Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Posted: 22 Feb 2013 06:30 PM PST

An attack by the Malaysian police and military against the group headed by Crown Prince Agbimuddin Kiram after the deadline could start a war against the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF). MNLF chairman Nur Misuari, who is of royal lineage, will order his followers to cross to Sabah and fight a guerrilla war.

(Philippine Daily Inquirer) - There's no way the Sultan of Sulu, Jamalul Kiram, will heed President Noy's appeal for him to order his men in Sabah to come home so the standoff could be resolved peacefully.

"Why would the Sultan listen to the President who left him out in the peace talks with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF)?" said a member of the Philippine intelligence community who claims he is close to Kiram.

The sultan continues to refuse Malaysia's ultimatum for the recall of his men. The ultimatum expired yesterday (Friday).

An attack by the Malaysian police and military against the group headed by Crown Prince Agbimuddin Kiram after the deadline could start a war against the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF).

MNLF chairman Nur Misuari, who is of royal lineage, will order his followers to cross to Sabah and fight a guerrilla war.

The MNLF, composed mostly of Tausogs, waged a decades-long war against the government until it signed a peace accord with the government during the time of President Ramos.

If MNLF guerrillas cross over to Sabah, they will be harboured by fellow Tausogs who live in the Malaysian state.

A third of the population in Sabah, according to a rough unofficial estimate, is Tausog.

The Tausogs and other Muslim tribes, like the Maguindanaoans and Maranaws, live in a feudal society where datus (village kings) rule.

The datus in Sulu and Tawi-Tawi, in turn, defer to the Sulu sultan.

It would be good for Malaysia to dialogue with the sultan to prevent a guerrilla war like the one waged by the MNLF against the government from the 1970s through the 1980s and early 1990s.

Malaysia could promise the Tausogs just about anything to appease them.

At the outset of the talks with the Sulu sultanate, Kuala Lumpur could promise to increase the rent it pays the sultan for Sabah.

The fact that Malaysia pays rent, no matter how paltry, is evidence that the sultanate owns Sabah.

God, as opposed to religion

Posted: 22 Feb 2013 05:42 PM PST

Okay, back to the issue of Prophet Muhammad's marriage to Aisha when she was said to be just 6 years old or 9 years old or whatever. Of the many stories in Islam this appears to be the single most-favourite story that non-Muslims will raise to mock the Prophet and call him a paedophile, child rapist, pervert, criminal who would be sent to jail if he did that today, and so on.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Agnostic (noun)

1. A person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause and that the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

2. A person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

3. A person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic.

**************************************************

One or two readers posted comments today saying that my articles are boring or have become quite stale of late. That may be true. Education can sometimes be boring when you do not want to get educated or you feel you already know enough and do not need further education.

I do not think that I already know everything. I admit that there is still much I need to learn. And that was the reason why I signed up at Oxford University's Department of Continuing Education in 2011 plus I attended a few lectures in Oxford last year. I am currently on my third module and will be submitting my essay at the end of March.

Anyway, let me bore you, yet again, with another stale article. This article is not about God or about religion but I have titled it 'God, as opposed to religion' and I am going to make many references to God and religion.

Most simple-minded people -- and that would probably be more than half the readers of Malaysia Today -- think that the world is divided into those who believe in God (theists) and those who do not believe in God (atheists). They do not realise that there is a third group -- neither theist nor atheist -- who sit in between those two. And this group is called agnostics.

You can read the definition of agnostic at the top.

Before I go into the main thrust of my article, allow me, as usual, to digress -- in my normal cheong hei manner -- and address some of the comments posted in Malaysia Today over the last few weeks. This is merely a digression to make a short story long and is still not what I really want to talk about today.

One reader raised the issue of Prophet Muhammad's marriage to Aisha and said that this was what is reported in the Hadith.

Now, let's say I make certain references to the life of Jesus. And, let's also say, Christians disagree with my view and argue that my statement contradicts Christian beliefs. Then, say, I 'prove' to you that I am correct while you are wrong with quotes from the Gospel. You then ask me from which Gospel I am making this reference and I quote the Gospel of Barnabas.

You then argue that the Gospel of Barnabas may contain some remnants of earlier apocryphal works but it has never been canonised although it is about the same length as the four canonical gospels put together. I then counter by saying that the 'Gospel according to Barnabas' is mentioned in two early Christian lists of apocryphal works: the 6th-century Latin Decretum Gelasianumas well as the 7th-century Greek List of the Sixty Books. Hence it is authentic.

