Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

How I imagine the trial would proceed
A Democrat indeed
Are we who we are?
Do you know what sacrifice means?
Perception and relativism
My response to Kee Thuan Chye
When might is right
Show me the money!
Many versions of the truth
How our mind works

Posted: 28 Oct 2012 07:51 PM PDT

Lawyer: What I am driving at is God's hand is at work here and the church is powerless to prevent God from doing His work. God and not the church or the statue cured your wife just like God and not the church or the statue caused the statue to fall over. Both acts, according to your faith, are what we could call ACTS OF GOD. Can someone else be sued for an act of God?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Man Who Lost Leg After Crucifix Fell on Him While Praying Sues Church for US$3mil

(Daily Mail) - A cruel twist of fate cost David Jimenez his leg when the crucifix he prayed to every day when his wife was fighting cancer toppled over and crushed him.

Jimenez stopped every day to pray to the statue of Jesus on the cross outside Church of St Patrick in Newburgh, New York. When his wife, Delia, recovered from the cancer, the 45-year-old father of two offered to clean the crucifix as an act of faith and a goodwill gesture. However, as he scrubbed the heavy marble object, it fell off its shaky pedestal and landed on his leg, the Mid-Hudson News Network reported.

The pizza parlour employee is now suing the church for US$3 million, claiming the priest who gave him permission to work on the unstable statue was negligent. The injury on Memorial Day in 2010 so badly mangled Jimenez's right leg that doctors were forced to amputate it just below the knee.

The church told CBS New York that the congregation collected food and US$7,000 in cash donations for Jimenez and his family. However, Jimenez's lawyer, Kevin Kitson, said the insurance company for the diocese had made collecting additional money difficult. As a result of the legal action, the church has removed the crucifix from the Church of St Patrick and moved it to another parish.

Kitson said his client, a devout Catholic, still believes it played a role in his wife's recovery. "David attributed the cure to his devotion to that cross," he told CBS New York. Nonetheless, the lawyer maintains that the church was negligent.

He said only one screw held the marble statue in place. That gave way when Jimenez scrubbed the statue, causing it to fall over.

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

This is how I imagine the trial would proceed.

Lawyer: Mr Jimenez, you say that the church was negligent and that this negligence caused the statue of Jesus on the cross to fall over and crush your leg. Could it not be that you were negligent instead and that it was your negligence that caused the statue to fall over rather than the negligence of the church?

Plaintiff: No. I was very careful. I was not negligent.

Lawyer: So, in spite of your carefulness, the statue still fell over. Hence it was not your own negligence. Is that correct?

Plaintiff: That is correct.

Lawyer: You volunteered or offered to clean the statue as an act of faith and a goodwill gesture. Is that correct?

Plaintiff: Yes, that is correct.

Lawyer: So the church did not ask you or request you to clean the statue.

Plaintiff: No, but the church gave me permission to do so knowing that it was dangerous.

Lawyer: How do you know that the church was aware that it was dangerous to clean the statue? Did the priest or anyone else from the church tell you it was dangerous?

Plaintiff: No. No one told me it was dangerous. But they would have known it was dangerous and they should have told me.

Lawyer: How do you know they would have known it was dangerous?

Plaintiff: Well…I sort of just know. It's a sort of feeling I have.

Lawyer: So, you have no evidence of this. It is just a feeling you have that the church knew it was dangerous and you also have a feeling that they did not tell you that it was dangerous in spite of knowing that it was dangerous?

Plaintiff: Well…err…well yes.

Lawyer: So, in spite of you being able to have all these feelings, you did not have any feeling that the statue might fall over if you start cleaning it.

Plaintiff: Err…no.

Lawyer: And you volunteered or offered to clean the statue because you have faith that your prayers in front of the statue helped cure your wife's cancer.

Plaintiff: That's right.

Lawyer: Are you saying that the statue cured your wife's cancer?

Plaintiff: No, not the statue. God cured my wife's cancer because I constantly prayed in front of the statue. It was God's will.

Lawyer: So it was God's will that your wife was cured, not the statue's will. Is that correct?

Plaintiff: That's right.

Lawyer: But the statue fell over when you cleaned it.

Plaintiff: That's right.

Lawyer: So it was not the statue's will that it fell over but God's will.

Plaintiff: Err…I think so…you are confusing me.

Lawyer: Mr Jimenez, it's a simple question. Is it God's will or the statue's will that it fell over?

Plaintiff: It's God's will.

Lawyer: So, it was God and not the statue that cured your wife's cancer and it is God's will and not the statue's will that it fell over and crushed your leg. So why sue the church then? Since God is the cause of both your wife's cancer being cured as well as for the statue falling over would it not be God's doing and therefore you should be suing God instead of the church?

Plaintiff: I can't sue God!

Lawyer: Why not?

Plaintiff: Well, because you just can't, that's why.

Lawyer: But the church had no hand in this. In fact, even the statue had no hand in this, as you admit. It was the hand of God that both cured your wife and made the statue fall over. So why sue the church for something that God did?

Plaintiff: It just does not work like that.

Lawyer: Even if the church had not been negligent but God had willed the statue to fall over could the church have prevented God's will?

Plaintiff: I don't understand.

Lawyer: Let me put it another way then. Can the church defy God?

Plaintiff: Of course not. No one can defy God.

Lawyer: So, if God had wanted the statue to fall over then there is nothing the church could have done, is that correct?

Plaintiff: What are you driving at?

Plaintiff: Err…err…you are confusing me.

Lawyer: Your Honour, I ask the court to set aside this suit and award costs to my client as the Plaintiff has admitted that what happened to him was an act of God and not negligence on the part of the church. I have also received instructions that if the Plaintiff would like to sue God I am authorised to represent Him.

A Democrat indeed

Posted: 27 Oct 2012 06:27 PM PDT

We need New Politics. We need a New Malaysia. We need New Malaysians. We need a Malaysian of Democrats. And this New Politics, New Malaysia, New Malaysians, a Malaysian of Democrats, etc., have to be one that is tolerant of criticism -- even if that criticism is 'God does not exist, religion is bullshit, and those who believe in all this nonsense are enslaving themselves to a doctrine from the Dark Ages'.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Anwar: 'Kenyataan Soi Lek hina Islam'

(Sinar Harian) - Ketua Pembangkang, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim menyifatkan kenyataan dilontar Presiden MCA, Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek tentang hudud satu penghinaan nyata terhadap agama Islam.

Dakwa Anwar, tindakan Soi Lek itu amat memalukan dan tidak mampu dipertahankan lagi.

Katanya, kenyataan Soi Lek yang dilakukan di hadapan Datuk Seri Najib Razak, juga bermaksud menghina beliau sebagai Perdana Menteri dan tetamu khas konvensyen tersebut.

"Saya sifatkan ianya sebagai satu serangan yang biadab dan telah menyinggung perasaan umat Islam," katanya yang dipetik dalam blog miliknya, semalam.

Soi Lek sebelum ini mengeluarkan kenyataan bahawa pelaksanaan hukum hudud akan menjejaskan 1.2 juta peluang pekerjaan dalam sektor perkhidmatan dan pelancongan serta boleh mencetuskan keresahan rakyat terhadap Islam.

Beliau selepas itu meminta semua anggota parti MCA supaya meningkatkan lagi publisiti dalam usaha menepis dakyah pembangkang.

Katanya, lebih parah lagi, kenyataan Soi Lek itu seolah-olah dipersetujui Najib.

"Kebisuan Najib tentang perkara ini jelas menunjukkan beliau berada di pihak yang salah," katanya.

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

Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim says that the MCA President, Chua Soi Lek, has insulted Islam. Just for the record, I too have whacked Chua Soi Lek for instigating the Penang Malays in my article We didn't start the fire. And this is what one reader commented:

RPK,

No matter how much you try to instigate May 13 - Version 2.0, realize that you are wasting your time. The Malays today are far, far different from those in 1969...they are wealthy and drive new-ish fancy cars...do you really think they are going to Mengamuk like the old days?

Today's Melayus have lost their balls.

So, when I whack the MCA President, I am instigating May 13 Version 2.0. When the Opposition Leader whacks Chua Soi Lek, he is the greatest Malaysian alive -- a true 'Towering' Malay.

The chap, Ramesh Chandran, who posted that comment accuses me of instigating May 13 Version 2.0 and yet he closes his comment with: Today's Melayus have lost their balls.

Is this not a contradiction? You accuse me of racism and then you throw the Malays a challenge by saying that the Malays have lost their balls. So how do you want the Malays to prove that they still have balls? By taking to the streets and mengamuk?

Malaysia Today appears to attract comments from readers with the lowest intelligence and intellectual level. No wonder the thinking readers rather just read and remain quiet. They refuse to comment and be associated with brain-dead Malaysians.

Anyway, I would have expected that statement by Anwar Ibrahim to come from people like Ibrahim Ali, Hassan Ali, Zulkifli Nordin, and those of their ilk, but not from someone like Anwar, a so-called Democrat.

A Democrat may disagree with what you say but he or she will definitely respect and defend your right to say it. Anwar appears to have lost this ability.

You may have a warped opinion, but that does not mean you are not entitled to this warped opinion or that you lose your right to express this warped opinion.

After all, probably 80% of the world believes in the existence of God and they profess some form of religion. They will also express their views about their religion. And the other 20% of the world that does not think this is true would consider the 80% as silly and superstitious sub-humans, at least in mentality.

But do the 20% stop the 80% from having these beliefs and from expressing these beliefs as much as they may think these are extremely silly beliefs?

Why is it only those who believe in God and profess a religion have rights whereas those who do not believe in God and do not profess a religion do not have rights? And when those who do not believe in God and do not profess a religion express their views, they are accused of 'insulting' so-and-so religion.

This 'you are insulting my religion' allegation is being carried a bit too far. God is supposed to be kind, forgiving, compassionate, just, fair, and so on. On the other hand, God is extremely intolerant and God has appointed 'agents' to roam around the world to punish those who 'insult' Him.

This sounds like a very short-tempered and vindictive God who is even worse than the person you love to hate -- Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. At least even if Dr Mahathir detains you under Operasi Lalang you finally get to go home. Dr Mahathir does not shoot you or bomb your house because you have insulted him, like what your God has commanded you to do.

Perkasa, Pekida, Umno, the government, etc., accuse the Christians, DAP, MCA, the non-Muslims, the church etc., of insulting Islam. And they want action taken against these people. Whether these (non-Muslim) people really did insult Islam or this is something these Muslims perceive and is just something in their minds is not important. As long as someone is perceived or imagined to have insulted Islam, those are grounds enough to punish him or her for this 'crime'.

We can expect this from the government and the government supporters. We do not expect this from the opposition, in particular those who are projecting a Democrat image, and certainly not from the Leader of the Opposition.

If we are not yet ready for that then Malaysia is NOT yet a nation of Democrats and hence we lose the right to talk about democracy. And certainly the Opposition Leader should lead by example and be the first to demonstrate he is a Democrat and not just another Perkasa, Pekida, Umno, etc., by another name.

Are we who we are?

Posted: 26 Oct 2012 06:27 PM PDT

In Chinese philosophy, the concept of Yin-Yang is about how polar opposites or seemingly contrary forces are interconnected and interdependent in the natural world, and how they give rise to each other in relation to each other. Many natural dualities such as dark and light, male and female, low and high, cold and hot, water and fire, earth and air, etc., are considered manifestations of Yin and Yang.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Are we who we are? Or are we who we are not? For example, we are not black. Hence since we are not black then we must be the opposite of black, which means white. That is, of course, if we look at the world in merely two shades -- black and white, good and bad, big and small, rich and poor, sick and healthy, etc.

But is this not how we always look at the world, in two shades? Either you are with me or you are against me. You must be one or the other. You cannot be not with me plus not against me. And this is how most people look at things. Either you are Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat. They cannot imagine that there exists an in-between world that is neither left nor right.

So, who are you? Are you who you are? Or are you who you are not? And have we even pondered on this question or have we accepted who we are based on what society has moulded us into believing who we are?

We exist because something else exists. In the absence of that something else we would cease to exist. Hence we are not who or what we think we are. What we are is always in relation to something else that is not what we are.

I know this sounds very confusing so I will need to quote a few examples to help you understand this concept. In an earlier article I used the example of the moon. The moon, or rather the full moon, exists only because the sun exists. If the sun did not exist then the (full) moon would not exist as well.

And we measure time according to the sun and/or the moon. Malays call month bulan, which is also the word for moon. Some communities measure time according to how many moons have passed. Hence, if the sun did not exist, and therefore the moon also did not exist, would time exist? Time exists only because the sun exists. In the absence of the sun -- and say the world is dark all year around -- time would not exist.

A King exists because there are subjects. If there were no subjects and he-who-would-be-king was alone in this world, there would be no kings. He would merely be one man alone in this world.

Hence the existence of kings is contingent upon the existence of subjects.

Religionists say that without God humankind would not exist. If you believe in God then this argument would form the fundamentals of your belief system. But is it not true also the other way around? If humankind did not exist would there be a God? God may still exist in its 'physical' form, for want of a better word, but God will never exist in its conceptual form. Humankind needs a concept of God. So, without humankind, the concept of God would not exist.

God needs creations to become a God -- just like kings need subjects to become a king. Without creations, God cannot become God. So, is that the true secret of our creation -- so that God can become God?

I am not sure whether you can grasp this concept, which is really not that complex.

Does goodness exist? Goodness exists only because evil exists. Without evil goodness cannot exist. Hence does goodness really exist or is this merely a perception in our mind?

Say there are no murders, rapes, robberies, diseases, deaths, etc., in this world. Everything is very perfect just like we were living in Paradise. Everything is good. There is no bad. So, since bad or evil does not exist, good cannot exist as well. Things will just be, that's all. It will never be good or be bad. It will just be because there is no concept of good and bad or evil.

The existence of one is subject to the existence of the other. Hence what we are is basically the opposite of what we are not. So, back to my original question, are we who we are or are we who we are not?

We are alive because we are not dead. Life is the opposite of death and since both exist then the concept of life and death also exist. So, are we who we are (meaning alive)? Or are we who we are not (meaning not dead)?

If no one died then there would be no concept of death. And since there is no concept of death then there would be no concept of life as well. We just are, that is all. We are not alive, because we cannot be dead.

So, we claim we are alive. That is who we say we are. But that is who we think we are only because there is an opposite of life. In the absence of death we will not be alive. We will just be. In that case we cannot claim that to be what we are.

Humankind thinks alongside concepts. And based on this very narrow understanding of concepts we get to know ourselves. But we think we know ourselves only because of the way we think. However, once we change the way we think, we start to realise that we do not really know ourselves.

We thought it was very simple and that life is very clear. We measure things and perceive things according to the accepted laws of nature. Maybe the Chinese have the best concept to describe this --Yin and Yang, as the Chinese would say.

There may be something, after all, in 5,000 years of Chinese civilisation that the world is yet to understand. Yin and Yang need to exist together. Without one the other would not exist. Hence, we need death for life to exist. So, are we really alive or just not dead? Yes, are we who we are? Or are we who we are not?

Just my Saturday evening article to get your brain cells to work a bit. No politics or religion, just some Chinese philosophy for your weekend reading.

Do you know what sacrifice means?

Posted: 25 Oct 2012 06:00 PM PDT

So, yes, today, animals all over the world are going to be sacrificed for the sake of God. But it is the animals that are going to be sacrificed. Those sacrificing those animals do not sacrifice anything other than a few hundred Ringgit, many of it illegally earned anyway from usury, exploitation, cronyism, nepotism, speculation, profiteering, bribes, tax evasion, etc.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Muslims nationwide celebrated Aidil Adha today on a moderate scale and in appreciation of sacrifice as required by Islamic teachings.

Aidil Adha is of great significance for Muslims worldwide and is celebrated in memory of the sacrifice made by the prophets Ibrahim and Ismail in obeying Allah.

Fine weather in the morning enabled Muslims to perform their prayers comfortably, followed by the sacrificial offerings carried out at mosques, villages and housing estates. — Bernama

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

Performing the pilgrimage or Haj is one of the tenets or rituals of Islam. And today about three million or so Muslims are in Mina where they will spend three days stoning Satan (symbolically, of course) before moving on to Mekah to perform the Sa'i -- the ritual of walking seven times from the hills of Al-Safa to Al-Marwah.

This is what one Islamic website has to say about that ritual:

According to Islamic beliefs, the Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham) was commanded by God to leave his wife Hagar and their infant son alone in the desert between Al-Safa and Al-Marwah with only basic provisions to test their faith. When their provisions were exhausted, Hagar went in search of help or water. To make her search easier and faster, she went alone, leaving the infant Ismail (Ishmael) on the ground.

She first climbed the nearest hill, Al-Safa, to look over the surrounding area. When she saw nothing, she then went to the other hill, Al-Marwah, to look around. While Hagar was on either hillside, she was able to see Ismail and know he was safe. However, when she was in the valley between the hills she was unable to see her son, and would thus run whilst in the valley and walk at a normal pace when on the hillsides.

Hagar travelled back and forth between the hills seven times in the scorching heat before returning to her son. When she arrived, she found that a spring had broken forth from where the crying baby kicked the sand with his feet. This spring is now known as the Zamzam Well, and was revealed by the angel of God as both sustenance and a reward for Hagar's patience.

Yesterday, those performing the Haj had to spend at least 24 hours congregating (and waiting) in the Arafah desert just outside Muzdalifa and Mina. This is symbolic of what is supposed to happen when you die -- and when you are resurrected to face judgement and to receive your punishment or reward for what you do in this life.

Basically, this represents the day of judgement and symbolic of all of us waiting anxiously for the fate that will befall us after we die. So, as you can see, the waiting in Arafah, the stoning of Satan in Mina, the walk from Al-Safa to Al-Marwah seven times, etc., are all symbolic rituals to remind us what the pilgrimage or Haj is all about.

And the lesson from all these rituals and symbolism is that we need to sacrifice in this life to be rewarded accordingly in the next life. And that is why today is called the Festival of the Sacrifice or Aidil Adha.

What, however, is the Festival of the Sacrifice symbolic of? Well, according to the Jews, God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac (Ishak) from his first wife, Sarah. According to the Muslims, though, God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son Ismail from his second wife, Hagar.

Hence both Jews and Muslims share the same roots but are from different branches of the family tree of Abraham. The Jews are from the son of Abraham's first wife while the Muslims are from the son of Abraham's second wife. In other words, the Jews and Muslims are 'related by birth' but are split into Team A and Team B -- no different from Umno politics over the last 60 years or so since the 1950s.

Anyway, the most important aspect of Islamic (and Jewish) teachings is to sacrifice. And this is reinforced in a Hadith that relates the Prophet Muhammad as saying that if you want to give sedekah (alms or donations) to someone then give something that you love or treasure the most. Giving away your old and tattered clothes that no longer fit you is no sedekah as you sacrifice nothing. In fact, those taking them are doing you a favour by helping you to get rid of your junk.

Abraham loved his son tremendously but when God commanded him to sacrifice his son he did not hesitate to do so. He sharpened his knife and told his son to lie down so that he (Abraham) can slit his (son's) throat.

Abraham's son gladly did as he was told but just before the knife touched his throat God rescinded the command and told Abraham to replace his son with an animal. Hence, till today, this day is celebrated with the sacrifice of a lamb, goat, cow, buffalo, camel, etc.

So there you are. God told Abraham to sacrifice his beloved son and Abraham plus his son gladly complied. So, today, Muslims all over the world sacrifice an animal as a symbolic gesture of Abraham's sacrifice of his son in compliance with God's command.

But how many Muslims treat today as merely a ritual and a day of celebration? How many Muslims treat today as the particular day in a year that they need to sacrifice in the way of Allah? How many Muslims can live a life of sacrifice all year round from one day of Aidil Adha to the next day of Aidil Adha the following year?

Rituals and symbolism in religion are meant as reminders and to test our discipline, obedience, commitment and resolve. But most people will be good and obedient only for that one day. Then, for the rest of the year, they revert to following the life of the devil.

Corrupt, greedy, racist, evil, etc., Muslims will stop being corrupt, greedy, racist and evil only for today, the day of the Festival of the Sacrifice. Then, tomorrow, once the day of the Festival of the Sacrifice is over, they will revert to what they really are.

Sacrifice is a very easy word to throw around. Everyone talks about sacrifice. Everyone says to see change we need to sacrifice. But whether you are Jew, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or whatever, how many of you really practice what you preach?

Sacrifice is probably the most overrated and overused word amongst Malaysians. Nine out of ten Malaysians will scream that word. But less than one in ten Malaysians would dare sacrifice.

If you think change is necessary and that we must see change at all costs, how many of you will pay this cost of sacrifice to see this change? As a start, how many of you will dare use your real names to post comments in Malaysia Today?

Yes, you might face the wrath of the government and you might have to sacrifice your freedom if you do that. But what is the use of sacrifice if you dare not sacrifice a minor and unimportant thing like your freedom? What is your freedom for the sake of change? Nothing!

If all you are prepared to do is to pay a few hundred Ringgit to buy an animal so that its throat can be slit, then better save your money. Don't waste your money. Your so-called sacrifice is no sacrifice. It is merely a waste of your money and the waste of the life of the animal. Sacrifice is not mere rituals and symbolism. It has to be from the heart. And most Malaysians have absolutely no heart and no guts for sacrificing anything, whatever religion they may profess.

Perception and relativism

Posted: 24 Oct 2012 07:05 PM PDT

Now, before we embark upon this part of our discussion, let us first be clear about the difference between needs and wants. The NEP is supposed to satisfy our needs. It is not about pandering to our wants. Needs are necessities. Wants is greed. We have to understand the difference or else we can never come to a consensus as to whether the NEP has succeeded or has failed.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The Great Hudud Debate is still raging. And it will continue to burn right into the next general election and beyond mainly because we are standing on different platforms to debate this issue. In short, we are not on the same page and unless we get onto the same page it is impossible to come to any consensus.

The proponents of Hudud are using the religious/theological platform to forward their views. The opponents are using the legal/constitutional platform. How can any consensus ever be reached unless the proponents and opponents first come to an agreement as to whether they want to debate Hudud as a religious/theological issue or as a legal/constitutional issue?

This is the first bridge we need to cross and unless we can cross that first bridge there is no way we can hope to cross the second bridge -- that is reach a consensus on Hudud itself.

Are the politicians from both sides of the political fence really that stupid? Or are they actually very clever and that is why they are able to confuse Malaysians by debating an issue using different 'wavelengths' knowing that the debate will continue indefinitely with no resolution possible?

It could be that the politicians are not stupid but are very clever. They are not really seeking a resolution. They just want this debate to go on forever as a convenient political weapon that can be resurrected every time a general election comes along. If they come to a consensus then the issue would be resolved and it can no longer be used as a political weapon. Hence better that they continue this debate as it is and keep using it again and again.

If we use the religious/theological platform to debate Hudud then the proponents of Hudud are right. If we use the legal/constitutional platform then the opponents of Hudud are right. In other words, both sides are right and both sides are wrong.

In other words, also, there is no absolute right and absolute wrong. Right and wrong are mere perceptions and relative to the comparison you are using. It all depends on what you are comparing it to. But when we use absolution we will always see right as wrong or wrong as right, a mere perception we have created in our minds.

I know at this point I may have 'lost' some of you, especially those who admit that they read only part of my articles and then start posting a comment as if they fully understand my message. Yes, there are a lot of those types of readers in Malaysia Today. They read just the heading or just a few paragraphs and then come to a conclusion as to what they think I am trying to say and then start posting comments.

We have to grasp the fundamentals of the concept I am talking about -- perception and relativism -- if we want to comprehend what I am saying. I am not sure how to demonstrate how this concept works to make you better understand it but allow me to try.

A few nights ago, I looked up to the sky and told my wife how beautiful the moon looked. It was so round and so bright. The moon also appeared so much bigger here in Manchester than back in Kuala Lumpur. A couple of weeks ago, if I had looked up to the sky, I would have told my wife, "There is no moon tonight."

Actually, a couple of weeks ago, if I had looked up to the sky and told my wife, 'There is no moon tonight," I would have been wrong. There was a moon. The only thing is I could not see it. Hence my correct statement should have been, "The moon is there but we can't see it."

The moon is always there. It is never not there. Sometimes we can't see it. Sometimes we see it as a half moon. And sometimes we see it as a full moon. But how we see the moon is subject to how the sun's light is reflected onto the moon.

The 'existence' of the moon, therefore, is subject to the sun. Without the sun there would not be a moon the way we perceive it. The moon looks beautiful/romantic only because the sun makes it look beautiful/romantic. So the moon is very dependent upon the sun for its beauty. On its own the moon is 'powerless' to radiate its beauty.

Hence the moon cannot exist in isolation. The moon can only exist if the sun exists or else it will be 'invisible' and therefore 'non-existent'. Without the sun no lovers can walk in the romantic moonlight. In fact, they are not even walking in the romantic moonlight. They are walking in the romantic sunlight reflected onto the moon and bounced back to earth.

My point in this moonlight example is: how do you see things? Do you see things as you want to see them or in relation to something else? Even the so-called moonlight is not what you think it is. But are you able to see it for what it is (meaning sunlight) or do you see it for what you think it is (meaning moonlight)?

Okay, next example.

You may have noticed over the last few days the Malay Chamber of Commerce, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, etc., were all talking about the economic situation of the Bumiputeras. I will not go into the details because I think you know what I am referring to. So maybe I can use that as my second example.

The consensus of the Malay businessmen and the Malay politicians is that the Bumiputeras have not quite succeeded as the government and the Malay Chamber of Commerce had hoped they would since the launch of the New Economic Policy (NEP) 42 years ago in 1970. This statement is both right and wrong. Again, as in the Hudud debate, there is no absolute right and absolute wrong.

When you talk about the economic success of the Bumiputeras what are you comparing it to? If you are comparing the current economic success of the Malays to what it used to be in the 1950s, or pre-Merdeka, then the Malays have certainly come a long way. They have improved in leaps and bounds. But if you are comparing the economic success of the Malays to that of the non-Malays, in particular the Chinese, then the Malays are definitely being left far behind.

Now, when the NEP was launched, what was the objective of that policy? The policy had dual objectives. One was to reduce the gap between the haves and the haves-not. The other was to reduce the differential between the various races. So, in that sense, it is not a 'Malay' policy.

But the NEP was not only about the creation of wealth. It also included many other issues or targets such as housing, financial security, employment, education, health, etc. In short, the NEP was not just about more money in the pockets but about a better quality of life, and not just for the Malays.

We need clothes on our back. We need a roof over our head. We need food on the table. We do not need a Porsche. We do not need a RM10 million mansion on a hill. We do not need USD150,000 Birkin handbags. Those are what we want, not what we need.

Okay, so have the Malays improved economically since 55 years ago? Are more Malays educated and receive better health care now compared to 55 years ago? If you are comparing the Malays of today to the Malays of 55 years ago then certainly the Malays have benefited from the NEP and have a better quality of life now than they did 55 years ago.

But then the Malay Chamber of Commerce and the Malay politicians are not comparing the Malays of today to the Malays of 55 years ago. If they did then Umno/Barisan Nasional has succeeded in improving the lot of the Malays. They are comparing the Malays of today to the non-Malays of today, in particular the Chinese. And if you use that comparison then the Malays are definitely still left far behind.

So which comparison is a fair comparison then? Should we compare Malays to Malays -- Malays of today to the Malays of 55 years ago? Or should we compare Malays to non-Malays -- Malays of today to the Chinese of today? This is the same argument as: do we talk about Hudud as a religious/theological issue or as a legal/constitutional issue?

Hence my first example regarding the moon. Do we look at the moon in isolation and gauge its beauty by the light, roundness and size? Or do we look at the moon in relation to the sun and understand that its beauty is subject to the reflection of the sun? And would lovers no longer find it romantic to walk in the moonlight once they understand that the moonlight is actually the sunlight and not the moonlight because the moon has no light?

We Malaysians love to quarrel and argue. And we pretend that all these quarrels and arguments are actually intelligent and intellectual debates. But we never get to resolve these conflicts because we are arguing about the opposite sides of the same coin but think we are both seeing the same side of the coin.

Hence debates related to race, religion, politics, development, the economy, etc., would go unresolved. And the politicians know this. It is not that they don't. For example, Umno and Barisan Nasional will compare Malaysia of 55 years ago to Malaysia today to argue that the government has succeeded in bringing development and prosperity to Malaysians.

Okay, if you compare Malaysia 55 years ago to Malaysia today then I have no disagreement with that argument. Certainly Malaysia has improved in leaps and bounds. But what if I use another comparison? What if I compare Malaysia today to what Malaysia could have been had the country been better managed these last 55 years, or even just these last 30 years? Using that scenario would we see a highly successful Malaysia or a less successful Malaysia?

Note I have not used the phrase 'a successful Malaysia' to 'a not successful (meaning failed) Malaysia'. Instead, I have used the phrase 'a highly successful Malaysia' to 'a less successful Malaysia'. In the first comparison I would be comparing success to failure. In the second comparison I am saying that both are successes, only that one is more successful than the other.

Hence, even if I want to agree with the government that Malaysia is a success and not a failure, I can still argue about the degree of success -- and 'less successful' compared to 'more successful' can be interpreted as failure.

The government is right in that Malaysia today is successful if compared to Malaysia 55 years ago. I am also right when I say that Malaysia today could have been better had it been better run so in that sense it is not successful.

The government is both right and wrong while I am also both right and wrong. What makes right become wrong and wrong become right all depends on what comparisons we are using and what yardstick we use to measure success and failure.

So, are the Malays successful or unsuccessful? Did the government do a good job or a bad job? Is Hudud a religious/theological issue or a legal/constitutional issue? Is the moonlight beautiful and romantic or is it merely the sunlight reflected on the moon that gives an appearance/impression it is beautiful and romantic?

Yes, I know, this article is already so cheong hei. Actually I can write another 20 pages if I want to but I know most of you have no time for proper discussions. You only want to read articles that whack people and call people all sort of nasty names.

So I will stop here and conclude this article by saying: don't waste your time arguing about Hudud or the NEP or whatever. This argument has no ending unless we first agree what platform we are using in debating these issues. Unless the platform is resolved then the debate is a non-starter. How to resolve anything when one talks about the cruelty to the dog while the other talks about the colour of the dog collar?

My response to Kee Thuan Chye

Posted: 21 Oct 2012 08:42 PM PDT

Wee Ka Siong called on Malaysians to reject laws based on religious theocracy. That would mean reject the Shariah, plain and simple, because laws based on religious theocracy means the Shariah. Hence this would also mean Malaysia becomes a Secular State where Muslims can become Christians and need not fast or pray and can drink beer and eat pork, etc.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

This was a comment posted by Kee Thuan Chye in my article MCA's bold move in secularising Malaysia.

Where on earth in the NST report is it said that Wee called for Shariah law to be abolished??? RPK is making too much of a meal out of this. Wee was just making the same old, same old call we have heard many a time from the MCA to reject PAS's Islamic state. That's what he meant by rejecting laws based on religious theocracy. For all we know, "laws based on religious theocracy" might have been wrongly phrased by the NST reporter when writing the story. So, please, RPK, don't try and make the MCA look like a pioneer or doing something significant when it really is not. It wouldn't have the chutzpah or cojones to call for the abolition of Shariah. You and I know that. No way in Hell.

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

Dear Kee, my reply as follows:

(NST) -- PAS' aspiration to introduce its interpretation of the Islamic law, or hudud, if the opposition coalition came into power was strongly criticised at the MCA Youth and Wanita assemblies yesterday.

(My response) -- Wee said "...its (PAS') interpretation of the Islamic law, or hudud...".

First of all, it should not be "...its interpretation of the Islamic law, or hudud...". Islamic law is called Shariah law and Hudud is one branch of the Shariah. Hence Islamic law (Shariah) and Hudud mean two different things.

Secondly, there is no such thing as PAS's interpretation of Islamic law. Either there is such a thing called Islamic law or Shariah law or there is no such thing. Is there or is there not such a thing called Islamic laws or Shariah laws?

If there are none then how can the UIA (International Islamic University) offer Shariah law courses and degrees? How can there be Shariah laws, Shariah lawyers, Shariah judges and Shariah Courts? How can Muslims face punishment for drinking beer under the Shariah law?

Islamic laws are called Shariah laws and Shariah laws are based on:

1. Interpretations of the Qur'an.

2. Interpretations of the Sunnah.

3. Ijma or consensus amongst scholars ("collective reasoning").

4. Qiyas/Ijtihad or analogical deduction ("individual reasoning").

Can you see that the four items above form the foundation of the Shariah?

Hence there is no such as PAS' interpretation of Islamic law. Hence, also, Wee and/or MCA are either misleading the people or are trying to talk about something they know nothing about.

The Shariah comes under six main branches as follows:

1. Ibadah (ritual worship).

2. Mu'amalat (transactions and contracts).

3. Adab (morals and manners).

4. I'tiqadat (beliefs).

5. Uqubat (punishments).

6. Munakahat (Islamic marriage jurisprudence).

There are four main schools of Shariah law:

1. Hanbali.

2. Hanifi.

3. Maliki.

4. Shafi'i.

There are four categories of punishment under Islamic Penal Law:

1. Qisas.

2. Diyya.

3. Hudud.

4. Tazir.

(NST) -- MCA Youth chief Datuk Dr Wee Ka Siong called on Malaysians to reject laws based on religious theocracy and to denounce Pas' call to implement hudud.

(My response) -- Wee and MCA (and probably you as well) do not understand the difference between an Islamic State, the Shariah, Qisas, Diyya, Hudud and Tazir. One does not equal the other, as they are different issues.

NST said: Wee Ka Siong called on Malaysians to reject laws based on religious theocracy…

That would mean reject the Shariah, plain and simple, because laws based on religious theocracy means the Shariah. Hence this would also mean Malaysia becomes a Secular State where Muslims can become Christians and need not fast or pray and can drink beer and eat pork, etc.

(NST) -- Wee likened the mindset of Pas leadership to one that belonged to the Dark Ages.

(My response) – The Shariah is part of Islam. To say that the PAS leadership belongs to the Dark Age means Islam, the Prophet Muhammad, the Qur'an, etc., also all belong to the Dark Ages and are no longer relevant.

Is this what Wee and MCA mean? PAS quotes Islam. If PAS is wrong then Islam is wrong, plain and simple. PAS can only be stupid if Islam, the Prophet Muhammad and the Qur'an, etc., are stupid.

I repeat, there is no such thing as PAS' version or Umno's version of Islam. There is only one version because there is only one version of the Qur'an unlike the Holy Books of some other religions where there are many different versions.

I trust this clarifies why I say MCA is secularising Malaysia. That is what they are trying to do. There is no half-Islam just as there is no 'little bit pregnant'. Islam is all or nothing.

And, this, the kafirs do not seem to understand or appreciate although they comment as if they are graduates of Shariah law.

When might is right

Posted: 17 Oct 2012 07:31 PM PDT

Not only Malaysians but many in the west -- in particular the United States, Britain, Australia, etc. -- also oppose Malaysia's detention without trial law. They make their opposition very clear and are vey open and vocal about it. Western counties also offer funding to Malaysian NGOs and movements that oppose laws such as the ISA, OSA, Sedition Act, etc. -- draconian laws that violate your civil liberties and fundamental human rights, not to mention the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

How the CIA managed to kill long-wanted Al-Qaeda mastermind Al Awlaki through 'marriage plot'

(ANI) - The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) managed to kill one of its most wanted terrorists in the world, Al-Qaeda leader Anwar al Awlaki in a drone strike attack in September 2011, through a fake marriage plot with a Croatian woman.

Al Awlaki was linked with 2009's Fort Hood shooting and the foiled airplane underwear bomb that happened later in the same year.

The devilish plot to kill al Awlaki revolved around a Danish CIA-Al Qaeda double agent, who was paid 250,000 dollars by the CIA in 2009 to find and deliver a European wife to the terrorist mastermind, the New York Post reports.

According to the paper, Morten Storm, the double agent, said that in 2010 he found a Croatian woman named Aminah through a Facebook page setup for fans of al Awlaki, and used the money he got from the CIA to play matchmaker, and through a series of bizarre and chilling videos, text messages, and emails, he helped Aminah entice al Awlaki.

Storm said that apparently Aminah's wooing worked because al Awlaki accepted the proposal in a video of his own, saying "If you can live in difficult conditions, don't mind loneliness, and can live with restrictions on your communications with others, that is great."

Storm revealed that with the courtship done, al Awlaki invited Aminah to meet up with him in Yeman whereupon the CIA was planning to kill the couple in a drone strike. He was subsequently killed in a CIA drone strike in September 2011.

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

When I participated in the anti-ISA demonstration in front of the Kamunting Detention Centre in June 2003 (see pictures below), little did I know that five years later I was going to suffer my second detention without trial and spend time in the very place I was demonstrating against.

Malaysians are outraged about Malaysia's detention without trial law that has been around since 1960 and saw an estimated 10,000 Malaysians picked up and locked away merely because they oppose the government and thus are seen as a 'threat to national security'.

Yes, anyone who opposes the government is considered a threat to national security and thus loses his/her right to a fair trial. They are no longer innocent until proven guilty. They are considered guilty and once they are locked away they need to prove their innocence if they want to see freedom.

Of course, it is harder for you to prove your innocence than for the government to prove your guilt. So the onus is on you to convince the government as to why you should not be locked up. The government need not prove why you deserve to be locked up.

We must certainly commend the west for condemning the Malaysian government and for financing NGOs and movements that fight for civil liberties and fundamental human rights.

No one should be punished for any perceived crime until first allowed a fair and just trial in an open court of law and is confirmed guilty beyond any shadow of doubt -- and even then only after the different levels of appeal and pardon have been exhausted. To punish someone otherwise is unjust.

It needs western countries to knock some sense into countries like Malaysia. If not we will never see justice in developing countries. Asians, Africans, Middle Easterners, etc., do not understand the meaning of justice, fair and just trial, civil liberties, fundamental human rights, and whatnot. This concept is foreign to them. Hence we need the west.

By the way, since 2004, the United States government (the Central Intelligence Agency's Special Activities Division) has made hundreds of attacks on targets in Northwest Pakistan using drones (unmanned aerial vehicles). These attacks are part of the United States' War on Terrorism that seeks to defeat Taliban and Al-Qaeda militants in Pakistan.

Most of these attacks are against targets in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas along the Afghan border in Northwest Pakistan. These strikes have increased substantially under the Presidency of Barack Obama.

Of course, many non-combatants or 'innocent bystanders' also die in these attacks but these are what the US considers 'collateral damage'. Some innocent people unavoidably need to die in this War on Terrorism. Sometimes entire family members of the targets also die for this 'good cause'.

It is good that Malaysian activists have friends like America to help them in their fight against the evil perpetrated by the Malaysian government. And that is why we cannot protest what the Americans are doing. Maybe it is not right to bomb other countries and kill many people just to assassinate one person. But that is war.

Okay, maybe war has not been officially declared. But it is not quite like America sends soldiers into another country to kill non-Americans. No humans are involved here, only bombs with engines.

Without America's help the ISA will never be abolished. But because of America's concern for fair trials and justice, the Malaysian government has no choice but to review all these draconian laws. And that can only help to make Malaysia a better place.

I remember back in form one when my teacher in MCKK who smoked lectured us about the evil of smoking. We all gave him a cheeky grin and he said: do what I say, not do what I do.

I suppose that best describes America. Might is, after all, right.

THE JUNE 2003 ANTI-ISA DEMONSTRATION IN KAMUNTING

Show me the money!

