Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

---

• Driving a wedge
• “Who Needs An Islamic State?” By Dr Abdelwahab El-Affendi
• The reason Malays don't respect Sultans
• The futility of debating religion today
• The 3R program: Plan B
• The 3R program
• And this is Malaysia
• Let’s try again
• Why Islam has become the New Communism
• So, the conclusion is….

Driving a wedge Posted: 23 Oct 2011 11:17 PM PDT The focus should have been as clear as daylight by now. We need change and the focus should be on how to see this change. However, once our thinking become clouded by non-issues such as race, religion and the Rulers, we would become distracted and start arguing about issues that are not going to bring about this change. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin Bernama and Utusan Malaysia are still trying to drive a wedge between DAP and PAS by, again, raising the hudud issue today. You can read the news item below. I suppose, after Saturday's 1,000,000-man assembly failure, they realise that the apostasy issue is not being received in the way they had hoped, so they need to revisit the hudud issue and try one more shot at pitting DAP against PAS. The fact that Bernama and Utusan Malaysia call the Penang government 'Kerajaan DAP Pulau Pinang' is proof of the sly slant of the report. They want the Malays to think that Penang has been 'lost' to the Chinese or that DAP (meaning Chinese) are the real power in Penang, etc. In short, DAP, and not Pakatan Rakyat, is ruling Penang and it is a Chinese government rather than a multi-racial government. Race and religion is a very potent weapon. And throw the 'not respecting the Rulers' or 'insulting the Rulers' issue into the ring, and we get a wonderful explosive ingredient called the 3R Program. Yes, 3R can work if played properly. Race, religion and the Rulers (Raja-raja Melayu) can make the Malays foam at the mouth if they can be made to believe that these three 'sacred cows' are under attack or are being insulted by the non-Malays. And that is what the government-owned and government-controlled media is attempting. Why Malaysians do not use logic rather than emotion is beyond me. It is that easy to get Malaysians so worked up -- Malays, Chinese, Indians and 'lain-lain' not exempted. Just raise the issue of race, religion or the Rulers and watch Malaysians fight. The focus should have been as clear as daylight by now. We need change and the focus should be on how to see this change. However, once our thinking become clouded by non-issues such as race, religion and the Rulers, we would become distracted and start arguing about issues that are not going to bring about this change. You have one last shot at change. And if you miss this shot don't ever dream that there is still the next time. As Elvis Presley said: it's now or never. And you better believe it. ******************************************************* Hudud: Kerajaan DAP Pulau Pinang dibidas gagal jelaskan pendirian Anggota pembangkang hari ini membidas kerajaan pimpinan DAP Pulau Pinang kerana tidak berani menjelaskan pendirian mengenai beberapa isu termasuk pelaksanaan hukum hudud. Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri (ADUN) Permatang Berangan, Shabudin Yahaya daripada Barisan Nasional (BN) berkata, setiap soalan lisan yang dikemukakan oleh wakil rakyat BN berhubung beberapa isu termasuk hukum hudud ditolak oleh Speaker Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN), Datuk Abdul Halim Hussain. Bercakap kepada pemberita selepas persidangan DUN hari ini, beliau berkata, rakyat Pulau Pinang inginkan satu penjelasan daripada kerajaan negeri mengenai pelaksanaan hukum hudud. "Mereka (rakyat) ingin tahu pendirian kerajaan negeri tetapi, kerajaan negeri tidak berani untuk menjawab soalan dan mencari jalan mudah dengan mengelak daripada menjawab," katanya. Beliau berkata, sebelum ini banyak pemimpin pakatan DAP-Parti Keadilan Rakyat-Pas, termasuk Lim Guan Eng yang juga Setiausaha Agung DAP, mengeluarkan pelbagai kenyataan. "Kini kami menggunakan platform yang betul untuk mendapatkan jawapan daripada kerajaan negeri bukannya bagi pihak pemimpin parti," kata Shabudin.