Okay, so what is my point here? Simple, my point is that I am telling you what a Christian should believe. You are a Christian while I am not. Yet I am telling you what is the correct Christianity and what is wrong Christianity. Should not you, a Christian, know better what you want to believe and do not want to believe? Who am I, a non-Christian, to teach you what is correct Christianity?

I would never presume to know Christianity better than you, a practicing Christian. And I would never attempt to teach you what is correct Christianity and what is wrong Christianity. Non-Muslims, however, presume they know Islam better than Muslims themselves and then will preach what is right Islam and what is wrong Islam.

Allow me to digress, yet again. Back in those days, and even up to 'modern' times, 'political marriages' were very common, even in the more 'civilised' Europe. Most political marriages would be between leaders or rulers to unite the different political factions or powers. Leaders or rulers did not marry for love. They married to strengthen their position and to gain political allies or to prevent other powers from turning enemy (once you are related by marriage you become friends).

Even in England and France the sons and daughters of Kings were married off to each other when they were still children. However, they would not be allowed to live as husband and wife until they reach the age of puberty, which could be 10 or 11. Hence they would have to live apart for a few years until then. And 'adulthood' would be when you reach puberty. In fact, at 13 you went to war and died for your country and at 19, if you were still single, you would be considered too old to get married. At 30 you would be an old man or woman.

Anyway, that was a mere digression. I am not trying to play the role of Muslim apologist here. I am bringing to your attention that the value system and traditions/customs in those days were different from today. Christians killed Jews in those days. Catholics killed Protestants and Protestants killed Catholics in those days.

Hell, the English Parliament even banned Christmas and ordered shops to stay open on 25th December, less than 400 years ago, because Christmas was considered a pagan festival and not the day to mark the birth of Christ. And, 1,000 years before that banning of Christmas, Prophet Muhammad was said to have entered into a political alliance with the most powerful warlord of Mekah by marrying his underage daughter.

But that is not really what I want to argue today. What I do want to argue is: where did this story come from? Is it in the Qur'an? No! It is from the Hadith. So, you argue, since it is from the Hadith, then it must be true and hence Prophet Muhammad was a paedophile.

Okay, let us rewind a bit. You are quoting from the Hadith and you are telling me that this is what my Hadith says and since I am a Muslim I must believe in this Hadith.

Now hold on a minute. Are all Christians Catholics? Aren't there many denominations of Christianity? Hence why do you assume that all Muslims believe in the same thing? You do not even bother to ask me what denomination Muslim I am and you shove down my throat your interpretation of Islam as if there is only one denomination of Islam. Can I insist that you believe in the Gospel of Barnabas and then pass judgment on you because you have 'deviated' from the teachings of Barnabas?

Not all Muslims believe in the Hadith. These people are normally unfairly called the anti-Hadith group. Actually they are not anti-Hadith as much as they hold to the Qur'an as God's true word and believe that all other 'holy books' other than the Qur'an are superfluous.

Then there are those who believe in some of the Hadith but not all of them. Further to that, there are those who believe in a different set of Hadith. Hence, on the issue of Hadith alone, there are so many different denominations of Muslims. So, when you quote the Hadith to a Muslim without knowing his of her position on Hadith, it is like quoting Barnabas to a Christian and assume that since he or she is a Christian then she or she must believe in Barnabas.

So far we are talking about Muslims and Christians. For sure Muslims and Christians are theists. And they believe not only in God but also in the religion of God (which means they are religionists as well). But what happens if you believe in God (or at least in some higher power that created us) but not in the religion of God? Then you would be an agnostic. You are neither Muslim nor Christian.

The arguments are normally between Muslims and Christians (even here in Malaysia Today). But you fail to see that there is a third group, a Third Force if you wish and if that can help you better understand the issue. And this third group thinks that both the Muslims and Christians are equally wrong.

Yes, there is a God. But there is no religion. God is the destination you wish to arrive at. Religion is merely one of those vehicles you use to arrive at that destination called God.

Okay, enough with all that religion bullshit. After three pages of talking cock let me get to the punch line. And the punch line is: there are two 'religions' called Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat quarrelling over whose 'God' is the true God, whose 'Prophet' is the genuine Prophet, and whose 'Holy Book' is the authentic Holy Book.

I then declare that I am not a religionist but an agnostic. And while I acknowledge the existence of God, I do not accept that religions came from God. I think that religions are manmade.

And then both sides of the religious divide call me a kafir, infidel, nonbeliever, unbeliever, disbeliever, doubter, heretic, apostate, heathen, pagan, and whatnot. They tell me that the only way to reach God is through their religion. And both sides claim that their religion is true while the other is false.

Nevertheless, while I still want God, I do not want corrupt religions where their followers do the opposite of what they say. Hence if you think that I am a kafir, infidel, nonbeliever, unbeliever, disbeliever, doubter, heretic, apostate, heathen, pagan, and whatnot; so be it.

Lakum dinakum waliyadin (to you be your religion and to me my religion): Qur'an, Surah Al-Kafirun, 109:6

(Now, I bet most of you will be debating religion instead of the last five paragraphs of this article, which is the point I am really driving at).

Anwar's Last Gamble

Posted: 22 Feb 2013 03:19 PM PST

In essence, the Hindraf's six demands in its blueprint are Indian-specific. Therefore, by agreeing to back Hindraf's demands, Anwar has committed himself and unwittingly his Pakatan partners to fight for Indian causes.

Kuala Lumpur Post

Anwar Ibrahim has littered his recent political past with promises he cannot possibly keep. And now he has made the mother of all promises. He has promised to champion the race and religious specific cause of Hindraf. This promise could be his undoing.

Anwar was quoted by the social media yesterday as saying that should Pakatan Rakyat assume federal power, Hindraf's five-year blueprint on resolving the Indian community's problems will be implemented within 100 days.

Anwar knows he has bitten off more than he can chew. Why then did he make that promise? Simple. He was blinded by his all-consuming ambition to move into the Prime Minister's residence in Putrajaya.

When asked at the meeting in Shah Alam on Friday night whether he would support Hindraf's six-point demands, he was caught between a rock and a hard place. Since September last year, PKR had been dragging its feet when Hindraf asked it to endorse its blueprint for the Indian community.

More recently, Hindraf leaders became impatient at PKR's foot-dragging. They warned that Pakatan's "inordinate delay" in endorsing the blueprint may result in the coalition losing Indian support in the coming election.

So, this time around, if he had not made a firm commitment to Hindraf, his goose would have been cooked. He would have permanently lost Hindraf support. Faced with that prospect, he was forced to respond positively.

Now, Anwar has to face the consequences of his hasty reply. And the repercussions are grave for him, for his political party and for the opposition coalition.

In essence, the Hindraf's six demands in its blueprint are Indian-specific. Therefore, by agreeing to back Hindraf's demands, Anwar has committed himself and unwittingly his Pakatan partners to fight for Indian causes.

If he pursues this line, he will be dumped by the Malays and sabotaged by the Chinese, the Dayaks, Ibans and all the other natives of Sabah and Sarawak because he has not made similar promises to them.

He will also have to face the wrath of his coalition partners who have made no similar concession to any other race-based NGO. Even the Buku Jingga, which the three partners cobbled together, is not race-specific.

So how will Anwar try to extricate himself? Just as he has always tried to do. And that is by trying to be too clever by half.

He tried that trick again at the gathering in Shah Alam. He refused to reduce his commitment to Hindraf in writing. He said he would not sign on the dotted line. Now that is his exit strategy. Or so he thinks. Indians are no more the gullible people Anwar takes them to be.

They are wise to Anwar's double talk. They won't rest till they get the PKR Supremo to give them a written undertaking to support their blueprint. They will not settle for anything less.

Anwar's 2013 commitment to Hindraf also means he agrees to their demand to end 'institutionalised racism', a term which is their label for special privileges benefitting only Bumiputeras.

But what has been Anwar's public stand on this issue of Bumiputera special privileges? In 2009, Anwar defended Malays' special privileges and added that these rights should not be questioned by non-Malays. He has since not changed his stand.

So, Anwar stands for Malay special privileges and also supports Hindraf's call to abolish them? Surely Anwar has dug his own grave. He has made a promise to Hindraf that he can't keep. But maybe he always knew this to be the case and was simply playing for time.

Anwar will also be in hot soup with his coalition partners for not seeking their sanction before making his commitment to Hindraf. Their prior consent is necessary, said PKR Vice-President Tian Chua.

Tian Chua was recently quoted as saying that "when it comes to formulating a political programme, we have stressed to Hindraf that PKR will not act unilaterally or without consensus from all 3 "partners" in Pakatan Rakyat.

The blueprint proposed by Hindraf must first be presented to the Pakatan Rakyat leadership council for discussion and approval. This process is yet to take place, therefore it is too early to announce the signing of any agreement."

Observers say this promise was another of Anwar's ploys. He has no intention of keeping his promise, and that's why he is refusing to sign the document. He is simply lying to Indians just to get their votes. He will ditch them afterwards.

What has hitherto been his or his coalition partners' record when it comes to championing Indian causes anyway? The answer; a very disappointing and weak record.

Distrusted by many Malays, viewed with suspicion by many Indians, and treated with caution by many Chinese, is Anwar Ibrahim on a roller coaster ride to political oblivion?

