Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

So what is our foreign policy?
Preaching to the preacher
God, as opposed to religion
Why are Malays so otak sempit?
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter

Posted: 05 Mar 2013 04:45 PM PST

Israel did not create itself. Israel was created by the colonial powers that also engineered the destruction of the Ottoman Empire. And the Sykes–Picot Agreement plus the Balfour Declaration were what made Israel possible. And these countries not only created Israel but they propped it up as well and are still doing so. So why are we still friends with them when they are the culprits behind the problem we are facing called Israel?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

'Did PM know US consultants are Israel supporters?'

(Malaysiakini) - Is Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak's administration aware that the US consultants it hired to attack political rival Anwar Ibrahim are ardent supporters of the Israeli regime, asks PKR.

PKR communications director Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad said Najib must answer many questions pertaining to the engagement of former United States president George W Bush's speechwriter Joshua Trevino and other American bloggers, through Apco Worldwide and FBC Media, at the expense of taxpayers.

FBC Media and Apco are agencies hired by the Malaysian government to spruce up its image internationally.

"Is the government aware that many of the consultants hired are staunch and avid supporters of Israel, to the detriment of the Palestinians?" were among the questions Nik Nazmi posed in a statement today.

The same right-wing writers hired by the BN-led government, said Nik Nazmi, are also anti-Islam and have been criticising the Muslim Brotherhood and Muslims in the US.

He also wants the PM to explain why and how much more of the rakyat's money has been spent for propaganda, who else have been hired and who did the recruiting and coordination of the campaign, which are mainly slander attacks against opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim.

He claimed that Trevino was behind the site Malaysiamatters.com, which carried articles aimed at discrediting Anwar to international audiences.

Pakatan had intended to ask the question in Parliament, said the PKR leader, though as it was clear that there will be no Parliament sitting convened, he said the onus is on Najib.

"We hope the PM will answer," said Nik Nazmi during a press conference in Petaling Jaya today.

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

Some background to the Israel issue

On 16th May 1916, Britain and France concluded the Sykes–Picot Agreement, which proposed to divide the Middle East between them into spheres of influence, with "Palestine" as an international enclave.

The Sykes-Picot Agreement did not call for Arab sovereignty, but for the "suzerainty of an Arab chief" and "an international administration, the form of which is to be decided upon after consultation with Russia, and subsequently in consultation with the other allies, and the representatives of the Sherif of Mecca." Under the terms of that agreement, the Zionist Organisation needed to secure an agreement along the lines of the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement with the Sherif of Mecca.

On 2nd November 1917, the Balfour Declaration, a letter from British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Lord Rothschild, made public the British support of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The Balfour Declaration led the League of Nations to entrust the United Kingdom with the Palestine Mandate in 1922.

In that letter, Balfour promised British support for the Zionist programme of establishing a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine. This pledge of support was made without consulting the indigenous Christian and Muslim inhabitants of Palestine, the Palestinian people. And it was made before British troops had even conquered the land.

Balfour, on behalf of Britain, promised Palestine – over which Britain had no legal right – to a people who did not even live there (of the very small community of Palestinian Jews in Palestine in 1917, very few were Zionists). And he did so with the worst of intentions: to discourage Jewish immigration to Britain. Lord Montagu, the only Jewish member of the Cabinet, opposed the declaration.

And yet, just two years earlier, Britain had committed herself to assisting the Arab nations in achieving their independence from the Ottoman Empire. Arab fighters all over the region, including thousands of Palestinians, fought for their freedom, allowing Britain to establish her mandate in Palestine.

From that moment, Palestine became the victim of colonial conspiracies. The Balfour Declaration helped to encourage Zionist immigration into Palestine and away from America and Western Europe.

Simultaneously, Britain suppressed Palestinian nationalism, which was exemplified by its crushing of the Arab revolt of 1936-1939 and the denial of the right of the Palestinian people to express their will through their own representation. In fact, Britain suppressed Palestinian political representation through a policy of systematic denial of Palestinian political rights.

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

Okay, from the Malaysiakini report above, it appears like Pakatan Rakyat's -- or at least PKR's -- foreign policy is that anyone who is pro-Israel or is opposed to the 'Palestinian cause' must be treated as an enemy of Malaysia. What happens if I were to publicly express an anti-Hamas or a pro-Israel stance? Would that also make me an enemy of the country?

Israel is a 100-year old story. Sabah became part of Malaysia in 1963. So it is a 50-year old story. If the Muslims from the Philippines do not have any legal right in claiming Sabah as their territory because it is an 'old story', what legal right do Muslims from the Middle East have in claiming Israel (or the occupied lands) as their territory when it is an even older story? (And remember, the British created Sabah just like they did Israel).