“Who Needs An Islamic State?” By Dr Abdelwahab El-Affendi Posted: 22 Oct 2011 07:53 AM PDT There are many misconceptions about Islam merely because the minority voice (which is shouting the loudest) is heard, while the other voices remain silent. Without sounding as if I am an 'Islam Apologist', maybe I should share with you the views of other Muslim scholars -- which is a far departure from the voices of those 4,000 people who participated in the 'assembly of 1,000,000' yesterday. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin If the foregoing discussion has any validity, then one has to infer that the concept of an Islamic state must be completely abandoned if sanity is to return to Muslim political discourse. One should rather speak about a state for the Muslims, or an Islamic political community. One must also abandon the illusions about the millennium promised by the revival of a utopian polity in which a righteous and saintly ruler will miraculously emerge to restore the long lost golden age of Islam. Nor is it wise to shift our millennial hopes to the newly emerged Islamic movements, and expect that their accession to power will automatically bring an era of divine justice and saintly rule. There is simply no alternative to attaining these objectives the hard way, by doing what is needed to achieve them. Wisdom dictates that we should be pessimistic about the qualities of our rulers, something which should not be too difficult, given our experiences. The institutions of a Muslim polity, and the rules devised to govern it, should therefore be based on expecting the worst. Human experience shows that democracy, broadly defined, offers the best possible method of avoiding such disappointment in rulers, and affords a way of remedying the causes for such disappointments once they occur. The value of this approach is that it does not make the attainment of dignity and freedom of Muslim individuals contingent on the setting-up of a utopian Islamic state which we may never live to see. It also removes the grounds on which the current tyrannies ruling the Muslim world are justified. The tyrants lording it over the Muslims today, aided and abetted by their foreign allies, justify their existence by fear of Muslim `fanatics' who want to coerce others into adopting an unacceptable lifestyle. This lame excuse for tyranny must be removed by affirming our commitment to democracy as the governing principle of the Muslim polity in all its stages. The state for Muslims must be a principle of liberation based on pluralism, with no coercion involved other than the minimum inherent in the principle of community itself. The raison d'etre of a political community is to assure the peaceful coexistence among its members. A Muslim political community is therefore an institution required to ensure that Muslims live in peace and harmony with one another, with other communities within the territory ruled by their polity and with other nations and communities on our planet. This peaceful co-existence has to be based on the rules of equity and fairness, and must not force Muslims to live contrary to their principles. The central misunderstanding of current Muslim political thought is the confused belief that a state based on Islamic principles is one which forces people to live according to Islam. In truth, the purpose of an Islamic political community is to enable individual Muslims to live according to Islam, and to protect them from coercion which tends to subvert their commitment to Islam. All the current references to the `imposition of sharia' or the Islamic state, whether by Islamic thinkers or opponents of Islam, actually misunderstand the issue completely. Sharia can rule truly only when the community observing it perceives this as a liberating act, as the true fulfilment of the self and moral worth of the community and each individual within it, for sharia can never be imposed. When it is imposed, it is not sharia. When only coercion underpins sharia, it becomes hypocrisy. A Muslim polity must also defend the right of Muslims to live freely according to the dictates of their consciences, by force if necessary, for a Muslim state must use all its resources to fight injustice and tyranny inside and around it. We cannot expect the commitment to peace to be a licence for the toleration of all evils in the name of avoiding conflict. This was the central mistake of classical Muslim political theory, which has neither succeeded in avoiding conflict nor in achieving justice. Therefore, it is essential to strive for justice as the only firm basis for permanent peace and harmony. To attain these goals, the Muslim state must rely primarily on the responsibility and active role of the individual within the community. It reasserts the value of the individual without preaching individualism. Classical Muslim political thought relegated the individual to the status of a non-entity by the postulation of vacuous and imprecise concepts such as that of ahl al-Hal wal Aqd and fard kifaya. These confused notions provided the basis for the endorsement of practical secularism, or for making the legality of all Muslim social activity dependent on the will of a despot. It must be reaffirmed that the individual does not need the state to be a Muslim. He creates the state as a Muslim, and he creates it voluntarily to further enhance his Islamic life. The opinion given by al-Ghazali and others about the necessity of the state - any state - as the precondition of the legality of Muslim social life is the opposite of the truth. A despotic and illegal regime does not bestow legitimacy on subsidiary actions. On the contrary, it marks everything it touches with the stamp of illegality. For Muslims, to have no state at all is better than to have an illegal one. "Who Needs An Islamic State?" By Dr Abdelwahab El-Affendi

The reason Malays don't respect Sultans Posted: 20 Oct 2011 06:03 PM PDT The federal Islamic development agency claimed today that many Muslim do not respect the authority of the Malay Rulers who are heads of religions for their respective states. On the eve of a planned gathering of a million Muslims to defend the faith, the Department of Islamic Development Malaysia (Jakim) prepared a Friday sermon that accused some parties of putting political interests ahead of the religion. "Many Muslims today do not respect the views and authority and in fact question the Sultan heads of the Islamic religious councils. The sanctity of the faith has been politicised and the split among Muslims has affected the function and role of the councils," said the sermon titled "State Islamic religious councils drive the transformation of the faithful". NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin Therefore, the opinion that Rajas should be placed under a Constitution that determined the status and role of the Rajas was born. With this method, the Rajas could no longer act as they liked. The powers of the Rajas would be determined by the Constitution, that is the country's basic law. Yet, there were Rajas who were willing to hand over their own states to foreign powers while ignoring the Constitution. Although the representatives were free to speak in the Dewan Rakyat and Dewan Undangan Negeri about any topic, but they could not touch on the Rajas because any criticism of the Rajas could be interpreted as sedition and they could be charged under the Sedition Act. This provision was a result of an amendment made in 1971. Before this, criticism of the Rajas could be made in the house. In Britain and other countries, the Parliament was free to criticize the Rajas. It is clear that that criticizing the Rajas does not destroy the Rajas' majesty. While this prohibition on criticism is said to protect the Rajas' majesty, but when the Rajas are not criticized, they will not be aware of the wrongs that they have committed. Hence, maybe more wrongs will be committed and these wrongs may become more serious. This not only contaminates the Rajas' majesty but can also cause the People to hate the Rajas. It is not true to say the prohibition on criticizing the Rajas will protect the Rajas' majesty. Actually, the majesty of the Rajas will be contaminated because of this prohibition. Unfortunately, because the Chief Ministers and Prime Minister are Malays that are unwilling to be on bad terms with the Rajas, when the Rajas do something that is not supposed to be done, no effective criticism is made. Even if there is, the unwillingness of the Rajas to care about the criticisms of these official advisers does not bring about any action towards the Rajas. Hence, in the history of independent Malaysia, the actions of the Rajas and parties who hide behind the Rajas that exceed the rights and privileges of the Rajas become more serious over time. The possibility is that it will become more serious in the future. If there are no amendments to the law, like those suggested here, without doubt worse matters will happen that will cause the Raja Institution to be hated by the people. It is not impossible that if one day in the future, demands are made to completely abolish the Raja System although there are provisions in the Constitution. Hence this amendment that is suggested aims to avoid or prevent the escalation of hatred towards the Rajas that could bring about demands to abolish the Raja System. This amendment is to save the Rajas themselves and the Constitutional Monarchy system. To strengthen the Constitutional provisions to maintain the Raja System, provisions are made such that any suggestion to abolish the Raja System will be interpreted as sedition and falls under Sedition Laws. If Malaysia intends to become a country that practices Parliamentary Democracy and Constitutional Monarchy, the immunity that is given to the Rajas must be abolished. Because the Constitution in countries that practice the Constitutional Monarchy System doesn't give immunity to their Kings, the abolishment of the immunity of the Malay Rajas cannot jeopardize their sovereignty. In the modern era, only because the King can't commit crimes as they like, the King's status will not be jeopardized, especially in a country that practices Parliamentary Democracy and Constitutional Monarchy. The interpretation of the sedition towards the King in the Constitution is so wide until no criticism is can be made in Parliament by members of the Dewan Rakyat or Dewan Undangan. Hence, the media also has no opportunity to report. Criticism can only be made by the Rajas' advisors behind closed doors. If this criticism is ineffective, there is nothing that can be done. Actually all three former Prime Ministers, as advisors to the Rajas, have already criticized the Rajas many times while they were in service. I know criticisms have been made because this matter has been repeatedly reported in Cabinet meetings and also the UMNO Supreme Council. It should be reminded that the respect of the People towards the Raja cannot be determined by laws. With your permission, 'Respect must be earned'. Having laws that scare the People will not bring 'respect'. With the realization that the Rajas can be brought to court, Rajas will certainly avoid committing acts that will cause the people not to respect the Rajas. Hence, the Raja Institution will be better respected and better preserved. Extract of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad's speech in the Malaysian Parliament (1993)

The futility of debating religion today Posted: 20 Oct 2011 01:00 AM PDT Consider too that even today a religious-based World War has the ability to kill more people in one go than all the people who have died in all previous wars across the world over the past 2000 years, because it could pit one billion people against an equally large number on the other side, all with ready access to Weapons of Mass Destruction! NO HOLDS BARRED Wally Salmon I feel that there really is no point in debating the merits of one religion over another, either person to person or group to group.  Worthwhile debate on any topic requires rational argument, supported with proven facts.  Religion is devoid of rational argument because nobody can prove anything; all so-called proof is subjective or faith-based and, many times, simply a quote from one or other Good Book supposedly containing the Creator's final word on the subject.  The "winnability" of a religious argument therefore revolves more around the strength of your conviction to persuade the other party to see why your religion is superior to theirs, but when that fails it can all too often turn to name calling and taunting (usually emanating from the ignorant minded person you have been debating with, of course).  The name calling and taunting arise out of a fervent belief on both sides of the divide that their own religion is not only the best but the only true religion, all other religions being not just inferior but wrong to the point where they are satanical in origin.  Thus the previously hidden superiority complex that lies just beneath the surface with many religious people (and not just fanatics) is exposed for all others who think differently from the orator to see – and for those others to revile, as is human nature!     Thus, if religion is not eventually to be the cause of the next World War, I feel that something radical must be done to change thinking worldwide about the pointlessness of religion continually fighting religion and non-religion.  Now, if your immediate reaction is to think that religion could never be the cause of a World War, then I suggest you haven't being paying attention to what's been going on in the world over the past 60+ years since the end of World War II, and even for the 1000 years before that.  And today, many developing nations already have or are struggling to create nuclear devices, not all of which may be intended just for deterrent purposes. Consider too that even today a religious-based World War has the ability to kill more people in one go than all the people who have died in all previous wars across the world over the past 2000 years, because it could pit one billion people against an equally large number on the other side, all with ready access to Weapons of Mass Destruction! One thing is certain - the world will never see the end of religions.  So religion in our midst is something we are going to have to live with for as long as human beings roam this planet.  Considering where a great number of the world's population are currently headed (despair, caused by the money-god of the largely capitalist, democratic world having let most of us down), religion will probably go through a renaissance over the course of the next few years, not a decline.  If that does materialise, then the many new converts will all be filled with the same self-righteousness that all new converts to a cause experience, and that is where the flash point can arise.  So the burning question must be, "What can be done to stop the doomsday scenario of a religious-based World War actually becoming a reality at some future point?"  Well, I have a suggestion that will probably prove to be anathema to many, but at least I am prepared to put it onto the table for discussion.  My idea is that a world-wide body needs to be set up to (i) help harmonise Religious Education everywhere and (ii) advise on standardisation of criminal law, based primarily on the most commonly accepted principles of the primary religions.  The following are my proposals for the principle aims of such a body: 1.    Creation of a suitable Religious Education syllabus worldwide, where the purpose is, without favouritism, to promote understanding of when, how and why the various religions emerged, and why those religions survive today.  Ultimately it can be linked to sociology, psychology and all such other associated high-level subjects, all of which are intrinsically linked with religion and have been since mankind first developed language. 2.    Promulgation of acceptable standards of behaviour for Governments and individuals when discussing or writing about religion, with sanctions for violation of those principles.  This would extend to condemning denigration of any one or more particular religions.  However, it should not extend to denying Atheists the right to question the relevance of religion in general or the right of religious groups to promote how belief in a Supreme Creator is better for a person's well-being than non-belief in such an entity.  It is a fine line to tread, I know, but an essential one in order to maintain a situation where one group does not inflame passions to the point where bloodshed results.  To have created such an unforgiveable situation should be deemed to represent a grave and unacceptable offence against the whole of humanity.       3.    Upholding the right of individuals everywhere to choose, change or abandon their religion or beliefs as they see fit, without interference or retribution of any sort from Governments, religious groups or any other source. 4.    Encouraging all nations to divorce religious doctrine from governance and, instead, adopt equitable governing principles based on equality and fairness for all. 5.    Promotion of a set of criminal laws that are acceptable world-wide, with a set of punishments that treat criminals with dignity and do not involve inhumane treatment of any sort.  This would ultimately mean abolishing the death penalty, I'm sure.    The second proposal has the distinct advantage that no religion need ever fear again that its beliefs will be trampled upon or ridiculed - all religions would be treated with equal respect.  The first proposal will be the foundation of the second proposal, since I consider that education is the key to a forward thinking society. I am fully aware that, if my proposals were to be adopted, the obstacles that must be overcome to implement them would be numerous and daunting.  But I feel that a start needs to be made somewhere.  Particularly thorny issues would be deciding who should take responsibility for: (a)    setting up the world-wide body to administer the undertaking; and (b)    deciding which people should be on the many sub-committees that would be needed (such as the Religious Education curriculum for each age range, the sanctions to be applied against transgressors, the laws for crime and the punishments applicable thereto, etc.). Of course, there will be many who will argue that since even the thought of such an undertaking is too daunting, then it is a waste of time even discussing it, as it will never be achieved.  But as I always say, if you don't try to reach for the stars, then you won't even land on the moon.  So this article is written not so you can tell me how big an idiot I am – my wife does that daily.  It was written to promote discussion as to how human beings can find a good way to live in harmony knowing that (i) religion will always be a fact of life (whether you like it or not), and (ii) at some future point religion has the potential to blow our world apart, quite literally, if we don't take steps now to limit the potential for that to occur.

The 3R program: Plan B Posted: 19 Oct 2011 07:14 PM PDT It looks like Pakatan Rakyat Selangor is going to be a one-term government. Well, maybe they deserve to be kicked out for sleeping on the job. Maybe this will wake them up. The only thing though, once Selangor falls back to Umno, Pakatan Rakyat will never be able to capture it again. Umno will make sure of that. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin This piece is actually part 2 of my earlier piece: The 3R program. I thought I would break it into two parts or else many of you will be arguing about the colour of the dog collar rather than discuss about the dog. As it is, I can already see the debate focusing on Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. Can you see how easy it is to pull the wool over the eyes of Malaysians, Malaysia Today readers included who take great delight in quoting verses from the Koran or the Bible and think they are very clever because they are able to cut-and-paste? Anyway, Umno can't take any chances that the Malays will swallow the 3R bait together with the hook, line and sinker. So they need Plan B. And Plan B is to cover their bases in case the Malays do not swing 60% or 70% to Barisan Nasional but remains 50:50 like in the 2008 general election. And this is where Dato Othman Razak, the Special Adviser to the Prime Minister, Dato Wan Ahmad of the Elections Commission, Dato Kamarudin Baria, Dato Tajuddin Wahab, Rahman Dahlan, Harun Che Su, Misri Barham and a few other sleaze balls mentioned in my first piece come in. You see: Selangor is the jewel in the crown. So they need to take back Selangor at all costs, even if they have to sell their own mothers to do that. Okay, they can always go to Mekah after the general election and repent and pray for God's forgiveness. In the meantime, this is not the time to be honest. Over the last two years, the opposition has been embarking on voter registration exercises. And the opposition is very happy because the numbers of voters have increased drastically. But it is not because of the success of the opposition that the numbers of voters have increased. It is because the Elections Commission is registering voters by the busloads, literally. Pakatan Rakyat has been quietly looking through the voters registration list. And they have found the same voters registered in many different places. Hundreds of thousands of 'new' voters in Selangor are highly suspect. It looks like Pakatan Rakyat Selangor is going to be a one-term government. Well, maybe they deserve to be kicked out for sleeping on the job. Maybe this will wake them up. The only thing though, once Selangor falls back to Umno, Pakatan Rakyat will never be able to capture it again. Umno will make sure of that. Bye-bye Khalid Ibrahim. Bye-bye Ronnie Liu. Bye-bye Elizabeth Wong. Bye-bye everyone. It was good while it lasted but eventually all parties must come to an end and everybody has to go home

The 3R program Posted: 19 Oct 2011 05:19 PM PDT The plan is: how do they make sure that the Malays will swing back to Umno? They need to make sure that they get at least 60% or more of the Malay votes because they expect at least 80% or more of the Chinese votes to swing to the opposition with maybe 50% or so of the Indian votes. So they need the Malay votes to stay in power. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin Those Malaysians as old as me will probably remember the 3R program and the 3M team. 3M were Mahathir, Musa and Murad: the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and DG of Education. 3R was the program to focus on reading, riting and rithmetic. Now you know why the program failed. Writing is 'w' and arithmetic is 'a'. So it should have been called the WAR program instead. Anyway, a team has been set up to launch a new 3R program. The brains behind this program are Dato Othman Razak, the Special Adviser to the Prime Minister, Dato Wan Ahmad of the Elections Commission, Dato Kamarudin Baria, Dato Tajuddin Wahab, Rahman Dahlan, Harun Che Su, Misri Barham and a few other sleaze balls. But no, this team it is not to teach school children how to read, rite and rithmetic. This new 3R program is Royalty, Religion and Race. The plan is: how do they make sure that the Malays will swing back to Umno? They need to make sure that they get at least 60% or more of the Malay votes because they expect at least 80% or more of the Chinese votes to swing to the opposition with maybe 50% or so of the Indian votes. So they need the Malay votes to stay in power. So they launch the 3R program and make Malays and Chinese fight over royalty, race and religion. And this Saturday's 'one million man march' is just one of many things they are doing. They raised the hudud issue and everyone jumped in to fight over the matter. They raised the 'who is the hero and who is the treacherous Communist' issue and, again, everyone jumped in and started fighting. Then they raided the church and got the Sultan to make a statement since he is head of religion in the state. They know that Malaysians are very emotional and irrational. Malaysians also do not know how to engage. They only know how to curse, swear and insult. So all they need to do is to raise one sensitive issue and sit back and watch Malaysians fight each other. The Muslims will start quoting verses from the Koran and the non-Muslims will scream, "Go fuck your Islam!" Christians will quote what Jesus said and will quote passages from the Bible. It is so easy to make Malaysians fight. It is like taking candy from a baby. So far the plan is working well. Just be reading the comments in Malaysia Today alone are enough to measure this success. Malays and non-Malays are really hammering each other in the name of Bangsa, Negara dan Agama. Umno has come a long way since Najib Tun Razak took over as Prime Minister. People ask me why I admire Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad so much. Simple! Dr Mahathir is a master politician and I am seeing him play Malaysians and the opposition for suckers each and every time, and win. It is fantastic how he can manipulate Malaysians and they not only fall for it but also do not realise they are suckers. According to Umno, the non-Malay vote is critical. Even Johor, which remained the bastion of Barisan Nasional in the 2008 general election, is now shaky. They estimated that about 60% or more of the Chinese vote in Johor may swing to the opposition. Umno also estimated that if in Sabah and Sarawak the opposition engages in a one-to-one fight, Barisan Nasional is going to lose quite a number of seats there. 20 parliament seats from the 57 is not unrealistic. So they must make sure that there are many three-corner or four-corner fights in East Malaysia. Then the opposition will not be able to win even five seats. And they must make sure that the Malays become pissed with the Chinese, and vice versa. Then the Malays will vote for Umno. Only then can Barisan Nasional be assured of forming the next government. Actually, Najib and his team of advisers are very clever. And I must say I take my hat off to them. They are playing Pakatan Rakyat and Malaysians for suckers and it is working at every turn. The 3R program appears to be a success.

And this is Malaysia Posted: 18 Oct 2011 06:14 PM PDT A gathering dubbed Himpunan Sujuta Umat (Himpun), which aims to gather a million Muslims against alleged Christian proselytising, will be held at the Shah Alam Stadium on Saturday. That is the focus of the Malays, kaypoh into other people's affairs. Now see what is happening all over the world, which the Malays do not seem to care about. And we want the Malays to progress like this? NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin Thousands march in Athens at start of two-day general strike (READ HERE) Greece general strike begins over spending cuts (READ HERE) Anti-Wall Street protesters march against New York police (READ HERE) Ratings Firm Warns on French Debt (READ HERE) Spain Hit by Downgrade, Falling Home Prices (READ HERE) U.K. Inflation Rate Surges, Stoking Economic Concerns (READ HERE)  EU Warns Portugal on Deficit (READ HERE) Germany, France See Declines in Foreign-Investment Flows (READ HERE) China: Foreign Trade to Face Pressure (READ HERE)  Greece Fighting to Secure Permanent Debt Solution (READ HERE)  German Economic Expectations Worsen (READ HERE) S&P Downgrades Italian Banks (READ HERE)

Let’s try again Posted: 18 Oct 2011 06:30 AM PDT It looks like yesterday's article got reduced to another debate on religion -- basically whose religion is better; mine or yours? The non-Muslims are quite prepared to accept the fact that Theological States can no longer work while Muslims stubbornly stick to the concept of a Theological State. Maybe this extract from Abdelwahab El-Affendi's book, "Who needs an Islamic State?" can help clear the air. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin (Page 72-74): It is important to note that traditional Muslim political theory was first developed by the Shi'i movement during its pre-sectarian phase. This is because all authoritative leaders of Muslim opinion tended to join the idealist camp led by Ali, or else to adopt a neutral posture while not hiding their sympathy with Ali. After Muawiya's victory, leading Muslim thinkers continued to support the rebels who defied despotic political authority in the name of Islamic ideals. If the two main Shi'i Schools challenged the existing authority on principle, the four main Sunni Schools (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali) were equally critical. Abu Hanifa (died 767), founder of the Hanifa School, was persecuted by the Abbasid Caliphs for suspected sympathy with Zaidi rebels and for his refusal to take office within the Abbasid regime.  Malik ibn Anas (died 795) was also harassed by the Abbasids for allegedly assuring rebels that their pledge of allegiance to the Caliph was invalid because it was taken under coercion. Muhammad ibn Idris al-Shafi'i (died 819) narrowly escaped execution for his alleged involvement in a rebellion. The resistance of Ahmad Hanbal (died 855) to the attempts by al-Mamoun to impose a particular doctrine regarding the nature of the Quran caused him much suffering, but finally led to the triumph of his point of view. The actual experience of the Muslim community, however, forced these thinkers and their successors to adopt a more realistic attitude. In the end, a broad agreement evolved among classical Muslim writers about several issues. They accepted that all regimes since Muawiya did not reflect the ideals of Islam and thus could not be accepted as a model. Such regimes were tolerable only because the alternative was anarchy and civil war. If a way could be found to replace these regimes without too much bloodshed, then their removal would be a religious duty. Although this could be construed as a vindication of the attitude of the khawarij and other rebels, it is ironic that the futile exploits of the khawarij only reinforced the belief that rebellion was inadvisable, and was not considered as a realistic option. As a result of this attitude, a schism developed in the Muslim psyche. While Muslims rejected Secularism in principle, they adopted it in practice. A central aspect of the unitary Muslim vision of the State was that the State interacted with the rest of Muslim life. Not only did the State submit to Sharia as interpreted by the community, but it also enriched and redefined Sharia and the spiritual life of the community. The acts of the Prophet as a statesman and a warrior, as well as those of his lieutenants, appointees and "righteous' successors were regarded as examples and an indication of what is lawful. However, with the rejection of the legitimacy of the State in later periods, the community stubbornly refused to accept state interference in 'spiritual' matters, or to accord it moral authority in Muslim matters. People submitted their bodies to it, so to speak, but never their souls. The ulema gave counsel that was not much difference from that ascribed to Jesus: "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's". So Muslims were instructed to obey the rulers, but only where their orders did not lead to sin. However, sin was here narrowly defined, with the usurpation of power and the unlawful disposition of the wealth of the Muslim community seen as no grave sin. What is this if not Secularism? Note: 1.    The Abbasid period began after the rule of the four 'rightly guided' caliphs (Abu Bakar, Omar, Osman and Ali) who succeeded Prophet Muhammad upon his death. 2.    Hanifa, Malik, Shafi'i and Hanbal were the founders of the four Sunni Schools of Islam (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali). 3.    Shi'i is short for Shiatul Ali, which means Party of Ali (a political movement set up to oppose the Abbasids).

