instigating May 13 Version 2.0. When the Opposition Leader whacks Chua Soi Lek, he is the greatest Malaysian alive -- a true 'Towering' Malay. The chap, Ramesh Chandran, who posted that comment accuses me of instigating May 13 Version 2.0 and yet he closes his comment with: Today's Melayus have lost their balls. Is this not a contradiction? You accuse me of racism and then you throw the Malays a challenge by saying that the Malays have lost their balls. So how do you want the Malays to prove that they still have balls? By taking to the streets and mengamuk? Malaysia Today appears to attract comments from readers with the lowest intelligence and intellectual level. No wonder the thinking readers rather just read and remain quiet. They refuse to comment and be associated with brain-dead Malaysians. Anyway, I would have expected that statement by Anwar Ibrahim to come from people like Ibrahim Ali, Hassan Ali, Zulkifli Nordin, and those of their ilk, but not from someone like Anwar, a so-called Democrat. A Democrat may disagree with what you say but he or she will definitely respect and defend your right to say it. Anwar appears to have lost this ability. You may have a warped opinion, but that does not mean you are not entitled to this warped opinion or that you lose your right to express this warped opinion. After all, probably 80% of the world believes in the existence of God and they profess some form of religion. They will also express their views about their religion. And the other 20% of the world that does not think this is true would consider the 80% as silly and superstitious sub-humans, at least in mentality. But do the 20% stop the 80% from having these beliefs and from expressing these beliefs as much as they may think these are extremely silly beliefs? Why is it only those who believe in God and profess a religion have rights whereas those who do not believe in God and do not profess a religion do not have rights? And when those who do not believe in God and do not profess a religion express their views, they are accused of 'insulting' so-and-so religion. This 'you are insulting my religion' allegation is being carried a bit too far. God is supposed to be kind, forgiving, compassionate, just, fair, and so on. On the other hand, God is extremely intolerant and God has appointed 'agents' to roam around the world to punish those who 'insult' Him. This sounds like a very short-tempered and vindictive God who is even worse than the person you love to hate -- Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. At least even if Dr Mahathir detains you under Operasi Lalang you finally get to go home. Dr Mahathir does not shoot you or bomb your house because you have insulted him, like what your God has commanded you to do. Perkasa, Pekida, Umno, the government, etc., accuse the Christians, DAP, MCA, the non-Muslims, the church etc., of insulting Islam. And they want action taken against these people. Whether these (non-Muslim) people really did insult Islam or this is something these Muslims perceive and is just something in their minds is not important. As long as someone is perceived or imagined to have insulted Islam, those are grounds enough to punish him or her for this 'crime'. We can expect this from the government and the government supporters. We do not expect this from the opposition, in particular those who are projecting a Democrat image, and certainly not from the Leader of the Opposition. We need New Politics. We need a New Malaysia. We need New Malaysians. We need a Malaysian of Democrats. And this New Politics, New Malaysia, New Malaysians, a Malaysian of Democrats, etc., have to be one that is tolerant of criticism -- even if that criticism is 'God does not exist, religion is bullshit, and those who believe in all this nonsense are enslaving themselves to a doctrine from the Dark Ages'. If we are not yet ready for that then Malaysia is NOT yet a nation of Democrats and hence we lose the right to talk about democracy. And certainly the Opposition Leader should lead by example and be the first to demonstrate he is a Democrat and not just another Perkasa, Pekida, Umno, etc., by another name. |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