The answer…

A case of scratching each other’s back?

Posted: 22 Feb 2013 02:49 PM PST

In 1985, Tun Mustapha said perhaps the federal government wanted to use Manila's claim on Sabah against its people as a bargaining chip to make them behave.

By Jude Wang, FMT

KOTA KINABALU: With the 13th General Election drawing near, it seems to be a fishy coincidence that the Sultan of Sulu and his family have suddenly decided to revive their claim to Sabah as part of their ancestral right.

In an interview with the Philippines' Daily Inquirer, Crown Prince Rajah Mudah Agbimuddin Kiram, reportedly said that they will have to pursue the Sabah claim on their own since the Philippines government appeared to have ignored their demand to include their claim to Sabah as an "integral and essential" aspect of the peace agreement involving "any armed group in Mindanao".

Meanwhile, Malacanang maintains a dormant claim to Sabah. But who are these armed groups? Here's a look at the historical facts.

The Crown prince claims the armed group are the "Royal Security Force of the Sultanate of Sulu and North Borneo". Their arrival on Sabah shores is said to have sparked one of the biggest security "scares" in recent years in Sabah.

Though they claim to have come without any violent intentions, their mere presence was enough to cause jitters among Lahad Datu residents, who, in past years, have witnessed several violent exchanges between Filipino armed groups and Malaysian military forces.

Since the ongoing stand-off between the Sulu 'soldiers' and the Malaysian security forces, rumours and text messages have been circulating in the east coast district and as far as Kota Kinabalu.

While some of these test messages warned for people to be vigilant, others talked about a shootout between forces concerned. So what are these 'negotiations' that the Malaysian security forces are talking about?

It's a drama

To understand the situation, I made some inquiries among friends and contacts in the east coast town to gauge the "on the ground" situation. The result was they all knew very little of what was going on.

One long time resident of Lahad Datu who did not want to be named told me that the Malaysian military force landed at the Lahad Datu Airport and headed straight to the landing spot, some 20 kilometers from the township.

While describing the situation as "terkawal" (under control), she also said: "Tapi kami juga berjaga-jaga" (but we are on the alert).

A plantation manager of mixed descent who also preferred anonymity said: "Actually they (the Moros) used to come here unnoticed but this time one of their rivals in one of the many splinter groups informed the Malaysian government.

"Also, when this thing happened, people also started to SMS around and this caused a panic. In fact, nothing much is happening that we can see… its more like a false alarm."

One man who claimed to be a former MNLF personnel and who has started a new life as a supervisor in a plantation, said he was rather surprised when this issue came up "because my own relatives in the Philippines are also unaware of this (incident)".

"The (Malaysian) government kasih makan sama diorang saja ini (the government is only feeding them); ini sandiwara saja… apa hal ini? (its a drama … what is this farce all about?).

From the on-the-ground responses, the question that emerges is why has the current standoff generated so much hype in the first place? Is it because of the 'secrecy' of the on-going negotiations?

MNLF-M'sia connection

The number of armed men seems to have grown from 20 to between 80 and 150 as claimed by the Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein while others say the numbers are even more.

Hishammuddin compromised an earlier no-negotiation stance made by the Sabah Chief of Police Hamza Taib, citing as his main reason the need to "handle (the situation) wisely without bloodshed or loss of lives".

It was a dubious move in the first place and now seems to have backfired. Calls here are getting louder for the resignation of both the Home Minister and his counterpart in the Defence Ministry, Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, over what the DAP has called their "shameful failure" to defend the country in the face of such blatant acts of lawlessness.

Another opposition party leader also called the stand-off 'a "shameful failure" of the government to defend the country's honour and sovereignty as well as the security and safety of the people of Sabah. But conspiracy theorists are hinting that this is actually a secret arrangement cooked up between politicians and the many rebellious elements in the Southern Philippines.

While it may seem far-fetched, there is historical precedence for such "cooperation". Many point to the tacit connection between the MNLF and the Malaysian government stretching back more than four decades.

In 1968, news broke that Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) trainers had killed at least 28 Muslim military recruits during a mutiny at a secret training camp on the island of Corregidor. The Muslim Filipinos presumably were being trained by the AFP as a secret army to invade Sabah.

In 1969, Malaysian authorities are said to have secretly trained Moro Liberation Front members on Pangkor and Jampiras Island and a dozen more places in Sabah, as part of an covert strategy to prevent President Marcos' attempts to pursue the Philippines claim over Sabah which was started by President Macapagal in 1962.

READ MORE HERE

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Sabtu, 23 Februari 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan