Posted: 20 Jul 2013 03:16 PM PDT
This is simply because we are in a matrix of truth and representation, and in a prison-house of language unable to see what the Ultimate Reality looks like.
What's in a name? Maybe nothing. Maybe everything. And even more so this Shakespearean "a rose is a rose" type of problematique seems relevant in a world of political manipulations such as in Malaysia when race and religion are the twin determinants of political evolution.
The debate on the origin of the word 'Allah' is obviously interesting as a topic of dissertation or as an inquiry theme in fields such as bio-semantics, bio-semiotics, linguistic philosophy, philology, or the study of the transcultural flow of language as yours truly embarked upon on the origin of the words 'Cyberjaya' and 'Putrajaya' in a dissertation submitted to Columbia University, a few years back.
To ascertain the origin of the word 'Allah' might also yield those studying it to also explore the origin of the concept of 'god', 'religion', 'scriptures', and even the notion of soteriology in the study of religion; a human enterprise that began with the agriculture society and what the sociologist Karl Wittfogel would term as the 'hydraulic societies'.
The attempt to name 'god' and to call it by 'special nouns' have been a human cognitive exercise since Man has been trying to figure our what causes his crop to do well or to be damaged or destroyed, the night to go dark and the sun to illuminate, or the fate of his or her clan as the tribe moves from one planting area to another after slashing and burning crops.
The search for 'god', perhaps noted as early as the discovery of cave paintings in Southern France moving on to the conceptualisation of the Divine and Ultimate Reality, to the birth of Zorastrianism, to Judaism, to Christianity, and to Islam (in the Fertile Crescent) and in the non-monotheistic conception of it in cultural philosophies such as Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, and Sikhism (in the Indus valley).
These are ways that Man has tried to name the un-namable, explain the unexplainable, and conceive the unconceivable.
I am not sure if there have been controversies or people killing each other over who has the right to the name of this or that god. The Romans and the Greeks have gods in common playing different roles, but I have not come across crisis and conflict in such naming of gods in these two civilisations.
Posted: 20 Jul 2013 11:58 AM PDT
Anwar Ibrahim is accused of having 20 secret accounts all over the world. The amount of money in these accounts totalled RM332 million. In exchange for that money, what has Anwar given in return? According to the BN storyline- our national security may have been exposed. We are not told how. Because that is the usual BN style- they create a storyline and ask us to deal with it. So, we will humour the storytellers.
Is Anwar selling secrets about the country to foreign powers? The BN people want to believe that is what Anwar is doing and therefore Anwar has committed treason. Anwar is a traitor. Has Anwar Ibrahim done an Edward Snowden feat? Which is, expose some highly sensitive and secretive government covert action and by so doing, compromised our security?
Razak Baginda sold military secrets to the French firm that sold our scorpene submarines. He has committed treason. But he is free enjoying a life of perpetual salad days in England. Why isn't he tried for treason? He sold navy secrets to French submarine makers. He also got more than RM500 million in commissions which is more than RM332 million.
Yes let's persecute and prosecute Anwar Ibrahim for treason so that we can bring back Razak Baginda and try him on charges of selling Malaysian Navy's secrets. Let us humour the BN people on attempts to goal Anwar Ibrahim and see where it ends.
On the 18th of July, the BN MPs voted against the motion to commit the MP from Simpang Renggam to the Rights and Privileges Committee. They have claimed ownership over a wrong doing and therefore must defend it at all cost.
To me the MP has misled parliament. The acid test would have been straight forward. Ask Wikileaks to verify whether they published the story about the accounts. Because the MP claimed that is his source of information. If they have not then clearly the MP has lied. He did not even read Wikileaks but to lend some legitimacy to his claim, he cited Wikileaks as his source of information.
|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|