Posted: 17 Oct 2012 05:47 PM PDT

The problem with Malaysia is that it has a Malay Finance Minister so the government cannot see all this. Maybe we should consider appointing a Chinese as the Finance Minister like in the past. We never had problems when Tun Tan Siew Sin was the Finance Minister. Chinese have the ability to look at everything in terms of money and profit while the close-minded Malays can only look at things from the point of view of heaven and hell.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Soi Lek: Hudud will cause 1.2 million to lose jobs

(Malaysiakini) - MCA president Chua Soi Lek claimed that 1.2 million Malaysians would lose their jobs if PAS implements hudud in Malaysia, citing an anonymous SMS.

Chua cited various industries that he said would contribute to this alleged massive loss of employment should hudud be implemented, including jobs at gambling resort Genting Highlands, betting outlets as well as massage parlours.

He made this claim on his video blog and Facebook today based on a SMS he supposedly received this morning.

However, he said he could not verify the sender as no one picked up his call.

"This SMS said that MCA talks about hudud but never talks about the jobs that will be lost because of the strict enforcement of hudud in this country," Chua said.

"So the figures he gave come to 1.2 million that will be affected if there is a strict interpretation and implementation of hudud in this country."

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

Now that makes more sense. It is of no use arguing about freedom of religion, justice, abuse of power, human rights, democratic principles, respect for the constitution, secularism, and whatnot. The normal man-on-the-street would not appreciate all this. At the end of the day it all boils down to what the Chinese would say cari makan.

Money makes the world go around. Even war is about money, sometimes hidden behind the camouflage of ideals, honour, defence of the nation's sovereignty, religion, God, and all that nonsense. Ultimately it is about power and territory, and hence money.

Arguing in defence of or on in opposition to hudud using theological arguments will get you nowhere. This is because humankind is divided on matters of theology. But everyone will be united by greed. So money will unite us more than politics, race, religion, ideology, dogma, doctrine and what have you.

Even the 'fanatical' Wahhabis can work with the 'evil' Jews when it comes to money. They will place their petrodollars in the hands of the American Jews rather than in Malaysia's Bank Islam. That is how uniting greed and money can be.

Now MCA is talking. I think MCA will not only retain its 15 parliament seats but it may even see its seats increase to 30 or so if it can talk common sense like what Chua Soi Lek said about hudud. Basically, hudud will result in 1.2 million Malaysians becoming unemployed. Now, that is a lot when you consider that Malaysia's working population is about 10 million. Malaysia will become as bad as Greece.

Massage parlours, brothels, discos, nightclubs, bars, pubs, gambling dens, gaming outlets, casinos, etc., will all have to close down. And that would not be good for both the economy as well as for Malaysia's working population. Imagine the financial impact on the country when business takes a beating and 1.2 million Malaysians have to stay home with no income.

So we need vice. Vice keeps people employed. It also gives the country revenue. The government can collect all sorts for taxes -- corporate tax, income tax, sales tax, entertainment tax, import tax, etc.

In fact, if the government were to approve casino licences (plus licences for discos, nightclubs, pubs, bars, gaming outlets, massage parlours, etc.) for each and every town in Malaysia, can you imagine how much the country will earn and how many more people can get employment?

And don't forget the 'underground' or black economy. Police and enforcement officers can be paid low salaries (at a huge saving to the country) because they can receive 'commission' from the vice businesses for 'closing one eye'.

Officially, brothels are not allowed in Malaysia and many 'fuck shops' need to masquerade as 'health centres'. Many people go to these so-called health centres not to get healthy but to screw. And the police raid these places and arrest the prostitutes (at least those that do not pay 'commission' to the right people).

If prostitution was legalised and brothels were licensed, this would be a great boost to the economy and it will create employment. In fact, we would have a shortage of workers so we would have zero unemployment.

Prostitution can actually be a huge industry. The Arabs, Germans, etc., will fly to Kuala Lumpur instead of to Bangkok. Malaysia can overtake Thailand as the vice centre of South East Asia.

I suppose Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad was right when he said that the Chinese are more pragmatic whereas the Malays are emotional and feudalistic. It is time Malaysians acknowledge this fact and learn how to agree with Dr Mahathir when he is right and not disagree with him just because you don't like him.

Another interesting point is what Nazri Aziz said (read below). There is no evil in receiving donations. Why do we always question the motives behind these donations, whether it is to Suaram, Umno, or whoever? We always assume that when someone donates tens of millions or hundreds of millions there must always be a hidden agenda or ulterior motive.

Hey, I donate to the cancer society. I also donate to the guide dogs for the blind association. I have no hidden agenda or ulterior motive. I do so because I want to help cancer research and to help blind people who need to get out of their homes from time to time.

So Umno Sabah received RM40 million in donations. Do you remember about eight years ago Malaysia Today revealed that Umno Sabah received RM100 million to build their RM60 million headquarters in Kota Kinabalu? No one was upset about it then. So why get so upset now, eight years later?

In fact, that RM40 million donation issue is not something new. Malaysia Today had already revealed this a couple of years ago. Everyone read this story and just shut up and said nothing. So why scream about it now? Is it because the general election is near? Is that why you all said nothing about it years ago, because there was no general election?

Some people complain that Malaysia Today no longer reveals the wrongdoings of the government like back in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 or 2010. I agree that back in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 or 2010 Malaysia Today was actively exposing the wrongdoings of the government. But did anything good come out of it?

It was like anjing menyalak bukit (dog barking at the hill). Only Malaysia Today screamed. No one else screamed. So why should I want to waste my time screaming like a mad fellow about this, that and the other when no one cares about it?

Malaysia Today revealed more wrongdoings by the government than all the opposition parties combined. At the end of the day nothing happened. But now that the general election is around the corner everyone jumps on the bandwagon and starts screaming.

Is all this rhetoric really about wanting to see the correct thing done or is it merely about winning the election? I wonder! There is no longer any honesty in Malaysian politics.

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

Nazri sees no evil in RM40mil donation

(Malaysiakini) - There is no harm in Sabah Umno receiving the RM40 million 'political contribution' from an unidentified donor, said de facto law minister.

"There is nothing wrong with (the) political contribution.

"It is not an offence. If you want to make it an offence, you must enact the legislation," Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz told the Dewan Rakyat during Question Time today.

Many versions of the truth

Posted: 16 Oct 2012 05:10 PM PDT

The bottom line is Malaysians regard anything that they read which they agree with as true and anything that they read which they disagree with as false. Hence true or false is subject to what I already believe and if it goes against my belief system then it has to be false.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Lawyers: Anwar did not seek 'settlement'

(Malaysiakini) - PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim's lawyers have denied former inspector-general of police Musa Hassan's claim that the team had sought a settlement for the defamation suit brought by the latter.

Speaking to reporters outside the courtroom today, Musa said his defamation suit was the result of a "misunderstanding" and that he accepted the "settlement" proposed by Anwar.

In a press release issued after the trial came to an abrupt halt, lawyers N Surendran and Latheefa Koya said it was Musa's case and he was the one who sought the withdrawal, not Anwar.

"The withdrawal was initiated by Musa or his representative. At all times, Anwar was ready to proceed with the case. The withdrawal against our client was unconditional and there was no out-of-court settlement as alleged by Musa. Our client is satisfied with the unconditional withdrawal and hence did not seek for costs," adds the statement by Surendran and Latheefa.

'Withdrawal vindicates our client'

In a shocking turn of events, Musa today withdrew his defamation suit against Anwar, over the latter's police report on July 1, 2008. The police report says Musa, attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail, former Kuala Lumpur CID chief Mat Zain Ibrahim and Hospital Kuala Lumpur pathologist Dr Abdul Rahman Mohd Yusof had fabricated evidence in the Sodomy I trial.

During Sodomy I, Gani was the chief prosecutor while Musa was the chief investigator. Following Anwar's police report, Mat Zain immediately sued him for defamation. The suit is still pending.

Musa was expected to be put on the witness stand today and this attracted a huge crowd in the public gallery, hoping to watch Anwar's lawyers grill the former top cop.

Anwar's lawyers said Musa's withdrawal had vindicated their client, who is standing firm by his police report.

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

I always joke that Malaysia Today does not lie. We only give you our version of the truth. I suppose, as my late mother used to say, many a true word is said in jest. Hence there is much truth in that 'joke'.

The issue here would be what is the truth? Who determines the truth? Furthermore, what is the definition of truth? And could 'truth' be half and half, meaning part truth and part not true?

For example, let's say I make a statement as follows: The Chinese consider it taboo to give out white angpows during Chinese New Year because it is bad luck and white angpows are meant for funerals.

Now, that would be what I would call part truth and part not true. The truth part is: it is a fact that Chinese consider it taboo to give out white angpows during Chinese New Year. It is also true that this is done for funerals.

But the part about doing so is bad luck is not a fact. It is only a belief based on superstition. It is like believing that it is bad luck to walk under a ladder or bad luck if a black cat crosses your path.

Hence the statement 'the Chinese consider it taboo to give out white angpows during Chinese New Year because it is bad luck and white angpows are meant for funerals' is part true and part not true. Part of that statement is fact and part of it is an opinion or perception based on your belief system.

Let me give you another example. Around 20% of the world believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and he died on the cross to save humankind and was resurrected three days later. Another 20% of the world believes that Prophet Muhammad and not Jesus was the last prophet and Muhammad's miracle is the Qur'an.

To the first 20% this is the truth. To the second 20% this is also the truth. Then the balance 60% of the world thinks that these 40% are silly and the 'evidence' they offer to support their 'truths', their so-called 'Holy Books', are fabrications and were created to menegakkan benang basah or to substantiate a myth and present it as fact.

Hence which would be the fact here, and hence also which would be the truth? We have three versions of the truth and all sides would argue that theirs is the truth while the others are lies. Can you see, therefore, that not always is the 'truth' true? Sometimes the truth may not be true.

When someone reports what he or she saw then that would be an eyewitness account. That could be considered as evidence and therefore the truth.

When someone reports what he or she had been told then that would be hearsay. In a court of law hearsay is not accepted as evidence.

When someone interprets an event (whether witnessed or reported) then that would be an opinion. That person is merely stating what he or she perceives the event to mean.

Readers need to analyse the source of the information, whether the report is based on an eyewitness account or third party information, and whether it is a 'raw' report or a conclusion/analysis of what that event means to the person making that statement.

This, many Malaysia Today readers do not appear to understand. They take everything they read as something that a reporter reports. And they classify what they read as true or false based on their own perception of things.

Now read that Malaysiakini news report above regarding Musa Hassan versus Anwar Ibrahim. That is what I would consider a 'raw' report. It is about an event and about what some people said and did.

That report could be true -- unless Malaysiakini misreported it (which would mean then that it would be a lie). But let us assume that Malaysiakini did not misreport that event and therefore consider that report as true.

Now, that news report comes in eight paragraphs. I would read that report and consider the first six paragraphs as the truth. It is what happened and the first six paragraphs is about what happened.

As for the last two paragraphs, though, this may or may not be true. Hence part of Malaysiakini's report may be true and part may not be true.

Malaysiakini said: this attracted a huge crowd in the public gallery, hoping to watch Anwar's lawyers grill the former top cop. Malaysiakini also said: Anwar's lawyers said Musa's withdrawal had vindicated their client.

Now, when you say 'huge' crowd what do you mean by huge? Huge is relative. Was the crowd bigger than the Bersih 3.0 rally? Was it bigger than Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak's Hari Raya open house?

Hence this part of the news report may or may not be true. No figures were quoted and no comparison of 'hugeness' was offered.

For example, my interpretation of huge crowd would be 10,000 people. To me, anything below 10,000 would be considered miserable. Malaysiakini may regard 200 people as a huge crowd. This means this part of the report is subject to interpretation and not fact and which also means it may or may not be the truth.

So you see, you need to know how to separate fact from opinion or perception.

Malaysiakini also said the crowd was 'hoping to watch Anwar's lawyers grill the former top cop'. Is this a fact or is this an opinion? Say 200 people were in the public gallery. Did Malaysiakini talk to at least 50 or 60 of them to ask them why they were there?

This was never explained. So, again, do we take this is fact or merely your suspicion?

Regarding the part where Anwar's lawyers said Musa's withdrawal had vindicated their client, this, again, may be true or may not be true. That is merely the opinion of Anwar's lawyers.

Malaysiakini reported as follows: Musa said his defamation suit was the result of a "misunderstanding" and that he accepted the "settlement" proposed by Anwar.

Is that true? If that is true then that last paragraph cannot be true. That was what Musa said (the "settlement" proposed by Anwar). Is this a lie? So you see, the truth of the last paragraph hinges on whether Musa lied or he told the truth.

Read this part also: lawyers N Surendran and Latheefa Koya said it was Musa's case and he was the one who sought the withdrawal, not Anwar.

That is also true. Musa is suing Anwar so he and not Anwar has to make the decision as to whether to withdraw the suit or not. But this report is confusing us. Anwar's lawyers talk about WHO withdrew. Musa talks about WHY he withdrew. These are two different issues.

So can you see how sometimes 'truth' can be presented in all sorts of ways? But not always is the truth the truth. It can sometimes be your opinion or perception presented as the truth.

But why I even need to educate you on how to understand what you read is beyond me. Is Malaysia's education system that bad that it breeds a generation of Malaysians who have lost the ability to understand what they read?

It sometimes amuses me to read Malaysians condemning me for what I write merely because they are too stupid to understand what I am saying. And because they cannot understand what I say they whack me.

Malays call this bodoh sombong. Dah lah bodoh, sombong pulak.

And we want to trust these Malaysians to do the right thing come GE13? Heavens!

How our mind works

Posted: 12 Oct 2012 04:34 PM PDT

So we are not really free then. Our soul wants to be good. In fact, we were once good. But then our soul entered our body and that was when we became bad. So birth is actually a curse rather than a blessing. If we had died one minute after we emerged from our mother's womb we would have been spared the misery of life. But because we lived we now have to suffer life.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Maybe just for today we can lay off talking about politics and instead look at what Ashok Vohra wrote below. Ashok teaches philosophy at Delhi University and the article below was published in The Times of India.

One interesting part of this article was this part:

Swami Sivananda accepts that Brahmn is beyond the reach of the senses and mind that is why its existence cannot be proved by scientific experimentation. It is purely a question of faith and refers to the intuitive side of man. However, His existence can be inferred by certain empirical facts or common experiences in daily life.

Swami Sivananda questions an atheist who wants conclusive proof for the existence of Brahmn: 'Can you give proof for the non-existence of Brahmn?' He asserts that no one has succeeded in proving that Brahmn does not exist.

If you were to study philosophy of religion, this would be the key question that you pose. Do you prove the existence of God by scientific evidence or do you 'prove' it by the fact that it cannot be proven that God does not exist.

In other words, because you cannot prove that God does not exist, therefore God has to exist.

God is supposed to be the God of this universe, not just the God of this planet. But does more than one universe exist? Humankind does not yet have the ability to explore the reaches beyond this universe to prove or disprove that another universe (or many more universes) exists beyond our universe. Hence, in the event that another universe (or many more universes) exists beyond our universe, does this mean that another God exists for that other universe as well?

Now, since we cannot prove that another universe does not exist and hence there is another God for that universe, does this mean it and He does exist since it cannot be proven otherwise? This is based on the argument that it/He exists because it cannot be proven it/He does not.

Nevertheless, as Swami Sivananda said: Brahmn is beyond the reach of the senses and mind that is why its existence cannot be proved by scientific experimentation. It is purely a question of faith and refers to the intuitive side of man.

And that is the key to the whole thing: it is a question of faith and subject to our intuition or 'gut feeling' that a divine power that created us does exist. God exists because we exist and if God did not exist then we would not exist as well. Something had to have created us and this something has to be some form of higher power called God.

In conclusion, we can prove that God exists by our own existence. We are the proof that God exists.

Okay, that is one issue. Now let's move on to the next issue. And this next issue is how we perceive things and how our perception of things dictates our beliefs.

However, could we be seeing things opposite to what they are? What our eye sees is what our brain tells us we see. In other words, we do not actually see things with our eyes but we see things with our brain.

For example, when you look at your reflection in a mirror what do you see? Your eyes see left as right and right as left. Your left ear is actually reflected on the right in that mirror. But your brain tells you that you see your left ear as being on the left rather than on the right.

Say I stand beside the mirror and face you. You will see my right ear as being on the right. Now compare that to what you see in the mirror beside me. Would not your reflection be 'parallel' to me? But then your right ear in the mirror is actually your left ear.

Hence, your reflection in the mirror, if seen in isolation, will appear as how your brain wants you to see it. But when I stand beside the mirror and face you, your reflection 'looking' at you is opposite to my 'reflection' looking at you. But you do not see it this way because your brain does not tell you to see it this way. Hence my right ear appears right while your 'right ear' in the mirror appears left.

I know this concept is very hard to comprehend because all your life you have always been looking at your reflection in the mirror and it has always looked the way your brain wanted you to see it. It never occurred to you that what you are looking at is the opposite reflection but your brain 'turned it around'.

And that demonstrates the power of your brain and how your brain can make you see what you think you see even if it is actually an opposite reflection. Hence faith works on the basis of not what you see but what you do not see and how your brain tells you that since you do not see it then it has to exist.

And this is how we convince ourselves that God does exist -- the absence of proof is evidence that God does exist.

I am not going to stray into the argument that the evidence of the existence of God lies in the existence of the Holy Books. That would be the traditional argument by religionists and is an old argument. Basically it will be a debate of no winners. What I want to discuss instead is the concept of our existence and which eventually will result in our non-existence, meaning we eventually die.

We are taught that at first we did not physically exist. Then we are born, so we physically exist. Then we die and we physically no longer exist. That is what we are taught and our brain accepts that concept of birth and death.

But that is what our brain tells us and we believe what our brain tells us. But could it actually be the opposite of what we see? Could our brain actually be tricking us just like how it tricked us regarding our reflection in the mirror?

In other words, could we actually be living before we were born and died when we got born and then will live again when we die?

What is the concept of most religions? Most religions tell us that our body is merely a shell for our soul to occupy. So 'we' are not really that body that we occupy. 'We' is the soul that occupies our body. The body is temporary. The soul is eternal.

The soul existed before our body was formed. And the soul will continue to exist after it leaves our body. Hence our body is not what we are. 'We' are our soul.

In that case, we need to redefine what 'we' are. 'We' are not what we see in that mirror. 'We' are what we cannot see in that mirror. What we see in that mirror is the external shell that our soul occupies. But that is not who we are. 'We' lurk within that body and it cannot be seen in that mirror.

If we do not possess a soul then our existence would start the day we were born and will end the day we die. In that case we need not be accountable for what we do. We need not be good, compassionate, kind, honest, merciful, etc. We can do what we want because once we die that is the end of everything.

But that is not what religion tells us. Religion tells us the opposite of that. Hence our soul will pay for what we do. So it is not the body but the soul that has to beware because it will be the soul and not the body that has to account for our deeds.

In that case, is humankind really free? We talk about freedom. But then we are not free. We are guided by certain rules, regulations and codes of conduct. But it is not easy to follow these rules, regulations and codes of conduct because we are controlled by emotions, sentiments, lust, greed, ego, anger, jealousy, envy, etc.

On the one hand there are so many dos and donts. On the other hand there are so many influences that oppose these dos and donts. Hence most of us fail. And religion tells us we shall pay for this later.

Hence is death or non-birth a better option? Death or non-birth would have spared us a lot of suffering, both in this world as well as the next life after death. We are cursed by having been born whereas those that did not live do not suffer like we do.

But we see life as good and non-life or death as bad. Nobody wants to die. Everyone wants to live. We will fight tooth and nail to stay alive. Why do we not see life as a curse and death as a blessing? No life means no sin and no sin means no hell. Is that not better?

Our brain, however, will disagree with that. Our brain tells us that life is good and non-life or death is bad. Is our brain tricking us? Is our brain making us see the opposite of what is just like how it makes us see the opposite when we look at our reflection in the mirror?

Religion is basically about being good and avoiding bad. Over thousands of years, however, religion has been modified with dogma and rituals. And because of that the very essence of religion has been lost and buried amongst all those 'teachings'.

Do we know why we exist? Do we know whether we existed before we existed (meaning being born)? And do we know whether we shall exist after we exist (meaning we die)? And if we know all this then will we come to a conclusion that life is a curse whereas non-life is a blessing?

We used to be free. One day we shall again be free. But in the meantime while we have life in our body we are not free but am serving a period of imprisonment. Hence freedom is imprisonment while imprisonment is freedom -- yes, the opposite of what our brain tells us.

Our soul is trapped because we are alive. Our soul would be free had we not been born. Hence how can we say that life is good and death is bad when the opposite is actually true?

So there you are, no politics today. And ponder on that one over the weekend and see whether you can defy your brain and see life and death as what it is and not as what your brain tells you it is.

Have a good weekend everyone.

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

Proof That God Does Exist

Ashok Vohra, The Times Of India

Vedanta says that Brahmn is ultimate reality. All other beings and things are unreal. But when we ask questions about the nature of Brahmn, the Upanishads describe it as neti, neti – not this, not this. Therefore, they describe the ultimate reality, Brahmn, in negative terms alone.

Swami Sivananda is not satisfied with the negative description of Brahmn because it is impossible for the mind to conceive of an absolute nothing. He argues that 'Brahmn is not void. It is not blankness or emptiness'. It is not shunyata.

Brahmn, he upholds, is paripoorna, full, because all desires melt there. Brahmn to him 'is something, after seeing which there is nothing more to be seen, after becoming which there is nothing more to become, after knowing which there remains nothing to be known'.

Brahmn is that which is all-pervading, which surrounds us from all sides - around, above, and below. It is satchidananda or existence, knowledge and bliss. It is that which has no other. It is without a second, endless, eternal, one and one alone. It is everlasting, the one continuous experience-whole.

Hence Swami Sivananda has described Brahmn in term of positive attributes. He upholds that Brahmn has six attributes: 'jnana, divine wisdom; vairagya, dispassion; aishwarya, power; bala, strength; sri, wealth and kirti, fame'.

He is nitya, eternal; ananta, infinite and ananda, supreme bliss. He is unchanging amidst changing phenomena. He is permanent amidst the impermanent, and imperishable amidst the perishable. He is what the Gita calls "Jyotishamapi tat jyoti, Light of all lights". He is the Adhisthana or support of the phenomenal world.

Brahmn is the sutradhara, string-puller of all bodies of beings. He is the antaryamin, inner ruler of all beings. He is in you and you are in Him. Each of the five primary elements is a manifestation of His qualities.

Brahmn is swatantra or independent. He has satkama, good desires and satsankalpa, pure will. Since karmas are jada or insentient, on their own they cannot yield fruits, so it is Brahmn who dispenses fruits of actions of jivas. He is all-merciful; quenching the thirst of jivas. He satiates our hunger. He dispenses justice to all. The five activities of God are: Srishti, Creation; sthiti, preservation; samhara, destruction; tirodhana or tirobhava, veiling; and anugraha, grace.

One can also prove the existence of Brahmn conceptually. One cannot think of impurity, duality, disagreement, variety and mortality without thinking of purity, oneness, agreement, unity and immortality. The possibility of the relative implies reality of the Absolute.

Finally, Swami Sivananda questions an atheist who wants conclusive proof for the existence of Brahmn: 'Can you give proof for the non-existence of Brahmn?' He asserts that no one has succeeded in proving that Brahmn does not exist.

'Whether the owl accepts the presence of light or not, there is always light'. Likewise, whether you accept the existence of Brahmn or not, He always exists. Even the one who claims the non-existence of Brahmn is himself Brahmn. Likewise, the one who claims that there is only shunya, void, forgets that that the knower who knows the shunya is himself Brahmn.

The author teaches philosophy at Delhi University

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Selasa, 30 Oktober 2012

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan