Jumaat, 4 Januari 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan 11:32 PTG Dicatat oleh blog2

Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 19)
Seeing is believing
My response to Alan Yeap of Taiwan
The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 18)
Screw you, Thasleem Mohamed Ibrahim

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 19)

Posted: 01 Jan 2013 05:44 PM PST

I was totally sold on the idea, so much so that a couple of years later I joined the Iranians in Mekah to protest against America and the Saudi government, the stooge of the Americans. My commitment to Islam, PAS and the Islamic State was absolute. And Anwar was going to lead this Islamic Revolution of Malaysia and turn Malaysia into the Islamic Republic of Malaysia.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Some say that Anwar Ibrahim and I have a love-hate relationship. I suppose this is true in some ways. It is probably because after 'travelling the same road' for 50 years since 1963, so to speak, there are many things about each other that we can no longer tolerate.

Back in the 1960s, when we were in the Malay College Kuala Kangsar (MCKK), Anwar demonstrated strong anti-British tendencies. This, of course, irritated me like hell because I always felt more British than Malay. Hence I took very personal his anti-British rhetoric.

You see; I was the only 'Mat Salleh' in MCKK at that time so I considered Anwar's anti-British stand as a personal attack. And the fact that Anwar's classmates (who were three years my senior) threw stale bread at me and shouted "Hoi, Mat Salleh sesat!" made it even worse, even though Anwar did tell them, "Janganlah kacau dia."

And that is one reason why just two and half years later, halfway through form three, I left MCKK to join the Victoria Institution (VI). I felt I had no place in a 'Malay school'. I hated the MCKK and was very happy when, in form three, I transferred to the VI and was able to surround myself with non-Malay friends.

That ended my relationship with the MCKK and hence with Anwar Ibrahim as well.

In 1974, my family moved to Kuala Terengganu. Family then meant my wife and one-year-old daughter, Suraya. Later my mother-in-law joined us and stayed with us till the day she died. She converted to Islam just before she died and was buried in Masjid Kolam, Kuala Ibai, Kuala Terengganu.

1974 was the same year that Anwar was detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA). We talked about it, of course, but his detention never bothered me. In fact, I felt that they should not only detain him but they should throw away the key as well. After all, Anwar was the one who used to whack the British ten years before that back in 1964 when we were in the MCKK (I was in 'The Big School' in form 2 and he was in form 5 when I first heard him speak).

We must remember that Anwar was the President of the Muslim students association or Persatuan Kebangsaan Pelajar Islam Malaysia (PKPIM). He was also the President of University Malaya's Malay language association or Persatuan Bahasa Melayu Universiti Malaya (PBMUM). Furthermore, he was one of the founding members of the Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia or Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia (ABIM).

I used to live in Bangsar, not far from the University Malaya, and I would go to see the demonstrations that they organised. I would take photographs of these demonstrations (I still have the photos, all black and white, though). I also saw all the English language signboards and road signs that they vandalised by painting them over with red paint.

Therefore, as far as I was concerned, Anwar was an anti-British, Malay supremacist racist. I heard him talk and I saw him in action at those demonstrations. He deserved what he got and the government should keep him locked up for a very, very long time.

About 20 months later, Anwar was released from detention. He then took over the leadership of ABIM and started campaigning against Umno and the government. A year or so later, as I had written many times, I 'discovered' Islam and became a 'Born Again' Muslim.

I soon began to attend the ceramah or rallies organised by PAS. In 1979, the Islamic Revolution of Iran rocked the world and I got dragged in to 'political Islam'. I strongly believed that Islam is not a religion but a way of life or adeen. And this adeen involves the setting up of an Islamic system of government a la Iran.

Anwar attended some of those PAS ceramah as a guest speaker and I was mesmerised by what he said. Man, could he talk! Back in the early 1960s he would 'talk bad' about the British. By the late 1970s he was whacking Umno and Barisan Nasional and was espousing the virtues of Islam and an Islamic State.

And this cannot be achieved by mere rhetoric. It has to be a bloody revolution. People must die, thousands of people, like in Iran.

I was so bold as to even declare to an Umno man, Dr Zakaria, in a gathering at the Sultan of Terengganu's palace, that we must line up all the Umno people against a wall and shoot them dead.

Dr Zakaria was flabbergasted. He shook his head and walked away. The head of ITM Dungun, Ibrahim, who was standing beside us, pulled me away and whispered to me that I should be careful with what I say. That type of talk can get me sent to Kamunting.

What is Kamunting? Nothing! We are talking about blood flowing on the streets. We are talking about shooting dead 20,000 corrupt people like they did in Iran. We will burn down Kamunting together with the Prime Minister's house, then Hussein Onn, of course.

Then, in 1981, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad took over as Prime Minister. Soon after that Anwar 'abandoned the cause' and joined Umno. We were walking around in a daze like a cucaracha sprayed with Shelltox or, as the Malays would say, macam anak ayam hilang emak ayam.

Not long after that I went to Mekah to find peace with myself. I needed to contemplate where our so-called Islamic Revolution was now heading with the loss of our 'Imam Khomeini of Malaysia'. I now felt only hatred for Anwar and my new perjuangan was to see the destruction of this traitor to our cause named Anwar Ibrahim, and his boss, Dr Mahathir.

TO BE CONTINUED

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 1)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 2)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 3)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 4)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 5)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 6)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 7)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 8)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 9)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 10)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 11)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 12)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 13)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 14)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 15)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 16)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 17)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 18)

Seeing is believing

Posted: 30 Dec 2012 05:27 PM PST

Note one thing: your perception is influenced by your values and standards. It is not about what the other person is. It is about what you are. If you think drinking is bad then your perception of someone who drinks would be bad. If you think that capitalism is bad then your perception of a capitalist would be bad. If you think that fundamentalism is bad then your perception of a fundamentalist Muslim would be bad.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

And Malaysia's 2012 Word of the Year is ...

Perception.

That is what a Malaysian is told this year when reporting a robbery or a snatch theft and believing that this means crime is on the rise in what has been one of the safest countries in Southeast Asia.

That is what a Malaysian is told this year when complaining about rising graft or rising cost of living and thinking that the country is sinking through global indices in what is supposedly an Asian tiger of a nation.

Perception. The reality, according to the authorities, is that statistics this year shows that crime in Malaysia has dipped. Graft in Malaysia has also dipped and the authorities are going after those in the private sector now.

And the economy is rising, so that means more money in the pocket. Not only that, the government has been dishing one-off cash handouts of RM500 to households earning up to RM3,000 a month.

Yet, how many cases of robberies and snatch theft have we heard that occur in urban areas, especially near traffic lights? Is it a case of being more aware because of social media, as some authorities claim, despite official statistics showing a drop in crime?

How about living costs outstripping wages? How do you try to fathom a nation with an annual five per cent economic expansion and a policy of subsidising food and fuel that still needs to give cash handouts?

And the cheek to tell someone who has been robbed, or having to pay a bribe or pay more for groceries that it is just their perception that it is getting worse is just putting salt to the wound.

It is too easy to blame social media for such tales to turn viral. It is too easy to tell people to be more careful and take steps to be more vigilant and complain about corrupt practices and profiteering.

Also too easy to just announce policies and initiatives without ensuring they are implemented to the letter. Putting more boots on the ground, going after the big fish in corruption cases and targeting subsidies to specific demographics rather than an elephant gun spray of goodies for news headlines.

To be fair, Putrajaya has been taking action. There is a raft of policies and laws in place to cut crime, reduce graft and living costs. But the efforts do not seem to bear fruit as fast as they have been promised or implemented.

And this is where the word "perception" can bite the authorities or the government of the day.

The perception that it isn't doing enough or doing things fast enough to make a difference.

There are a slew of projects under various abbreviations but the change isn't being felt because it takes time for housing projects to finish or industries to rise and people to get better paying jobs.

Therein lies the irony, that nothing is as instant as perception.

Jahabar Sadiq, The Malaysian Insider

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

Yes, what Jahabar Sadiq wrote today in his editorial in The Malaysian Insider is very true. Everything in life is about perception -- and more so when it comes to politics. Politics is built on perception.

The perception that Communism is bad and Capitalism is good is what we grew up with. So, if we want to frighten someone, all we need to do is accuse him or her of being a Communist and he/she will back off and tone down.

My question would be: so what if I am a Communist? What is wrong with being a Communist? If I declare that I am a Communist that is as good as declaring that I am a Pariah because the perception is that those who are Communists are Pariahs. Hence if someone accuses me of being a Communist I would deny it even if I do believe in Communism because Communists are outcasts.

Do you believe in God? Many people do. But not all humans believe in God. It is estimated that only about half of humankind believe in God. But less than 10% of the people will openly admit that they do not believe in God. And this is because the perception is if you do not believe in God then you cannot be a good person. Hence, to avoid being labelled as a bad person, you will never admit that you do not believe in God although in reality you do not believe in God.

Do you know that 30 years ago back in the 1980s Mercedes Benz started assembling its S Class in Malaysia? This is because Malaysians used to buy (I do not know whether they still do) the most number of S Class models per capita in the world. Hence Malaysia was the only other country outside Germany that assembled the S Class.

To Malaysians, if you drive the S Class Mercedes Benz or the 7 series BMW then the perception would be you have arrived. You have made it. You are successful. Maybe your liabilities exceed your assets, which means you are technically bankrupt, but the car you drive gives people the perception that you are successful so everyone wants to do business with you.

There is also the perception that if we change the government, meaning we kick out Barisan Nasional, Malaysia would be a better place to live. Foreigners who come to Malaysia for the first time and who see the way Malaysians behave would probably never come to that conclusion. For example, seeing the way Malaysians drive is evidence enough that Malaysians are inconsiderate, rude, arrogant, only care about themselves, and much more.

Malaysians are absolutely ill bred and uncultured. Hence changing the government will not make Malaysia a better place. It may help to reduce corruption slightly but not eliminate it totally. But it will never make Malaysia a better place.

A better country is not just subject to the government it has. It is very dependent on the people in that country. England changed its system of government more than 400 years ago back in 1649. It kicked out its monarch and turned England into a republic.

Did that make England a better place? The people were still the same. The mentality was still the same. The people never changed. Hence, while they may have changed the government, the country did not become a better place. Therefore the perception that by changing the government the country becomes a better place is a fallacy if the people themselves refuse to change.

And what perception do you get from this statement I just made? Your perception would be therefore I am saying DO NOT change the government. Is this what I said? This is the perception you get although this is not what I said.

And why do you get this perception? You get this perception because you refuse to admit that the fault with the country lies with its people. You want to believe that what is wrong with the country is someone else's fault, not your own fault. Hence you put the blame on the government. If not then you will have to admit that it is your own fault.

This is due to a disease called denial syndrome. Most Malaysians suffer from this disease. It is a disease where you blame others for what went wrong rather than admit that what went wrong is your fault.

Most Muslims will say that Islam suffers from a perception problem. Islam is a victim of bad publicity. And they will blame the western media for this. The western media is giving the perception that 'Islam is the new Communism'. And since Communism is the Pariah therefore Islam would also be perceived as the Pariah.

But it is not Islam that is at fault, Muslims will say. It is the fault of a minority of Muslims who have given Islam a bad name. This minority has dragged Islam through the mud. The majority of Muslims are not like that. But the western media is giving the perception that it is Islam and not a minority of Muslims that is bad.

However, that is not the perception that the non-Muslims have. Most non-Muslims perceive Islam as a bad religion. The fruit of a poisonous tree would be poisonous, they will argue. Hence it is Islam itself and not just a handful of Muslims who is at fault.

So, is Islam the victim of negative perception that has given the religion a bad image? Or is Islam itself fundamentally flawed? The answer depends on whether you are a Muslim or not and hence how you perceive Islam is subject to this crucial point.

We perceive PERKASA as a racist organisation. We do not perceive Dong Zong and Hindraf as also racist organisations. Why is that? PERKASA fights for Islam and the Malay language. Dong Zong fights for Chinese education and the Chinese language. Hindraf fights for the Tamils and Hinduism. So why are not all three organisations classified as racist organisations? Why is only PERKASA a racist organisation but not the others?

Barisan Nasional is a racist party. Pakatan Rakyat is not a racist party. Has Pakatan Rakyat agreed to remove Islam as the official religion of Malaysia? Has Pakatan Rakyat agreed to remove the Malay language as the official language of Malaysia? Why do we even need an official religion and official language when other democracies all over the world do not have official religions and official languages?

Education Ministers have always been Malay. Why is that? In a democracy where meritocracy should prevail the abilities and not the race of that person should be the deciding factor.

Can Pakatan Rakyat announce that it would appoint a Chinese as the Education Minister? Why not? Why can't a Chinese become the Education Minister and why can't Pakatan Rakyat agree to this and make a public announcement on the matter?

In fact, why can't we have a non-politician as an Education Minister? Can we give that job to one of the leading academicians? We want the best education system. We do not want education to be used as a political tool and to brainwash Malaysians.

The problem with Malaysia is the mentality and attitude of its people. Changing the government will not help if the mindset of the people remain the same. Hence we need to do a massive overhaul of our education system. And we can't trust a politician to do this.

Yes, it is all about perception. And the perception is that everything involving the government is bad while everything involving the opposition is good. And PERKASA supports the government so it is bad. Dong Zong and Hindraf support the opposition so they are good.

What if Dong Zong and Hindraf announce that they will support anyone who agrees to their agenda? And what if Pakatan Rakyat disagrees with their agenda while Barisan Nasional agrees to it? And since their agenda is what matters Dong Zong and Hindraf now support Barisan Nasional and they announce so. Would Dong Zong and Hindraf still be considered good or are they now just like PERKASA, a racist organisation? What will your perception of Dong Zong and Hindraf be?

Whether something or someone is good or bad is not about whether it is really good or bad but about your interpretation of good and bad. If I perceive all religions as bad then I would have a very low opinion of religionists. Religionists, however, would perceive me as a Godless person and someone who cannot be trusted.

And if I support Hindraf on it latest stand that it will not support either Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat unless they support Hindraf's agenda how would you perceive me? Am I a true democrat who fights for the oppressed minority or am I a traitor to the cause? The question is: which cause are you using to come to this conclusion, Hindraf's cause or your own cause?

Yes, your perception is guided by your interest. You will have a good perception of someone when it suits your agenda and you will have a bad perception of that person when it conflicts with your agenda. Perceptions are not real. And that is why most of you perceive that you are going to heaven because you are following the true and correct religion. And is this not why Malaysians are fighting over who has the right to use the word 'Allah'?

My response to Alan Yeap of Taiwan

Posted: 28 Dec 2012 12:06 AM PST

So you see, you must suffer some loss of reputation or have suffered a financial loss by what I said about you. But if what I said has nothing to do with you but was about someone else and you suffered nothing from what I said how could you sue me? What is your locus standi? And what has the political party you support or do not support got to do with this?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

EDITOR: Many of you were not born yet in 1957 and yet you make so much noise about Article 153. Why apply different standards for different people?

RPK, do you realize how consistently inconsistent you really are? By the way, May 13 tragedy happened in 1969 and not 1957.

I remember reading your article on this tragedy and that you yourself interviewed Tunku Abdul Rahman in person. You got your article published in Harakah and this was repeated in your blog not too long ago when you were the RPK that people looked up to.

I have to honestly say that I don't know what Article 153 is. I assume it to be the May 13 tragedy.

EDITOR: You can't simply sue The Edge. You need locus standi and must prove you have been personally injured. Why are Pakatan supporters so stupid? Janganlah buka mulut kalau jahil. Malulah!

RPK, you were once an avid supporter of Pakatan and even risked your own safety canvassing and helping them win handsomely. You even got sent to Kamunting for that cause. I won't repeat your last two phrases. It sounds too …… demeaning.

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

That was Alan Yeap's comment, which he posted from the Shangri La Far Eastern Plaza Hotel in Kaohsiung City, Taiwan.

First of all, when someone accuses me of being consistently inconsistent, he or she has to be specific and offer some examples. I may be accused of being cheong hei (longwinded), but at least there is no confusion as to what I am trying to say.

If I were to say that the DAP leaders are not sincere, that would be a sweeping and very vague statement. Such an allegation would need examples to support what I say. In what way are they insincere and what is it they have done and/or said to give me the impression that they are insincere? To make a sweeping and vague statement is just not acceptable. That, sometimes, is the advantage of being cheong hei. You go into details and throw in a lot of examples to support whatever statement you make.

Thus, where is my inconsistency? Did I say yesterday that Islam is the best religion and today I say that Islam is the worse religion? That would be inconsistent for sure. So give me your examples.

Alan Yeap said that May 13 occurred in 1969 and not in 1957. I don't know why Alan Yeap is telling me something that I already know. The whole of Malaysia knows it was in 1969. After all, I am not only a student of history but I have written many articles about May 13. Hence I know that May 13 was in 1969 and not in 1957. And I never said that May 13 was in 1957. So I do not know what gave Alan Yeap the impression that I said it was in 1957 and not in 1969.

As for the second part of Alan Yeap's comment, I said something else and he responded with something totally unrelated to what I said. What has what he said got to do with what I said?

Alan Yeap challenged Khairy Jamaluddin to sue The Edge. Why are the Pakatan Rakyat supporters asking this person and that person to sue this, that or the other? You scream about freedom of speech and how Barisan Nasional and the government do not respect freedom of speech. And then you ask people to sue other people to stifle freedom of speech.

You have to decide whether you do want freedom of speech or not. You can't keep asking people to sue other people every time they give their opinion. Now, if they slander you that is another thing. If they say you cheated your company or you had an affair with your secretary and this is not true then you have every right to sue them. But you can't sue people for expressing their opinion.

I don't think that giving out ang paus in white envelopes during Chinese New Year is bad luck or that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. That is my opinion. But do you sue me just because that is my opinion and because I expressed my opinion?

I can even say that I think you are silly for believing in such things but that is still not grounds to sue me. What if I were to say that I do not believe that God exists and I am of the opinion that all those people who believe in such nonsense are silly people? Can you sue me for that?

Slander is one thing. That hurts you and you can sue me if I lied. But my opinion is my opinion and you can't sue me for that. Can I sue you because you said that all those who do not accept Christ will never go to heaven and only those who accept Christ will be saved and will get to see heaven? You have just insinuated that I will be going to hell and you have hurt my feelings. But is that grounds enough for me to sue you?

You cannot scream about wanting freedom of speech/opinion/expression and at the same time threaten to sue everyone when they express any opinion that differ from yours. And to sue someone you must have locus standi and whatever was said must have hurt you personally. This has nothing to do with whether you support Pakatan Rakyat or Barisan Nasional.

Can you sue me if I were to say that the Japanese committed a lot of atrocities in Nanjing during WWII? First of all, it was true. Secondly, are you Japanese and are you personally hurt by my statement? Has your reputation suffered or did you suffer financial loss because of my statement regarding the Japanese atrocities in Nanjing?

So you see, you must suffer some loss of reputation or have suffered a financial loss by what I said about you. But if what I said has nothing to do with you but was about someone else and you suffered nothing from what I said how could you sue me? What is your locus standi? And what has the political party you support or do not support got to do with this?

Finally, I do not know how long Alan Yeap has been living in Taiwan but it must have been for quite some time since he does not know what Article 153 is. Or is Alan Yeap Taiwanese rather than Malaysian and that is why he does not know what Article 153 is?

Anyway, my response was specifically regarding those people who say that Khairy should not talk about May 13 since it happened in 1969 and he was not born yet then (he was born in 1976). In that case can I comment about things that happened during WWII since I was born in 1950? And what about those who were born after Merdeka in 1957 and yet make comments about Article 153? Do they have a right to talk about a matter that happened before they were born?

Those are the issues. The first issue is about suing someone who gives his or her opinion and the second issue is about telling someone not to comment about something that happened before he or she was born. Tony Pua was born in 1972 and Hannah Yeoh in 1979. Going by the standards we apply for Khairy, Tony and Hannah also have to stop talking about a lot of things. After all, all these things they are talking about happened before they were born.

But then this 'don't talk about something that happened before you were born' is only a rule for Umno people and does not apply to opposition people. And when I point this out they respond with: do you no longer support the opposition? What shallow thinking and narrow-minded mentality?

Wrong is wrong and should not be only wrong for those who are pro-government but right for those who are anti-government. Why can't these people understand something so simple and so basic?

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 18)

Posted: 23 Dec 2012 05:02 PM PST

If Syed Hamid had accepted the court's decision and had left me alone then my move to the UK would have been delayed, at least by more than a year or even two years. But because he wanted me back in Kamunting he left me no choice but to leave the country earlier than planned. And because of that Marina's cancer had been detected probably two years earlier than it would have.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

We would like to believe that we are masters of our own destiny. Sure, there is such a thing called fate. But we would like to believe that we decide our own fate. Man proposes but God disposes is seldom a concept that we think about until after the event. And even then we always look at external events that influenced these changes to blame for that failure.

Are there such things called silver linings in dark clouds? I suppose those who believe in blessings would categorise it as a blessing in disguise. But why must blessings come in disguise? Why can't blessings come dressed in labels so that we can recognise them when they arrive rather than much later down the road long after the event?

We all have dreams. Those who no longer dream are those who have died, said the late Tun Abdul Ghafar Baba, one time Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia. As long as we breathe we will still dream, explained the Tun. Hence to dream is what spurs us. The day we stop dreaming is the day we stop living, figure of speech, of course.

My dream was to ride my motorcycle from Malaysia to the UK. That never happened. I plotted and I planned, but God is the greatest plotter of all, as the Qur'an says. Hence whatever we say must always be tempered with the phrase Insha Allah (God willing or if God wills it) lest we tempt fate. Don't the English always say 'touch wood' to avoid the mischief by the devil of the trees that humankind worshipped in the days before 'Holy Books and 'Abrahamic Faiths'?

My father died, I had to seek employment to support myself, I got married, my first child Raja Suraya arrived, all within a space of two years to make that bike ride from Kuala Lumpur to London a dream that would never come true. Maybe I would still do it one day. Maybe I will still live my dream. But that would have to wait. It would now no longer be what I do before I begin my life. It would have to be something I do before I end my life. It would be what I do once I retire.

And so my wife, Marina, and I planned that retirement. But how would I interpret 'retirement'? I suppose retirement would be something that I stop doing. It would be a change of lifestyle of sorts. I would no longer do what I am doing now. I would stop doing what I am doing and do nothing. And then I would fill that empty space with something new.

But when should I retire and what do I do to fill in that time of retirement? Marina and I discussed it many times and for quite some time. This was during the height of the Reformasi days. Retirement would be when I reached 60. And that would, therefore, be after 2010. And when I retire we would move to England, buy a second hand Mini Cooper, and then tour Europe.

Okay, this is not quite riding my motorcycle from Malaysia to the UK. But that was my dream when I was still just 20. At 60, dreams have to be modified slightly. It was no longer just about me but would include Marina as well. And at 60 my bones were no longer what they used to be when I was 20. Hence driving my Mini Cooper all over Europe may be less taxing on my body than riding a motorcycle from Kuala Lumpur to London. And I doubt sitting on the back seat of a motorcycle for almost 10,000 miles would have been Marina's idea of fun.

The groundwork for our eventual move to the UK was laid in December 2001 soon after my first ISA detention that same year when we relocated two of our sons to Manchester. Three years later, in November 2004, soon after Malaysia Today was launched, Marina and I made a trip to Manchester together with our youngest, Raja Sara, to see how the boys were getting on. Were they happy in the UK? Would they like to stay on or would they like to return to Malaysia? Could our youngest join them later to continue her education in the UK?

It was decided that the move to the UK was viable after all. The children were okay with living in the UK and we found that life in Manchester was tolerable enough as a life of retirement. Another three years later, in 2007, we bought a family home in Manchester. There was no turning back now. Come 2010, when I reach 60, we would pack our bags and build a new life for ourselves in Manchester.

The following year, in 2008, I was detained under the ISA a second time. My sons wanted to return to Malaysia but Marina told them to stay on. The detention will not be forever. Probably in two years time, by 2010, I would be released. We would then join the family in Manchester.

I was, however, released earlier. After only two months the court declared my detention illegal and ordered my release. The Minister, Syed Hamid Albar, an old friend of 30 years, was outraged. They tried appealing my release and when that appeared to go awry Syed Hamid signed a new Detention Order and wanted to detain me a third time.

This time I was not going to get off so easily. Syed Hamid realised his mistake and he was not going to make that same mistake again. He was going to make sure that the new Detention Order was airtight so that no court would find any loopholes to order my release. And that was when Marina decided that enough is enough and demanded that I leave the country.

It was a week of confrontation and negotiation. Marina finally gave me an ultimatum. Either I leave the country or else she was going to leave me. She had had enough of driving up to Kamunting every Saturday to visit me. She was going to leave Malaysia with or without me.

Finally I relented. We were going to leave in or soon after 2010 anyway. 2009 was only a year or two earlier than planned. What difference does one year make? We left on a Saturday night and by Sunday we were across the border. On Monday, the police arrived at my house to detain me. We had made it with just 24 hours to spare. Our information was spot on and we got out in the nick of time.

It took a month to sort out our papers so that we could travel to the UK. Finally, in March 2009, we arrived in Manchester. It was now time to settle down into a British way of life. We registered with the NI and NHS and also registered as a voter. We needed an identity, as we were still a non-entity.

The NHS sent us letters to go in for a medical examination. For women of a certain age they also offer to do a test for breast cancer. Marina ignored the first letter she received, as she did the second letter. By the third letter I persuaded her to go in for the test since it is free anyway. If not they might keep sending her letters until she responded.

We drove to the place and they did the test. They then sent Marina another letter asking her to go in for a more thorough test. They suspected she might have breast cancer after all. My blood ran cold. I knew what breast cancer can do to a woman. I have lost enough friends and family members to that scourge to know.

Further tests proved that Marina did, in fact, have breast cancer. But it was still within stage one-stage two. Hence the chance for recovery was good. They would need to remove the cancer through surgery and thereafter put her under radiotherapy treatment. She would also require five years of medication, which would cost a bomb in Malaysia but was free in the UK.

We met the surgeon who told us that it was lucky that they had detected the cancer early. Hence Marina's chances of recovery were greatly enhanced. It was still stage one-stage two. If it had gone to stage three, or worse, then the chances of recovery reduces drastically.

Cancer is about early detection. If you must get cancer then better you know early because it increases your chances of survival. As fate would have it, Marina's cancer was detected early because we were forced to bring forward our plan to retire more than a year or two years earlier than planned.

Yes, man proposes but God disposes. We can dream but not always do our dreams come true. My first dream to ride my motorcycle from Malaysia to the UK never came true. My second dream to retire in or soon after 2010 and then move to the UK once I am 60 also did not come true. Instead, it happened earlier, soon after I turned 58. But it was not one of choice. It was what I was forced to do.

On hindsight, Syed Hamid did me a favour. If he had left me alone I would have done nothing. But if I had done nothing would that have meant by the time they detected Marina's cancer two years later it would have been too late? I suppose that is what fate is all about. You never know. You can only talk about blessings in disguise. You can only talk about silver linings in dark clouds. As they say: the Lord moves in mysterious ways.

TO BE CONTINUED

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 1)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 2)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 3)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 4)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 5)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 6)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 7)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 8)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 9)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 10)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 11)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 12)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 13)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 14)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 15)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 16)

The journey in life is never a straight line (PART 17)

Screw you, Thasleem Mohamed Ibrahim

Posted: 18 Dec 2012 09:33 PM PST

"As a Muslim I am sad… it is clearly stated in the Quran that this sort of brutality is a crime and should not go unpunished. I trust the inspector-general of police [Ismail Omar] when he said the police are not racists. It has already been three weeks since the incident; more delays will only complicate the issue," National Indian Action Team chairman Thasleem Mohamed Ibrahim said.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

You can read the full news item from Free Malaysia Today below. I just want to talk about this part:

National Indian Action Team chairman Thasleem Mohamed Ibrahim, who accompanied the family, said he sympathised with the family's loss. "As a Muslim I am sad… it is clearly stated in the Quran that this sort of brutality is a crime and should not go unpunished. I trust the inspector-general of police [Ismail Omar] when he said the police are not racists. It has already been three weeks since the incident; more delays will only complicate the issue," he said.

Why must these idiots always say 'according to Islam', or 'according to the Qur'an', or 'as a Muslim', and so on? Is Thasleem Mohamed Ibrahim trying to say that murder is only a sin in Islam but for all the other religions murder is allowed? Is murder wrong only according to the Qura'n whereas all the other 'holy books' condone murder?

Muslims just love to say something and then equate it to their faith or religious teachings. They try to impress us as to how noble and sincere Islam is -- meaning that since they are followers of Islam then this would also mean that they too are noble and sincere.

People can see what type of religion Islam is. You do not need to try to impress people by foaming at the mouth telling us what Islam allows and forbids. People will not judge you by the foam spitting out of your mouth. People will judge you by your actions.

If you keep reminding people that you do this good thing or that good thing because you are a Muslim and that this is what Islam or the Qur'an tells you to do, then when you do something bad people will also be reminded that you are a Muslim.

Why not Muslims stop telling us that they are Muslims? Stop telling us that we must do this or must do that because this is what Islam or the Qur'an tells us we must do. Stop boasting about Islam and about how good the teachings of Islam are and hence since I am a Muslim that means I am a good person.

If you stop doing all that then maybe when Muslims do bad things people will stop blaming Islam for it.

Murder is wrong. You do not need a holy book like the Qur'an or a religion like Islam to teach us that it is wrong. Can't you just as a human being oppose murder? Why must you oppose murder because you are a Muslim? So why bring Islam into this? If you bring Islam into everything then corrupted people will be identified as corrupted Muslims.

But when that happens you do not like it. You do not like Islam being associated with bad deeds. It is the person and not Islam that is at fault, you will say. But then who is the one associating everything with Islam if not the Muslims themselves?

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

'Police killed my brother'

(FMT) - The family of a man who died in custody wants to know why the police did not investigate the cause of his death some three weeks ago.

Sixty-year-old M Supamma broke down in tears in front of the Bukit Aman police headquarters today, demanding an explanation over her son's sudden death while in police custody on Nov 22.

"They did not let me see him. When I saw him in court, he could barely speak. He could only raise his hand to wave at me. I asked them [the police], why isn't my son talking to me?" she said.

She said a police officer, on duty to watch over her son in court, told her that S Krishnan had a head injury and was weak.

"I fainted after seeing my son like that," a sobbing Supamma told reporters. She was at Bukit Aman to hand over a memorandum asking the police to set up a task force to investigate her son's death in custody.

Supamma is a mother of three and Krishnan was her youngest. Suppama said she was devastated and was unable to accept that her son had died.

Krishnan, 34, worked at a sanitary company at Taman Tun Dr Ismail with his brother Palanisamy, 39.

Palanisamy said his brother was first arrested on Nov 8 in front of Block A PPRT Section 8, Kota Damansara. He was on his way back from work when he was asked to perform a urine test for suspected drug use.

"He tried to loosen his pants following orders from plainclothes policemen, but accidentally dropped his pants. He was assaulted and beaten up by the policeman for this.

"According to witnesses, his shirt was drenched in blood as a result of the beating," he added.

Palanisamy claimed the policemen gave him a different shirt before he was brought to the police station. He was then remanded at the Shah Alam police station.

On Nov 20, Krishnan was produced at the Petaling Jaya magistrate's court where he was ordered to be sent to Hospital Bahagia in Tanjung Rambutan, Perak, for observation.

However, Krishnan was only sent to the hospital on Nov 22, lifeless.

'Can you give me my brother back?'

According to the post-mortem report, the cause of death was septicemia. Septicemia is bacteria in the blood caused by infections; in Krishnan's case, it was caused by open wounds to both his wrists.

"In the last few months, Krishnan was regularly tested for drugs. At least three to four times each month, but all of the tests proved negative. Also, he has had no previous records of drug abuse," said Palanisamy.

He said a police report on Krishnan's death was lodged by the family on Nov 22, urging the authorities to investigate the cause of his brother's death.

At this point, Palanisamy started crying hysterically screaming: "The police have killed my brother. Can you give me my brother back? Who is going to take care of my mother now?"

National Indian Action Team chairman Thasleem Mohamed Ibrahim, who accompanied the family, said he sympathised with the family's loss.

Krishnan's family lawyer, G Sivamalar, said the police can only use reasonable force if the suspect resists arrest.

"But in this case witnesses say Krishnan did not resist arrest but was beaten up when he accidentally dropped his pants during the urine test. This is not fair and just," she added.

Supamma handed over the memorandum to ACP Jahangir who represented the police force at the gates of the police headquarters. Also present with the family today was PKR leader R Sivarasa.

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan 9:23 PTG Dicatat oleh blog2

Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

The meaning of God and the freedom of religion
Red faces over ‘1314’ mistake
The Story Behind Ngeh Koo Ham and Nga Kor Ming Corruption Scandal
EC slams NGOs for revealing info on discussions
Tear gas decision at Bersih called for, says top cop
Is DAP bowing to Malay interests?
Zairil is an elected CEC member in DAP: Is this a mishap of miscalculation or calculated ...
Time to set up a Ministry of Minority Affairs
LTAT: No army funds used in Boustead deal
Bar to look into Tan Sri lawyer’s possible misconduct
Why can’t Rosli have his say in court?
Anwar fails to strike out charges against him in Bersih 3.0 case
Robert Phang files RM100mil defamation suit against ex IGP Musa Hassan
DAP admits counting error left Zairil out of CEC
Surendran – a man whose facts do not figure
SNAP’s sec-gen quits over ‘BN leanings’
The other Allah debate
‘Toothbrush maker financing Puspahanas’
Disillusioned activist Sindu quits STAR

The meaning of God and the freedom of religion

Posted: 04 Jan 2013 11:37 AM PST

If a faith can be destroyed, it must be a faith in lies. A faith that is really a faith in truth is never afraid of being destroyed; it cannot because truth cannot be destroyed. Only lies are afraid of being broken, only lies need protection. Truth in itself is self-evident. So if you have some faith which is just a lie, it makes you secure.

freedom

The meaning of God and the existence of God are issues of great importance in relation to the freedom of religion. For this simply discussion, it might be better to come to some understanding as to what we understand by the term "God" without applying etymology. Generally speaking we have:

First meaning, according to Rev. Prof. Frederick Copleston: presume to mean – provisionally at least - a supreme personal being – distinct from the world and creator of the world, such a being actually exists, and that His existence can be proved philosophically.

The Christian God is a personal God. This does not mean that God is a human being, but that God has "personality" and the capability of both relationships with other personal beings. In his debate with Father Copleston, Bertrand Russell accepted this definition although his position is that of agnosticism. The keyword is "personal being".

Second meaning, according to Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh or Osho: God is not a person, God is the totality of all that is. The whole creative energy of existence is God. God is not the creator; rather, God is the creative force, the very creation itself.

For the New Age Movement (NAM), the second meaning of God is more appropriate. New Agers practice a non-judgmental attitude toward error and falsehood. They believe that everyone's path is their own choosing and that it is all from God. So they could never say someone or something was wrong. Nature is indifferent to our values, and can only be understood by ignoring our notions of good and bad. Thus it is appropriate to assume that God is impersonal. The keyword is "creative force".

Third meaning, when Prophet Muhammad was asked by his contemporaries about Allah; the answer came directly from Allah Himself in the form of a short chapter of the Qur'an, which reads: "In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate. Say (O Muhammad), He is God, the One God, the Everlasting Refuge, who has not begotten, nor has been begotten, and equal to Him is not anyone".

Is Allah personal or impersonal in Islam? Islamic description of Allah is unknowable and above comprehension, only adjectival words are allowed. It is considered blasphemous to "presume" that one can know Allah intimately or claim any sort of close, personal fellowship with him, thus it is safe to assume that Allah is impersonal. The keyword is "unknowable".

Four questions are posed based on the principle of four-cornered negation in Indian Philosophy:

Is God personal?

Is God impersonal?

Is God both personal and impersonal?

Is God neither personal nor impersonal?

Sanjaya (6th. B. C.), the best known sceptic during his time would not only not say a definite "Yes" to any question, but would also not give a definite "No". That is God cannot be directly expressed, but only as the negation of negation.

In any religion, God cannot be both personal and impersonal because the former will be first and foremost, in order for God to be impersonal, God must be personal first. This is an a posteriori justification and it is very difficult to imagine God's eternalness if impersonal God came first. For God, the transition from impersonal to personal is meaningless, for example, humans are created from earth, humans are personal being but earth is not. Either personal God or impersonal God had created humans from earth. Humans are not God, but it is meaningful for personified humans to create impersonal objects such as cars, ships, computers etc. Then who created God? We leave this question as it leads to an infinite regression.

-9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

The zero in the arithmetical series of numbers above is an indeterminate quantity and to say minus zero or plus zero makes no difference, but it is still a number. If it is not positive or negative, we cannot say it is both positive and negative because positive and negative are opposite and cannot be attributed to the same number. So if God is neither personal nor impersonal, the metaphysical conception of emptiness or nihilism came into play and thus God does not exist or God could possibly had been invented by humans.

The way science inquires and progresses is exactly the way of man's inner search to find the truth and becomes a lab unto himself. The Buddha could not find any God within himself or outside after searching to the very core of his being, thus Buddhists do not believe in God, instead they talk about Nirvana. Buddha's religion is based in an inner benediction, in an inner blessing – it has nothing to do with fear, especially of God. Buddha says that it is not because of fear that should you be moral, but because of understanding.

The coming of a super mind, a perfect being or messiah who will lead us into a long awaited era of universal peace, love and joy is being anticipated by all religion - the Hindu Avatar, the Al Mahdi of the Muslims, the Jewish Messiah, the Buddhist Maitreya, or the second coming of Christ. Are they all point to the same being that is soon to come or are they different? So which God, revelation or teaching is true, real or right?

The most contentious issue is the formation of theocratic state which put the question of whether God is personal, impersonal or not existing untenable. With the formation and implementation of theocratic state by force, some adherents might reject religious pluralism which claims that all religions are equally true and equally good. They also accept that only their religion possesses the perfect and complete revelation. This is the recipe for invitation to war when each side claimed to have the mandate from God and why freedom of religion is so important as Bertrand Russell asserts:

"When two men of science disagree, they do not invoke the secular arm; they wait for further evidence to decide the issue, because, as men of science, they know that neither is infallible. But when two theologians differ, since there is no criteria to which either can appeal, there is nothing for it but mutual hatred and an open or covert appeal to force."

Many unaltered verses in the Qu'ran did mention about fighting the infidels. The Qur'an certainly proclaims that when the time is appropriate, Muslims must use force or perhaps other subtle ways to convert the unbelievers to Islam and to punish or kill anyone who leaves Islam. According to the principle of abrogation, "Let there be no compulsion in religion" is being abrogated by the later texts "Verses of the sword" to compel conversion of the infidel by armed violence which historically Islam's preferred method. At its core, Islam is a religious mission to all humanity and Muslims are religiously obliged to disseminate the Islamic faith throughout the world. In the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, Saudi religious and political leaders, in the process of extending their condolences to President Bush, also extended an invitation to him to convert to Islam.

Realistical, authentical or ethical questions aside, the above paragraph is only comprehensible if God is personal, God's command is His personal command and not His will, intention or desire. Humans must believe that they are able to fly before working on building an aeroplane. A human who only will could never take to the sky or change the world. The emphasis is on why we want to believe before doing the correct things. Similarly, only personal God has the prerogative to choose a different mode to reveal the Qu'ran through Jibril as compared to how the Torah is revealed to Moses and the Bible by Jesus. Thus, it is also understandable and sensible when Pope Urban II orders the first Crusade to take back Christian lands from Muslim invaders since he is the representative of personal God on earth.

The essence of worship in Islam is the feeling of gratitude towards Allah. The feeling of gratitude is so important that a non-believer is called a kafir or an infidel, which means one who denies the truth and also one who is ungrateful. This essence of worship is comprehensible only if God is personal and knowable as He is able to grant us our wishes, as only personal God can wills before any yields, otherwise it is similar to the worshiping the water, rock or tree believed to contain unknowable divine character of the natural world as practiced in paganism.

Let's compare God to gravitational force to distinguish personal and impersonal God. Impersonal God can never grant us our wishes. Take for example, a man who worships gravitational force a million times, he will still die a million times if he jumped a million times from a hundred storey building without a parachute; unless a personal God commanded some angels to save him from crashing. So men do not pray and will not be grateful to all these existing forces but they have to do some study to understand them. These existing forces will not reveal its formula or theories to us by worshiping them but it is for us to use scientific approach and experiments to realize them.

But Islamic understanding is more on "textual and orthodox consensus" rather than philosophical construct as we see in the case of the short term success of the Mu'tazilite theology based on reason and rational thought. The adherents of the Mu'tazilite school are best known for their assertion that because of the perfect unity and eternal nature of Allah, the Qu'ran must therefore had been created, as it could not be co-eternal with God. This created two possibilities, on the one hand, distinguishing the Divine attributes (living, powerful, generous, speech) from the Divine essence (God's oneness) with the former subordinate to the latter and on the other end, those who were against the Mu'tazilite insisted that the attributes of God were real beings that eternally subsist in God.

Ahmad ibn Hanbal is remembered as the exemplary defender of hadith, opposed the metaphorical interpretation of the Qu'ran and Sunna as they should be accepted as reality without engaging in any hermeneutical extension. Eschatological images (punishment in hell) are not metaphorical but real and anthropomorphic language (God's throne, hands, eyes) is simply to be accepted, "without asking how." In the end the traditional-minded ulama emerged stronger and independent than ever and the Caliph Mutawwakil reversed course and embraced the viewpoint of the more traditional religious scholars. One faith and works problem is as such: Muslims should not but do perform the outward works identified with Islam without the inner conviction of faith, but was it also possible to have faith apart from works? The Mu'tazilites compromised and came close to the eventual "orthodox" solution to the problem of faith and works that arises.

Religion that affects people at three intertwined levels – personal, social and political - should be separated because the power of religion based political supremacy and the eventual risk of corruption over people's personal and social life had brought untold suffering throughout the history of mankind. Some religious people are motivated by their political interests first and find a religious rationale to suit the occasion; this is a danger to those who would like to live peacefully in a pluralistic world. Osho, who claims to teach religiousness and agrees that religion and politics should remain separate, has this to say about God, truth and spirituality:

The purpose of life is life itself. Life cannot be understood. You can live it – that is the only understanding there. If you understand what life is, you will never ask what God is.

When I say this table exist, it is meaningful because the table can go out of existence: we can destroy it. But when I say God exists it is meaningless, because God cannot go out of existence and cannot be destroyed. Existence is meaningful only if nonexistence is possible. If nonexistence is impossible, existence is meaningless.

God is beyond both: matter and mind. You cannot know God unless you become God himself. If I say "I can know God without becoming God," you are saying something impossible. Because of this, Christianity and Mohammedanism both think that to say that you can become God is sacrilegious, profane, irreligious; it doesn't show respect. The Mohammedan attitude about it has been so stubborn that it killed Mansur al-Hallaj and other Sufi mystics because they declared that they were God. Unless you enter him, and become one with him, how can you know him? You can just move around and around him. But whatsoever you come to know is just information that is gathered from without, it is not direct knowledge.

Reality cannot be known by the outer senses – the outer senses interpret reality as matter. Reality cannot be known through the inner senses – the inner senses interpret reality as mind. Reality can be known only when you have taken a jump into reality itself, without any mediators; when you have lost your mind and when you have lost your meditation also.

The authentic religion does not teach you to worship. The authentic religion teaches you to discover your immortality, to discover the god within you. Death is defeated only by those who are ready to die any moment, to accept death without any reluctance.

Truth, by its very nature, cannot be organized. To organized truth, or to kill it, mean the same thing. The first thing an organized establishment do is to kill its own esoteric part, because the esoteric group is always a disturbance, a heresy.

A true religion will not require faith from you. A true religion will require experience. It will not ask you to drop your doubt, it will help you to sharpen your doubt so that you can inquire to the very end. The true religion will help you find your truth. Mohammed's truth is Mohammed's truth; it cannot be yours just by becoming a Mohammedan.

Neither can the pope, the religious leaders convince anybody that for God's sake you have to kill. Strange … because God has created everybody. Whomsoever you are killings you are killing God's creation. If it is true that god created the world, then there should be no war – it is one family, there should be no nations.

All wars are irreligious. Many more people have been killed in the name of religion than in any other name. It has nothing to do with religions, just the ego. Whatsoever is yours has to be the best in the world. Whatsoever is others' cannot be the best, cannot be allowed to be the best in the world.

There would be no good and no bad because goodness and badness are human distinctions, mental distinctions. If there were no human beings on earth, would there be any flower that was ugly or any flower that was beautiful? There would only be flowers flowering; the distinction would not be there. Existence exists with no beginning and no end, but with many changes.

Religions are against sex because that is the only way to make you unhappy, guilty, afraid. Once you are afraid, you can be manipulated. Remember this fundamental rule: make a person afraid if you want to dominate him. First make him afraid. If he is afraid, you can dominate him. If he is not afraid, why and how can you dominate him? There are two things which make people very much afraid – one is death and the other is sex.

Faith is blind in a different sense because it has its own way of seeing. It is not seeing through reason, it is seeing through the heart. Truth cannot be uttered, the moment you utter it, it becomes a lie. Truth cannot be said. The moment you say it, it is almost part of a dream now; no longer truth.

Religion can be an opium, so can communism – anything that gives hope for the future, in this world or in another world; anything that helps you to sacrifice your present for something that helps to feed your ego.

Prayer does the same thing, and priests do the same thing – they make you more adjusted. Meditation is a science. It is not going to help you in adjustment, it is going to help you in transformation.

You cannot seek truth. You can find it, but you cannot seek it. The very seeking is the hindrance. All objects are worldly because "seeking" is the world. So you cannot seek anything non-worldly. The moment you seek, it becomes the world. If you seek God, your God is part of the world. You are the truth just here and now, it is not something to be achieved in the future.

A child is pure because there is no mind. And the moment knowledge comes, division enters. You begin to divide between what is good and what is bad. You cannot create order on the world. When you try to create order you create disorder. Religion always divide you into two: the evil and the divine. If someone really follows them, he will come to conclude that the moment you destroy the devil, God is destroyed.

Whatsoever you know about "God" is through "tolds" - the parents, the society, the culture. It is your conditioning. And now you have got a concept about God and you are trying to understand that word. "God" is not a word. The word God is not God. The word is simply a word, in itself empty and meaningless. If you really want to know what God is, you will have to drop the word and drop the mind and move into no-mind. Love will bring you closer to it than thinking.

If you don't believe in any God, you may not be irreligious, because God is not basic to religion. Non ego is basic to religion. And even if you believe in God, with an egoist mind you are irreligious. With a non egoistic mind there is no need to believe in a God. You fall into the divine automatically.

Whenever you are silent, the ego is not. Whenever your mind is restless, the ego is there. That's why we cannot love, because with the ego, love is impossible. Love, meditation, God, they all require one thing – the ego must not be there. Jesus is right in saying that God is love, because both phenomena happen only when the ego is not. If you know love, there is no need to know God – you have known him already.

As a result of these "powerful" teachings like the one above by Osho, New Age practices have made their way into almost every area of different culture and religion, and leaders of monotheistic religion are very unhappy. They accused the New Age practices as satanic and quoted religious scriptures to justify their position, such as; in the original lie, Satan questions God's word and authority and claims that through the acquisition of secret or gnostic wisdom, man can be enlightened and can be like God. The most important contentious question/issue is whether man has the freedom and right to choose between Gnosticism (teaching that esoteric or divine knowledge could be gained directly by oneself) or Scripturalism (strict compliance to the literal interpretation of the religious books presided by intermediaries).

In Sai Baba's example, there were video evidence that he performed magical tricks rather than miracles. Subsequently, his organized exoteric group would prevent people from bringing video camera into the ashram. In this case, the New Agers position would be a non-judgmental and they see the magic tricks as a technique to draw people towards religiousness. They also view that Prophet Muhammad uses the sword as a technique during his time, if he doesn't, he would probably had been killed by the sword of others. But if the freedom to choose and practice any religion is denied, don't be fooled by the notion that the New Agers would sit quietly, I believe they too can be "corrupted" to become merciless and probably become the most brutal and savage killers. Lest I forgot, this freedom includes the liberty to choose to become an atheist.

Before it turns endless, I would like to end my "quoted from various sources" article with questions for my readers to ponder and seek answers:

Is Satan personal, impersonal, unknowable or better not to know?

If God is Almighty, why didn't He destroy all the Satan once and for all?

Did Buddhism influence early Christianity as researchers claimed to have found proof of the existence of manuscripts in India and Tibet that support the belief that Christ was in India during this time in his life?

Is it true according to Prof. Tariq Ramadan of Oxford University that Islam does not prevent or kill anyone who leaves the Islamic faith however the killings had been confused with political treason?

Is Allah the same as the God of the Bible? From a scholarly Christian perspective, see here http://www.studytoanswer.net/myths_ch3.html why Allah is not the same as the God of the Bible.

Why Allah is the God who is to be served and in contrast Jesus is the God who came to serve?

How to understand the fact that we only have access to the will of Allah and the revelation is not a revelation of Allah, but the revelation of his will?

Why Christianity overemphasizing faith/love and forsaking the law and why Islam integrated both law and faith/love?

Is it true that the God of the Bible is love, whereas Allah's primary characteristic is power?

Could it be possible that Allah's power leads to fatalism rather than obedience from the security for the believer?

Why there is a contrasting fact that the God of the Bible wants to be known in the context of His personal predestination while Allah does not want to be known?

Why Jesus will descend in a Buddhist fashion, dressed in yellow robes with his head anointed according to the Hadith? Why not in white or black burqa?

Is it true according to Ibn Warraq in his book "Why I am not a Muslim" that the Islamic Allah is the end result of theological evolution and concoction from pagan pre-Islamic religious systems in the Middle east?

Is it true according to Ibn Warraq again, there were numerous words of foreign origin in the Qu'ran and the Arabs Arabicized them, for example the word "Koran" itself comes from the Syriac, and Prophet Muhammad evidently got it from Christian sources?

Red faces over ‘1314’ mistake

Posted: 04 Jan 2013 11:34 AM PST

The biggest irony of course is that this is the party that has been trying to tell the Election Commission how to do its job. The folk in the Election Commission are probably having the last laugh now.

Joceline Tan, The Star

DAP leaders say it is a computing glitch but some have described the shocking revisions to DAP election results three weeks after the polls as Ubah Rocket Style.

AIYOOOOOO! How can?" That was the SMS reaction of one DAP MP after learning of his party's election fiasco.

"It's what I would call a perception disaster," the DAP MP said when contacted.

The blunder in the party's election result has left DAP leaders red-faced and many of its members angry and astounded.

Another DAP figure described it as a "joke". Nothing like this, he said, had ever happened in the party, where the winner was actually the loser and the loser is now the winner.

"I believe it was a genuine mistake but I feel sad," he said.

On Thursday, the DAP said a "technical glitch" had caused errors in the result of the party election which took place on Dec 15.

The mistake apparently occurred during a cut-and-paste job after the results were tabulated.

The party's election returning officer Pooi Weng Keong said that grassroots worker Vincent Wu, who had won the sixth spot in the 20-member central executive committee (CEC) did not actually win. Instead, the party's new Malay star Zairil Khir Johari had managed to squeeze into the 20th spot and was the winner.

Wu had only received 669 votes and not 1,202 as previously reported. As such, he had dropped to No. 26 in the new results. Zairil who was reported to have received 305 votes earlier actually got 803 votes under the new results.

The Cantonese-speaking members in the party are calling the event "1314" because the mistake was announced in the year 2013, in the first month and on the fourth day. In Cantonese, "1314" means "one survives, another dies".

Some party members are upset that the party has taken three weeks to correct the situation. In the meantime, they said Umno had a field day bashing the party for not electing a Malay into the CEC because of the mistake.

Pooi detected the mistake a day after the election and immediately notified secretary-general Lim Guan Eng. It was then decided that its latest recruit Ong Kian Ming lead an internal audit. Sources said the whole thing was kept under wraps because the party was unsure how to handle it.

When the outcome of the audit was presented to the CEC, a discussion was held on the impact of going public with it.

One view was that the results had been announced, there was no challenge to it and they should let sleeping dogs lie. But the CEC decided that they had to come clean and own up to the mistake because something so sensational was bound to leak.

One party leader then insisted on a gag order on who could speak on the issue but was over-ruled.

However, party leaders have been unwilling to speak on the record about this because it is simply too embarrassing. No matter how they talk around it, the fact remains that it was a big-time bungle in prime-time politics.

As one party official admitted: "Our party members will accept what happened but people outside must think we are stupid.

"If we can't even manage a simple election, how can we convince them that we can run the country?"

The Story Behind Ngeh Koo Ham and Nga Kor Ming Corruption Scandal

Posted: 04 Jan 2013 11:30 AM PST

Actually what Kit Siang said is true where no matter how corrupted is DAP leaders proven to be the public will just shut their eyes on them.

Shen Yee Aun

After Mac 2008 , Pakatan Rakyat had successfully captured the state of Perak where DAP won 18 seats , PKR 7 and PAS 6 . At first they get a shock where they never expected that a Tsunami politics will happen and because of this they never really plan the allocation of position before they capture Perak. So the question of who is the Menteri Besar of Perak was never a question in Pakatan Rakyat before the General Election. Only after they won they are in deep dilemma where DAP itself won the seat more than both PAS and PKR added up and yet since they do not have any Malay candidate therefore it is unlikely to have a non – Malay Menteri Besar from DAP.

Then , DAP Quickly call for a Central Executive Committee, at its emergency meeting in Penang on Sunday, 9th March 2008 and in their meeting their finalize that the Menteri Besar should either be DAP Ngeh Koo Ham or Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi from PKR. On the 10th of Mac , PAS top leadership secretly send their people to meet up with both Nga Kor Ming and Ngeh Koo Ham to lobby for a PAS State Assemblyman to be the Menteri Besar. PAS knew the weakness of PKR in Pakatan Rakyat where they are the weakest political party in PR in terms of grassroots and even the quality of their candidate. They saw a light to politically bring up their man in the state of Perak to further expand their Islamic agenda.

PAS is a very sincere political party that hardly look for money benefit and willing to sacrifice money for their religious cause. PAS top strategist advice the negotiator to use money as a trade for a Menteri Besar position with the powerful lions in Perak ( Nga Kor Ming and Ngeh Koo Ham ). Since the only resources PAS is having after Mac 2008 is only Kelantan dan Kedah but it very hard to close a deal from the Kedah Menteri Besar Azizan. So , PAS top leaders secretly seek Kelantan Menteri Besar Nik Aziz to award a back door close deal logging investment worth RM 30 million to both Ngeh and Nga to lobby for a PAS State Assemblyman to be the Menteri Besar. PAS spiritual agree where according to him he is willing to do anything as long as it for an Islamic cause. So both Ngeh Koo Ham and Nga Kor Ming secretly close the deal with PAS representative without the consent from both top DAP and PKR leadership. They plot a way for Nizar to be the Menteri Besar of Perak to by pass PKR Malay State Assemblyman that won 1 seat extra more than PAS.

Later on , Kit Siang call DAP to boycott the Nizar ( PAS ) as the Menteri Besar of Perak in his press conference and also in his blog writings

DAP is prepared to accept DAP chairman and Assemblyman for Sitiawan Ngeh Koo Ham or PKR Behrang Assemblyman Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi as Perak Mentri Besar.
As the appointment of PAS Assemblyman for Pasir Panjang Mohamad Nizar Jamaludin as Perak Mentri Besar representing the third and smallest political party in the proposed coalition has not received the mandate of the CEC, DAP Perak Assemblymen will stay away from the swearing-in ceremony for Perak Mentri Besar scheduled tomorrow. http://blog.limkitsiang.com/2008/03/12/no-dap-cec-mandate-for-pas-menteri-besar-in-perak/comment-page-19/

Both Ngeh Koo Ham and Nga Kor Ming silently stay away from this battle and let Kit Siang fought against Nizar. Earlier , nobody in DAP or PKR ever know that there is already a secret deal between Ngeh and Nga with PAS leaders. They just silently plot a way for it to happen and since they are more powerful than Lim Kit Siang in Perak therefore they do have their ways to make it happen.

On 17 Mac , Nizar from PAS successfully became the Menteri Besar of Perak with the help from Ngeh and Nga from DAP. After that , both Ngeh and Nga continue to expand their power and political base in DAP . They knew the facts that Lim Kit Siang is already too old to be in DAP for a long time and the arrogant Lim Guan Eng will need to step down as the Secretary General of DAP after his 3rd term. They are young and time is with them. They became so powerful that Kulasegaran a previous Vice Chairman and National Leader in DAP even loses his power in Perak.

Lim Kit Siang is not happy with the latest development and strength of both the nepotism Ngeh Koo Ham and Nga Kor Ming. It will be a threat to the Lim Dynasty influence and power in DAP. Therefore , he hand over Nga Kor Ming wife tailoring contract to UMNO to play it. Another corruption of DAP leaders in Perak. It is a sign of pre emptive strike and a sign of warning from Lim Kit Siang to both Ngeh and Nga to slow down in whatever they are doing in DAP to expand their power. When that happens DAP DC call up Nga Kor Ming for investigation. According to DAP internal sources , the DC will let Nga Kor Ming off if he start to behave and stop expanding his political strength. Being a smart politician Nga Kor Ming just agree with it and that is why DAP DC conclude to let him off.

But then the young Nga Kor Ming is a very combative politician. He will never surrender to sure threat. That is why he took even more step further to cut off Lim Kit Siang right hand man in Perak ( Kulasegaran ) right after this incident to send back another message to Lim Kit Siang that he is the real warlord in Perak. A revenge strike happen when Nga Kor Ming uses his influence in DAP to dig out list of DAP Selangor corruption that is related to Lim Kit Siang camp ( Teresa Kok , Teo Nie Ching , Ronnie Liu , Lim Lip Eng ). He secretly leak out this news to MCA top leadership to play up the issue and the battle will be seem from MCA side but politically it is impossible for MCA to know if all this sources , details and news is not from DAP internally.