Why Islam has become the New Communism Posted: 17 Oct 2011 06:00 AM PDT This article is targeted at the Muslim audience. I realise most Muslims would not receive it in the spirit it was written but will probably take it in a negative vein. So be it because the truth can at times be a bitter pill to swallow. Non-Muslims are, of course, most welcome to comment as long as it is also done in the spirit of seeking for the truth. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin Muslims are probably perplexed as to why non-Muslims view any discussion and discourse on Islam, or anything at all related to Islam, with suspicion and distrust. The hostility demonstrated by non-Muslims is probably unsettling for most Muslims who interpret it as an attack on Islam. This has always been the stance of religionists: either you are with me or else you are my enemy. There is no middle ground. It must always be one extreme or the other. And this is not just the problem with Muslims. Jews and Christians too take this very uncompromising stand. It appears like the Abrahamic faiths are founded on militancy and aggression. And can you blame people for thinking this way when the Abrahamic faiths have been propagated at the point of the sword and based on the principle of convert or die? You may say that this was in the past. But do you expect the past to be so easily forgotten and forgiven when the wounds might have already healed but the scars still remain? And is what is happening in many parts of the Middle East and other Muslim countries reflective of the past or an indication that we are still living in the past? Religionists, whether they are Jews, Christians or Muslims, speak with arrogance and in a very condescending attitude. Humility and humbleness appear to be virtues that religionists do not possess. It is always I know better than you and I speak on behalf of God. Where is that so-called religion of peace and love and forgiveness that they talk so much about? What people see is mere rhetoric and insincerity. How can they be trusted when they are unable to demonstrate good faith? Religionists, in particular Islamists, espouse the virtues of an Islamic State and try to convince their audience on how much better life would be under an Islamic State as opposed to a Secular State. The opposite of a Secular State is a Theocracy. But when we refer to an Islamic State as a Theocracy it is met with resistance. Islamists insist that an Islamic State is not a Theocracy. If it is not a Theocracy then what is it? Can we call it a Democracy? Yes, that is what they would like us to call it, a Democracy. But that is just it. A Theocracy is not a Democracy. Which Islamic State since the time of the Prophet Muhammad until the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in 1922 was founded on free and fair elections? It has always been founded on the basis of totalitarian governments. Free and fair elections can never work in a Theocracy because free and fair elections are about the wishes of the majority while Theocracies are about the will of God. The wishes of the majority do not count. The will of God overrides the wishes of the majority. I have always argued that if Prophet Muhammad had to stand for elections he would have been defeated and ousted as the leader of his community. Let us not forget that the Muslim community, then, was in the minority and they were surrounded by Jews, Christians and Pagans who constantly plotted against the Muslims. There has never been a single example of a successful Theocracy, whether Islamic State, Christian State, or whatever, since time immemorial. All have been totalitarian regimes where the wishes of the majority are not supreme. Human rights are not respected. In fact, the concept of human rights does not even exist. Even the so-called 'Golden Age of Islam' was founded on a totalitarian system where the rights of the people did not matter. How can right-thinking Malaysians agree to turn back the clock and take a journey back into the past to live in the Middle Ages? And when we argue this point it is interpreted as that we are Islam-haters or defiant of Allah's command -- the characteristics of Satan and the reason why God has condemned Satan to an eternity in hell. Islamists fail to realise that the problem is not the laws itself but the application of the laws. Under the present judicial system and form of government, where dissent and opposition is not tolerated, even good laws can become bad. The word 'justice' is non-existent in Malaysia. How can Malaysians trust any amendments to the present system when the present system itself has failed and no reprieve appears over the horizon? Malaysia needs to move forward. And the way forward has to be based on more democracy, tolerance, and respect for civil liberties. No Islamic State over 1,500 years has proven to possess these qualities. Quality of life improved not when these countries embraced an Islamic State but when they removed the shroud of totalitarian regimes and abolished the Caliphate. Few citizens of the world would want to consider a Theological State -- whether it is a Hindu State, Buddhist State, Jewish State, Christian State, or Islamic State. The experiment with Theocracies has ended and all ended in failure and disaster. It is time to move forward and the way forward is by majority rule. Nevertheless, if the majority opts for a Theocracy then so be it. That is how democracies work. But for the minority to impose their values on the majority is not on. So expect the majority to resist. And opposition by the majority against the minority should not be interpreted as a war against God. It is merely the majority upholding their democratic right of freedom of choice, a right, in the first place, given to us by God Himself.

So, the conclusion is…. Posted: 16 Oct 2011 02:26 AM PDT In fact, I have always tried to preach the same values regarding Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. I was always of the opinion that we must do the Christian thing and not hate him for what we perceive he has done to Malaysia but instead love and forgive him, as what the Christians have said Jesus Christ taught us. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin We have had a good debate in 'What's the beef?'. However, as they say, all good things must eventually come to an end. With more than 400 comments, which chances are many would not be bothered to read, it may be prudent to summarise the conclusion of these so many opinions. The first, and probably most important point that was made very clear, is that non-Christians have no business talking about Christianity or the Bible because they know very little about 'other people's religion'. That, in my opinion, is a very sound and valid point because I too have been saying the same to non-Muslims who pass comments and give opinions on Islam. So I would agree with this first conclusion. The next point is that non-Muslims can never agree to the implementation of Hudud in Malaysia even if an irrevocable guarantee is given that non-Muslims would not be affected by this, or any Islamic laws, in any way. The fact that no one can be assured of what may happen in the future and whether these guarantees would be revoked later does not give the non-Muslims any comfort. I can sympathise with the non-Muslims and understand their apprehension. Would the implementation of Hudud be the opening of a Pandora's box that once opened could never be closed again? Who can tell? It is best, therefore, that we take no risks. Considering that PAS is committed to Islam and that Hudud is one of their aspirations, it would be safer, therefore, that Pakatan Rakyat is not allowed to come into power.  Umno has made it very clear that it will never allow Hudud to be implemented, even in the states, let alone at national level. Umno has demonstrated its good faith by blocking the implementation of Hudud twice, once in Kelantan and again in Terengganu. It would, therefore, be safer that Barisan Nasional is allowed to form the federal government rather than Pakatan Rakyat where the uncertainties of Hudud would hang over our heads. Of course, if you were to look at Hudud from the legal and constitutional aspect rather than from the angle of religion, it would be logically impossible for Pakatan Rakyat to implement Hudud. And the fact that PAS would be contesting merely one-third the seats, and even if they combined these seats with other Muslim MPs from PKR they would still not be able to get the two-thirds required to amend the Constitution, there would still be an element of risk even if that risk is merely 1%. I suppose we can do worse than vote in a corrupt, manipulate, racist, repressive and evil government. And a corrupt, manipulate, racist, repressive and evil government is certainly more desired than a clean government that may one day impose Islamic laws on the Muslim population with no water-tight guarantee that the non-Muslim population would not also be subjected to the same, even if some may want to argue that such a possibility is zero to 1%. One point I would like to add -- which most people focused on although it was not really the issue we wanted to address -- was the matter of the Old and New Testaments. I admit that most Muslims are confused about this, and I suppose that would include me. The fact it is called Old and New gave non-Muslims the impression that both form part of the Bible -- just like how Muslims treat the Koran and Hadith as two parts of the same thing. It is good that this matter was clarified and now Muslims and other non-Christians would get a better grasp of Christianity. Most, if not all, non-Christians were under the impression that both Bibles are Christian Bibles based on what the Christians did for almost 2,000 years until 1850. What was of particular interest to me was the fact that the Old Testament is a Jewish Bible and not a Christian Bible. This makes one wonder why the Jews and Muslims fight so much when both their Holy Books teach the same thing and the fact that Islamic laws are actually Jewish laws. I was especially attracted to the argument that the Christian Bible, the New Testament, preaches non-violence, non-hatred, love, forgiveness, turn the other cheek, and so on. In fact, I have always tried to preach the same values regarding Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. I was always of the opinion that we must do the Christian thing and not hate him for what we perceive he has done to Malaysia but instead love and forgive him, as what the Christians have said Jesus Christ taught us. I trust in spite of the heated debate we saw in the last posting, this matter has come to an amicable ending and we can now all rest easy with the knowledge that we are united in our views and share the same opinion on how we should proceed from hereon.

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

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net