Malaysia supports the Muslim claim over Israel because Malaysia is a Muslim country and Muslims are 'officially' anti-Jews. Hence we take the Muslim side against the Jews. Okay, say Dr Jeffrey Gapari Kitingan's 'Christian' STAR were to kick out the 'Muslim' Umno government in the coming general election, would we now take the side of the Muslims from the Philippines regarding their claim over Sabah?

For the sake of Islam we take the Muslim side against the Jews. For the sake of Islam will we also take the Muslim side (although from the Philippines) against the Christians (although from Malaysia)? In the Middle East we are 'guided' by religion. Will we also be guided by religion if the Umno 'Muslim' government of Sabah gets kicked out?

We, especially the opposition, must be very careful when we express our foreign policy. Just because some Americans happen to be Jews (and Jews who support Israel) we cannot use that as the justification to declare them the enemy of Malaysia. That can also be interpreted as taking a pro-Hamas stance. And that would mean we do not regard Hamas as a terrorist group even though women and children are blown up with bombs.

We now call the Muslim 'intruders' from the Philippines terrorists and criminals. This is what Malaysia and the Philippines announced today. Are those Muslims who are fighting the Palestinian cause also terrorists and criminals? In that case what business does the government and opposition have in dealing with them? Aren't we dealing with terrorists and criminals?

It is not wrong, of course, in taking a stand, even in an issue involving foreign policy. But we need to be clear and consistent in the reasons why we take such a stand. And those justifications must apply in all cases, not apply in one case but not in another.

If it is wrong for the Malaysian government to deal with Jews from America known to be pro-Israel, then it is also wrong to deal with others who are pro-Israel as well.

It is strange how we choose our friends and enemies. We apply certain reasons as to why someone is our enemy and then sidestep that same reason in those we want as our friends.

So let me get this straight. Anyone who is pro-Israel is our enemy, even those American citizens -- some who happen to be Jews. I suppose then almost every country in Europe must now become our enemy and Malaysians should be asked to leave the UK, France, etc., immediately.

Preaching to the preacher

Posted: 23 Feb 2013 05:40 PM PST

Let me put it this way. Say for 35 years a Christian Evangelist knocks on your door every weekend to talk to you about Christ. And every weekend you curse that Christian and tell him to fuck off and then slam the door in his face. Sometimes you even let loose your dog on him and a couple of times he was actually bitten by your dog.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Amid mounting criticisms against Pas spiritual leader Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat for describing recipients of 1Malaysia People's Aid (BR1M) as 'chickens and cattle', the party's information chief said the remarks were merely metaphors.

Datuk Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Mat said Nik Aziz's remarks should not be taken literally as they were merely a kiasan (metaphor).

"I hope readers should not take the remarks literally. He (Nik Aziz) was only trying to convey that giving out knowledge is more important than giving money as an aid," he said.

Using the Malay proverb 'umpama melepaskan anjing tersepit' (literally translated "to release a trapped dog" which means to help someone who is bound to be ungrateful), as an example, Tuan Ibrahim said the phrase did not equate a person to a dog.

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

This is certainly a breath of fresh air. I was of the opinion that opposition people do not understand idioms, metaphors, similes, expressions, sayings, proverbs, maxims, axioms, adages, etc. This was when Tun Dr Mahathir talked about the devil you know and then everyone jumped and clapped with glee and said that Dr Mahathir admitted that Umno is a devil.

Locking the barn door after the horse has bolted, crying over spilt milk, a stitch in time saves nine, look before you leap, and so on, are not about horses, milk, sewing and jumping over hedges. These proverbs mean it is no use taking action after the event, regretting an action after the damage is done, taking action early can prevent more damage, and you need to contemplate your actions beforehand, respectively.

Anyway, it is good that opposition people are not bodoh-sombong but merely bodoh-sepat. Bodoh-sombong means bodoh tak boleh diajar while bodoh-sepat means pura-pura bodoh tapi sebenarynya cerdik.

We need cerdik Malaysians, especially Malaysians cerdik enough to fool you into thinking that they are stupid because if I can make you think I am stupid that means I am cleverer than you.

One reader commented that I am sometimes very brutal or abrasive in my comments-in-reply to comments posted by Malaysia Today readers. That is certainly true. I get very abrasive when readers post comments or questions to an issue that I have already replied to so many times before.

It is apparent that their comment is not sincere. After explaining a certain issue in a very cheong hei manner, sometimes running into three or four pages, they still post comments or questions about the same thing that has already been addressed in the past, not once but many times.

I mean, how many times do you want me to address that same issue? When I, yet again, reply to what you say, you will say that my article is boring and that I am repeating the same thing over and over again and that I do not have modal baru. But it is you who are raising a matter that has already been settled. So what do you expect me to do? Just delete your comment and then have you scream "Hypocrite! No freedom of speech! Why delete my comment?"

Anyway, one comment that I usually reply to in a very brutal manner is the '55 years of BN is enough! It is time for change! Vote ABU! Kick BN out!' rhetoric. I just can't stand those who post such comments. First of all it is because it is empty rhetoric. Secondly it is because so many people have already posted that comment so you are merely parroting the same thing countless times. But most important of all, thirdly, it is because you are attempting to preach to the preacher. And that is most sickening of all.

Nevertheless, this Evangelist still very patiently keeps visiting you to try to convince you that your salvation is through Christ and you, as usual, curse him and tell him to go fuck his Christ. Finally, however, after 35 years, you convert to Christianity and the Evangelist praises the Lord that finally you have seen the light and have accepted Christ as your saviour.

Not long after you become a Christian, you suddenly turn into a fanatic. You scream that it is time for a new Christian crusade to be launched so that the infidel non-Christians can be exterminated and erased from the face of this earth. You say that Hitler who was a Christian was right in trying to exterminate the Jews who had killed Christ. Your only regret is that only 6 million Jews were killed. You only wished Hitler had succeeded in ridding the world of all the Jews.

Then you go to the Evangelist's house and knock on his door and start preaching Christianity to him. You shout and scream and call the Evangelist a coward for not taking up arms against the infidel non-Christians. The Middle East, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and so on, should be bombed, you argue. No non-Christians should be left alive.

The Evangelist does not agree and you accuse him of selling out. You allege that he has been bought. You vilify him and disparage him and call him a friend of Satan.

After months of haranguing and cursing, one day the Evangelist can take it no more he slaps your face and says that you are a disgrace to Christianity.

I feel just like that Evangelist. For 35 years I tried preaching to you. And each time you cursed me and chased me away and even set your dog on me. I was in fact bitten quite badly a few times. You called me all sorts of nasty names. You laughed at me. You even declared me a lunatic.

Then, one day, after 35 years since the 1970s, you suddenly saw the light. In 2008 you converted. And after you converted you started cursing me and said that I am a traitor to the cause.

Now you try to preach to me. You tell me what is good and what is bad. You forgot that for 35 years you acted like a bastard. Suddenly you are the chosen one and Christ came to you in your dream. You tell me about all the bad things that are going on. You refuse to admit that things are so bad mainly because you allowed them to become bad.

I remember, back in the mid-1990s, what the DAP Chinese supporters said to me in the late MGG Pillai's online forum, Sang Kancil. I remember how they ganged up on me and cursed me. I remember the nasty things they said to me. I remember being chased out of that forum and eventually I felt so hurt I did leave. I remember what happened in 1999 when I launched Kini (in Bahasa Malaysia) and The Malaysian (in English).

And today these are the same people who are claiming the moral high ground and with self-righteousness are trying to teach me what for 35 years I had tried to teach them and which they rejected.

Isn't life strange?

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).

Why are Malays so otak sempit?

Posted: 19 Feb 2013 04:12 PM PST

The film's 52-year-old writer, Bacile, said that he wanted to showcase his view of Islam as a hateful religion. "Islam is a cancer, period," he said in a telephone interview from his home. "The movie is a political movie. It's not a religious movie."

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Do you remember last year the brouhaha the Malays (meaning also Muslims) made about the movie that Jew produced insulting Prophet Muhammad? And earlier we had the brouhaha about the threat by the pastor to burn the Qur'an.

There were many comments posted in Malaysia Today regarding the stupidity and backwardness of the Malays in protesting such a non-event -- and quite rightly so. The Malays give the impression that they are so otak sempit (small-minded).

In this day and age of globalisation, the borderless Internet, and the information revolution, you really can't stop people from exercising their freedom of opinion and expression. And we have to learn to live with this without screaming and foaming at the mouth every time someone says something we do not like.

If, for example, a Malay were to produce a movie that the non-Malays do not like, do you think the non-Malays will scream and foam at the mouth? Or, say, a Malay threatens to burn the Bible? Do you think the non-Malays would take any notice of that threat?

The Malays have to learn to be like the non-Malay Malaysians and not rant and rave every time you do not like what someone says. And this was what Tun Dr Mahathir Mohammad lamented about when he said that the Malays are too emotional and feudalistic and should be more pragmatic like the Chinese. And Dr Mahathir is right. The Malays are too emotional, unlike the Chinese and Indians.

Will you ever find non-Malays cursing and screaming about a movie? If they don't like the movie they will just not watch it. Simple! Why get so upset? This, the Malays have to learn to do if they do not want to be accused of being small-minded.

And if you threaten to, say, burn the Bible, the non-Malays would not get upset. After all, it is just a book, like the Qur'an. Ignorant people have been burning books for thousands of years and life still goes on.

And if the Bible, just like the Qur'an, is God's book, then surely God can take care of His own book. Does he need us mere mortals to help protect His book?

When we say that the Malays are otak sempit they get angry. But how not to call the Malays otak sempit when they get so emotional and upset about a mere movie and a book?

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

Israeli Citizen Living in California Behind Film Insulting Islam

An Israeli filmmaker, Sam Bacile, based in California went into hiding after a YouTube trailer of his movie attacking Islam's Prophet Muhammad sparked violent demonstrations in many Muslim cities around the world including Egypt and Libya where the US ambassador to and three American members of his staff were killed.

The release of the film coincided with the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to Washington during which he leveled what The Wall Street Journal said the "sharpest attacks in years by an Israeli leader against Washington, over differences on how to address Iran's nuclear program,"

Speaking to The Wall Street Journal by phone Tuesday from an undisclosed location, writer and director Sam Bacile remained defiant, saying Islam is a cancer and that the 56-year-old intended his film to be a provocative political statement condemning the religion.

According to the Wall Street Journal, "tensions had so escalated that President Barack Obama spent an hour on the phone with the Israeli leader in a hastily arranged call hours after both governments said the White House wouldn't agree to an Israeli request for a meeting between the two leaders at the United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York this month."

Protesters angered over Bacile's film opened fire on and burned down the US consulate in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi. Four Americans were killed Tuesday night including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Bacile said he raised $5 million from about 100 Jewish donors, whom he declined to identify. Working with about 60 actors and 45 crew members, he said he made the two-hour movie in three months last year in California.

The film has been promoted by Terry Jones, the Florida pastor whose burning of Qurans previously sparked deadly riots around the world. He said he was planning to show the trailer for Mr. Bacile's movie to his congregation.

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter

Posted: 16 Feb 2013 06:03 PM PST

And this is where Peter and Paul disagreed. Basically, Peter's 'market' was fellow Jews so the old Jewish traditions must be maintained. Paul, however, wanted to expand the 'market' to non-Jews. So the old traditions of the Jews should be discarded. And instead of circumcision, those non-Jews (who were therefore not circumcised) should be baptised when they leave their old religion to become Christians.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter," said Sir Winston Churchill. In fact, there is another quote from Churchill: "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the forms of government that have been tried from time to time."

While we are on the subject of quotes from Churchill, you may want to read what more he said.

"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else."

"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life."

"Any 20 year-old who isn't a liberal doesn't have a heart, and any 40 year-old who isn't a conservative doesn't have a brain."

"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."

"I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals."

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."

"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things."

Anyway, those are but a fraction of sayings from Sir Winston Churchill to brighten up your Sunday evening (or Sunday morning here in the UK). But that is not what I want to talk about today. What I want to talk about is the issue of Haron Din being scolded, cursed, vilified and disparaged because of the stand he has taken regarding the use of the Allah word in the Bible.

For both Muslims as well as Christians, they need to understand the boundaries of decent discourse and when does that discourse exceed the boundary and falls into the category of indecency. And this is why I have titled today's article "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

The average voter, meaning the majority of Malaysia Today's readers, have absolutely no idea what democracy means. Democracy means Haron Din has a right to his view and so do you. And democracy does not mean if you differ in view you have the right to attack the other person verbally, or worse, physically.

For example, we can disagree on whether Malaysia should remain a Secular Constitutional Monarchy or be changed into a Secular Republic or, as some are proposing, a Theocratic Constitutional Monarchy or an Islamic Republic. At the end of the day, we all have different views and different choices.

And that is why there are so many religions and sects of these many religions in existence plus, of course, agnostics and atheists. This is because we have differing views about religion and God and about the way to 'reach' God -- and whether God even exists or not in the first place and if He does then in what form.

However, although we may disagree on theological issues, this does not mean since Malaysia is a democracy that gives me the right to disparage someone who has a different view from me. It just means we have different views and we should respect each other's views.

I have read comments from readers who say that Muslims are stupid for not wanting to eat pork because pork is so delicious. You know that pork is taboo to Muslims so why the need to goad Muslims with such comments? Have you read any comments from Muslims saying that Hindus are stupid for not wanting to eat beef because beef is so delicious?

If Muslims do not want to eat pork (or Hindus do not want to eat beef) then let it be. Learn to respect the taboos of each religion. I am sure you do not like it when I say that Chinese are stupid for getting upset with Ibrahim Ali when he gave white colour angpau for Chinese New Year. If white angpau are meant for funerals and are taboo for Chinese New Year then we respect that tradition. Saying that Chinese are stupid for believing such silly superstition is provocative and will certainly trigger bad-will.

In fact, did you know that pork was actually taboo to the early Christians as well (who were not yet called 'Christians' but 'followers of the Jesus Movement')? No, I am not talking about the Christian doctrine or dogma here. I am talking about history. And if you study in greater detail the history of the Apostles (not what the Bible says but what the historians say) then you would know what I am talking about.

For the benefit of the non-Christians, in particular the Muslims, the majority who have never studied Christian history, the 12 Apostles are as follows:

1. Simon Peter (brother of Andrew).

2. James (son of Zebedee and older brother of John) also called "James the Greater".

3. John (son of Zebedee and brother of James).

4. Andrew (brother of Simon Peter).

5. Philip of Bethsaida.

6. Thomas (Didymus).

7. Bartholomew (Nathaniel).

8. Matthew (Levi) of Capernaum.

9. James (son of Alphaeus) also called "James the Lesser".

10. Simon the Zealot (the Canaanite).

11. Thaddaeus-Judas (Lebbaeus), brother of James the Lesser and brother of Matthew (Levi) of Capernaum.

12. Judas Iscariot.

The Roman Catholic Church puts a great deal of emphasis on (Simon) Peter and claims that Jesus said he would build his church on him. "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it." (Matthew 16:18).

In fact, (St.) Peter is considered the First Pope of the Catholic Church. Hence Peter is regarded as one of the most important Apostles of Christianity. The second most important Apostle, however, is not one of the other 11 but Paul.

Paul was a strong anti-Jesus Movement Jewish zealot who made it his mission to destroy this movement. In fact, it is said that he was there to witness the stoning of Stephen, the first Christian martyr (and it is also said that Paul held Stephen's cloak while Stephen was being stoned to death). Paul was instrumental in arresting and torturing those who had strayed from true Judaism by following the false teachings of the Jesus Movement.

One day, while travelling from Jerusalem to Damascus on his mission to hunt down and kill Christians, Paul 'saw' Jesus in the form of a mirage. Paul was immediately blinded but, three days later, his sight was restored by Ananias of Damascus. This 'miracle' prompted Paul to become a follower of the Jesus Movement.

However, while Peter and the other disciples focused their missionary work just on fellow Jews, Paul felt that Christianity should be for all, not only for Jews. So Paul started preaching Christianity to the gentiles and pagans. And to attract non-Jews to Christianity there should be a certain relaxing of the rules, so to speak.

Hence the need for circumcision and the banning of eating pork, as an example, which are a Jewish tradition and therefore also the tradition of the early Christians, should be reviewed. By Paul's reckoning, non-Jew Christians should be exempted from circumcision and should be allowed to eat pork.

Of course, there were more non-Jews than there were Jews. Hence, understandably, Paul's movement expanded faster than Peter's. Furthermore, while Peter focused on small Jewish communities, Paul travelled to the bigger non-Jewish cities where there were more people and therefore more potential converts.

And because Paul's version of Christianity, so to speak, was more 'liberal' (for want of a better word) compared to Peter's (which retained the strict Jewish taboos and traditions) more people followed Paul than Peter.

The 'headquarters' of the Church of England is St Paul's Cathedral in London, founded in 604, around the time that Islam was founded. The 'headquarters' of the Roman Catholic Church, however, is St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, founded in 319 by the Emperor Constantine.

Now, can you figure out why that is so (make your own conclusion on this)?

This is, of course, my analysis of the early development of Christianity and based on historical accounts and not based on what the Bible says. So I can expect many Christians to disagree with my analysis. And they have every right to do so (as do many Malays/Muslims also disagree with my historical analysis of the early development of Islam -- and the reason why many of my Malay/Muslim friends are no longer my friends: because they disagree with me).

Nevertheless, since we are talking about democracy and the right of non-Muslims to comment on Islam, I, too, exercise my democratic right to offer my analysis regarding the early development of Christianity.

That is how democracy works, unfortunately.

So, my conclusion to this is: if you are a follower of Peter, then pork should be haram for you (plus you should be circumcised) while, if you are a follower of Paul, then pork should be halal (and you only need to be baptised). So be very careful before you whack the Muslims and call them stupid for refusing to eat 'delicious pork'.

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Rabu, 6 Mac 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan