Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

---

• Does ABU equal to Anwar-for-PM?
• The excitement of the chase
• Sending mixed signals
• How information and knowledge changed the world
• Do you feel like kicking yourself?
• The Malays must wake up konon
• There is freedom of religion in Malaysia
• The doctrine of I’m right and you’re wrong
• And whose fault is this?
• Same difference
• The al-Bukhary story: how it all began

Does ABU equal to Anwar-for-PM? Posted: 17 Nov 2012 06:49 PM PST   We were not the only ones caught gasping by Anwar's acquittal. PAS, too, could not accept Anwar as Prime Minister. But for them to renounce Anwar would have been 'bad politics'. However, if Anwar were convicted for 'Sodomy 2', then the problem would solve itself. Due to Anwar's conviction for 'Sodomy 2', he would be disqualified from becoming Prime Minister even if Pakatan Rakyat wins enough seats to form the next federal government. THE CORRIDORS OF POWER Raja Petra Kamarudin PAS wings' support for Hadi as future PM continues to put Opposition partners in a spot (The Star) - The PAS Ulama and Muslimat wings' support for party president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang to be made prime minister should Pakatan Rakyat come to power continues to put other Opposition coalition members in a spot. Opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, widely seen as the premier-in-waiting, was evasive when reporters asked for his response. "It's okay. No problem. We will discuss in a nice manner", he said as he walked briskly to his car after launching a convention on national education at Universiti Selangor (Unisel) in Shah Alam on Sunday. He said he had to rush off to another function in Kuantan. However, DAP was characteristically vocal. Its deputy chairman Dr Tan Seng Giaw said bluntly on Sunday that Anwar would be prime minister should Pakatan win the 13th general election and hudud law would not be implemented. "All of us have agreed that Anwar will be the PM should we take over Putrajaya." "In a democracy, we, of course, allow for differing opinions, but the consensus in Pakatan that Anwar remains the PM-in-waiting is final, so even if the PAS Ulama and Muslimat wings say otherwise, it makes no difference," he said. He said that the Pakatan Rakyat leadership would only implement policies that have the consensus of all three-component parties, and reject those which have yet to obtain it. At the same time, it was the lack of consensus that has stopped the implementation of hudud law from becoming part of Pakatan's common framework policy. "If there is consensus, we will enforce it. If not, we won't. And the decision from the leadership is final," he told reporters after a DAP ceramah in Kepong Baru on Sunday morning, reiterating the DAP's position on the matter. He also said that it was "pure politicking" by Barisan National to imply that the Islamic penal code could be so easily implemented. He said that it required an amendment to the Federal Constitution to implement hudud and any amendment to the constitution required consent from two-thirds of the members of parliament. At the 58th PAS muktamar in Kota Baru on Saturday Dewan Ulama representative Hairun Nizam had said Hadi was the best candidate for the job if the coalition took over Putrajaya, a sentiment echoed by PAS Muslimat on Sunday. When pressed for a reaction, Hadi had earlier dodged responding directly, saying instead, that he would rather be a "servant" to the people and country. "Whoever becomes the prime minister needs the support of the party and people. I would rather be a khadam (servant) to the people," he had said. Meanwhile, in Ipoh, Umno treasurer Datuk Seri Ahmad Husni Hanadzlah said Sunday the Opposition's inability to agree on a common platform and contest under a common flag in the upcoming general elections showed that they could not govern the country. "PAS will definitely want to implement their Islamic ways if Pakatan comes into power and if it is not done, it will destroy the Opposition." "Intellectually, if they cannot even be united in contesting as a single party, then they are incapable of being united to rule the country," he said in a press conference in Manjoi here on Sunday. "As such, I do not see that they have any hope of winning in the upcoming elections," he said. ****************************************** The Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement (MCLM) was launched two years ago in London with a specific agenda in mind -- to try to reform Malaysian politics and introduce what back in 1999 PKR (then PKN) called 'Politik Baru' or 'New Politics'. This basically means to discard race/religion-based politics in favour of a more mature form of politics and to try to end 'money politics', or the practice of voting based on financial considerations. It was certainly a tall order indeed and not a journey that we imagined we would achieve in our lifetime. Europe took two generations for the seed that was planted by Napoleon Bonaparte over 12 years from 1803 to finally germinate with the outbreak of the 1848 revolutions. Even then it took another 22/23 years (or one more generation) until 1870/1871 before real change finally came to Europe. In short, Europe took 60-70 years for change to happen. And it only happened through an armed and bloody revolution, which proves what Mao Zedong said: power comes from the barrel of the gun. Hence, short of embarking upon a Chin Peng sort of armed insurgency, how long do you think it is going to take for change to come to Malaysia? Those were the issues troubling us back in 2010. And those were the issues MCLM was supposed to address, or try to address. But many things would need to be done to even come close to what we were seeking. Amongst those many things would be to seek out at least 30 Malaysians suitable to be fielded as Member of Parliament candidates in the coming general election. Haris Ibrahim (Sam) then began to approach a few likely candidates -- some who had earlier been approached by the opposition back in 1999, 2004 and/or 2008 -- to explore the possibility of them standing as candidates in the coming general election. Almost all said 'no'. However, due to Sam's power of persuasion, eventually five relented and said 'yes' while another two said they would seriously consider the proposal. So we had five yeses and two tentatives. And then it stopped. We could not move beyond those seven. And we were not even close to the 30 that we had targeted. The rut we found ourselves in was due to the hostile reaction from Pakatan Rakyat. While we made it clear we were seeking these candidates to offer them to Pakatan Rakyat, Pakatan Rakyat in turn said that MCLM itself was planning to contest the election to trigger three-corner contests. Hence we are going to jeopardise the opposition's chances of forming the new federal government. Hence, also, we are Barisan Nasional's 'Trojan horse' whose job is to sabotage Pakatan Rakyat. It was apparent that Pakatan Rakyat was not going to welcome these independent candidates. Pakatan Rakyat was only going to field party members and if MCLM's independent candidates wanted to contest the elections then they would have to join one of the three parties first. Even then there was no guarantee they would be fielded as candidates. With that very negative reaction from Pakatan Rakyat, the two tentative candidates backed off. From the balance five, another four also decided to withdraw, leaving only one still prepared to go the distance. However, this last candidate would have to contest the Kapar seat on the basis of a three-corner contest, which would defeat the whole purpose of the exercise. MLCM is not a political party so it does not intend to contest the general election. It was seeking candidates on behalf of Pakatan Rakyat, not to contest against Pakatan Rakyat. And if Pakatan Rakyat does not want these candidates then the whole exercise would need to be aborted. It was agreed that the candidates who wished to withdraw would say nothing for the time being. We had to first seek an exit strategy so that they can gracefully bail out without losing face. And that exit plan offered itself on 1st January this year when I did my second interview with the mainstream media. Because of that interview, the candidates were able to announce that they were distancing themselves from MCLM. Sam, too, was able to bail out gracefully by resigning from MCLM and embark upon his ABU agenda outside MCLM. In the meeting we had in Chiengmai in late January this year, three weeks after my 'explosive' 1st January 2012 interview, it was agreed that I, too, would withdraw from MCLM and a new committee would take over. My continued involvement in MCLM would 'taint' the movement. Hence we would need to call for an AGM, which we did soon after, and I left the scene and the new committee took over. It was also agreed in that Chiengmai meeting that MCLM would now focus purely on matters involving civil liberties and it would no longer be involved in politics. A month before that Chiengmai meeting, a meeting was held in Phuket to discuss many issues regarding not only MCLM but also about Malaysian politics in general. And one of the issues of concern was the information that Sam received from his contacts in Umno that Anwar Ibrahim would be acquitted from the 'Sodomy 2' charge. The information that Sam received was that Najib had made a deal with Anwar. However, it was not too clear what type of deal it was. This was definitely troubling news indeed. Sam was convinced that the information was accurate because it came from 'high-ups' in Umno and they have never been wrong before. My response to that was we would have to wait another one and a half months or so to see if it was true that Anwar was going to be acquitted and if so, why. Nevertheless, we would need to pre-empt this, in case, so one week later I did that interview with the mainstream media where I whacked Anwar. Basically, as what Sam and I discussed in Phuket, we needed to launch a 'Get Anwar Campaign', or GAC for short. We needed to neutralise Anwar in case he had turned Umno Trojan horse. And his acquittal would more or less confirm this. We were not the only ones caught gasping by Anwar's acquittal. PAS, too, could not accept Anwar as Prime Minister. But for them to renounce Anwar would have been 'bad politics'. However, if Anwar were convicted for 'Sodomy 2', then the problem would solve itself. Due to Anwar's conviction for 'Sodomy 2', he would be disqualified from becoming Prime Minister even if Pakatan Rakyat wins enough seats to form the next federal government. In fact, Anwar's conviction for 'Sodomy 2' would have been 'good politics'. The sympathy factor would be high and Anwar could be 'marketed' as a martyr and a victim of injustice. Having Anwar in jail would benefit the opposition a great deal. Plus it would solve the additional problem of not having him as the Prime Minister in the event Pakatan Rakyat gets to form the federal government. Maybe Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak realised this. Maybe he realised that acquitting Anwar works better for Barisan Nasional than putting him in jail. Najib, too, knew that PAS did not want Anwar as Prime Minister. Hence the Prime Minister would be doing PAS a favour by putting Anwar in jail. But if Anwar were to be acquitted, then PAS would face a dilemma. Do they keep quiet and accept Anwar as Prime Minister or do they openly declare that they cannot accept Anwar as Prime Minister? Was Anwar's acquittal an independent decision by the judge or was the judge's decision to acquit Anwar a brilliant political move by Najib to drive a wedge between PAS and PKR (plus also now between PAS and DAP it seems)? The issue here is, ABU or 'anything but Umno' is about rejecting Umno, which invariably means rejecting Barisan Nasional as well. However, as Sam and I discussed in Phuket, ABU does not translate to 'Anwar for PM'. But then the judge (with or without Najib's instructions) threw a spanner in the works by acquitting Anwar of the Sodomy 2 charge. So now ABU also means Anwar for PM. And herein lies the problem for many people, those in PAS included. Many in PAS are not convinced about Anwar's innocence. They are convinced that Anwar is guilty. But they do not want to be the ones to say so. They want the court to say so by convicting Anwar. But when the court did not do that, PAS either has to accept that as an indication that Anwar is innocent or else they would have to come out and say that they do not want Anwar as Prime Minister -- without explaining why and leaving it unsaid that the reason is because they think Anwar is guilty. Anyway, Pakatan Rakyat needs to win at least 120 seats in Parliament (to be safe, although 112 seats gives it a simple majority with a two-seat margin) to form the federal government. PAS says it plans/hopes to win at least 60 seats. If it does, that would mean DAP and PKR combined would have won only 60 seats. And this would also mean PAS would become the Prime Minister. Hence it is not impossible for Tok Guru Haji Abdul Hadi Awang to become the Prime Minister if PAS wins more seats that PKR and DAP -- unless DAP wins the most number of seats and they nominate Anwar for Prime Minister.   The meeting in Phuket a year ago and one year after the birth of MCLM

The excitement of the chase Posted: 16 Nov 2012 06:50 PM PST   Do you need to take over the federal government before you can say the right things? Do you need to take over the federal government before you can eliminate abuse of power and corruption in the state government? Do you need to take over the federal government before you can come to a consensus and come out with a common policy? THE CORRIDORS OF POWER Raja Petra Kamarudin I have friends who like to go fishing. (A couple of people I know also like to go hunting). I asked them as to why they bother to waste so much time fishing. It is also not cheap, mind you. The tackle costs quite a bit of money, especially when you lose the lures (which cost more than the fish). Would it not be easier and cheaper to just go buy the fish at the market? It would be faster too -- fishing 'expeditions' can take a whole day. One day they invited me to join them in their fishing trip. In an hour we caught 56 fish. That is almost a fish a minute amongst the five of us. I must say it was quite exciting. I proudly brought the fish I caught home to show my wife. I did not tell her that that was the only fish I caught, though. You see, for the first half hour or so, I was flat out on the deck of the boat due to an attack of seasickness (which I suffer from if the boat is not moving and rolls from side to side). I was vomiting my guts out and polluting the sea. Only when my fishing mates carried me over the side of the boat and threatened to drop me into the sea did I stop vomiting. It seems the fastest way to end your seasickness is to get dumped into the sea. I must say it worked. The threat was good enough. It was then that I understood that the excitement was not in the cooking and the eating of the fish. After all, how could five of us eat 56 fish anyway? It was the excitement of the hunt or the chase, as they say. And that goes for 'people hunting' as well. Friends who go 'hunting' in the clubs on Saturday night tell me the same thing. It is not about getting the women into bed. If not then they just need to go visit a brothel. It is the excitement of the 'hunt' -- to see whether you can 'nail' your 'prey'. What would you think of that woman if you smile at her and she immediately walks up to you and says 'you can poke your pecker into my pussy any time'? That would be a turn off. You need to sweet-talk her first -- such as 'what's a nice woman like you doing in a place like this?' or 'what's a woman like you doing in a nice place like this?', etc. Then you offer to buy her a drink, ask her if she would like to dance, and then ask her if she would like to adjourn to somewhere 'quieter'. In that same context, we need to make the politicians and political parties 'hunt' or 'fish' for our votes. They need to 'court' us to get us to vote for them. If we tell them that they are guaranteed our votes and come hell or high water we would still vote for them that will make them complacent. They must not take us for granted. We are not prostitutes. They can't just throw some money onto the bed and expect us to strip and lie down on our backs so that they can screw us. If they want us then they will need to work hard at wooing us. As what we told Anwar Ibrahim in London in 2010, in the 2008 general election many of us would have voted for a donkey or a monkey as long as they stood on the platform of Pakatan Rakyat. However, we have since seen what these monkeys and donkeys have turned out to become. Some have deserted the opposition. Some are not performing as we had hoped. Some proved to be as corrupt as the Barisan Nasional people we kicked out. Some are making silly statements that do not help the opposition cause and actually helps Barisan Nasional. Some have demonstrated arrogance. Some are pompous and condescending and talk to us as if they are our betters rather than our 'servants'. At this point of my article some of you 'apologists' are going to scream that we can't expect perfection. We can't expect Pakatan Rakyat to achieve everything in a mere five years. If we can give Barisan Nasional 55 years then why can't we also give Pakatan Rakyat 55 years before we judge them? These apologists tend to forget that the leaders and politicians from DAP, PKR, and PAS are not five-year-old politicians. The opposition politicians have been around a long time, as long or longer than those from Barisan Nasional. Some have served as Cabinet Ministers (even some from PAS during the time that PAS joined Barisan Nasional 40 years ago). Some have been Chief Ministers (Menteri Besar). Nik Aziz is probably the second-longest serving Menteri Besar after the Sarawak Chief Minister. So the opposition leaders and politicians are not 'new'. Why must we give them 55 years? We must not forget, when they campaigned for our support and our votes, they told us what was wrong with Barisan Nasional and they told us what they were going to do to right all these wrongs. Hence they knew what was not right and they knew what to do to put it right. They promised us, not we promised them. So it is their job to deliver on these promises. The other excuse the apologists offer is that Pakatan Rakyat is not yet the federal government so we can't expect them to achieve much until they take over the federal government. Granted in some cases this is true. But this is not true for everything. Do you need to take over the federal government before you can say the right things? Do you need to take over the federal government before you can eliminate abuse of power and corruption in the state government? Do you need to take over the federal government before you can come to a consensus and come out with a common policy? Not everything requires you to be the federal government before you can do it. Many things are party matters. Many things are coalition matters. Many things are state government matters. Many things are council matters. Some things, of course, are federal matters. But not everything is a federal matter. Is the selection of candidates a federal government matter? That is a party matter and has nothing to do with the federal government. Is the allocation of seats a federal government matter? That is a coalition matter and has nothing to do with the federal government. Is the election or selection of council members a federal government matter? That is a state government matter (and decided by the party, mind you) and has nothing to do with the federal government. Is the declaration of assets a federal government matter? That is a party matter and has nothing to do with the federal government. Is the distribution of tithes (zakat and fitrah) a federal government matter? That is a state government matter and has nothing to do with the federal government. Is the building of low-cost homes for the homeless a federal government matter? That is a state government matter and has nothing to do with the federal government. Is the allocation of state land to the landless a federal government matter? That is a state government matter and has nothing to do with the federal government. Is the abolishing of negotiated tenders and the implementation of an open tender system for state contracts a federal government matter? That is a state government matter and has nothing to do with the federal government. There are many things that are party matters, coalition matters and/or state government matters. You do not need to wait until you form the federal government before you can do something about them. Take the Islamic State and Hudud matter as another example. Do you need to be the federal government before DAP, PKR and PAS can come to an agreement on that issue? You do not even need to be the state government before you can come to an agreement on this. Barisan Nasional would not dare announce their candidates until the morning of Nomination Day. This is because Barisan Nasional does not trust its own members and they know that if they announce their candidates too early then there would be a genuine danger of internal sabotage. Hence they wait until the eleventh hour to announce their candidates to reduce the danger of internal sabotage. Even then it still happens, as Barisan Nasional recently confessed. But why does Pakatan Rakyat not announce its candidates early so that these candidates can start working the ground and the voters can get to know them early instead of finding out who they are at the last minute on the morning of Nomination Day? Well, for the same reason why Barisan Nasional does not dare announce its candidates early, plus for an added reason -- to avoid Barisan Nasional buying them off. Hence Pakatan Rakyat does not trust its own candidates plus it does not trust its own party members. Pakatan Rakyat is worried that if the candidates are announced too early then it may suffer internal sabotage and/or the candidates may get bought over. What, therefore, does this say about the candidates? Are these the people we want? If 'A' is chosen to contest instead of' B', then 'B may sabotage 'A' or Barisan Nasional may buy off 'A'. And if 'B' is chosen instead, the same thing may happen as well. Hence do not announce yet whether it is 'A' or 'B'. Wait until the last minute to make the announcement. Is this because Pakatan Rakyat is not yet the federal government? Would none of this happen once Pakatan Rakyat is already the federal government? Pakatan Rakyat needs to convince us that it is worthy of our vote. Pakatan Rakyat must work for our vote. If we tell Pakatan Rakyat that we are definitely going to vote opposition never mind what they do or do not do, then we are going to have a very complacent and very lazy Pakatan Rakyat. There are no guarantees in life. There is no guarantee that every one of you reading this article is going to still be alive tomorrow. If you do die tonight, there is no guarantee that you are going to go to heaven or to hell. In fact, no one can give you a money-back guarantee that heaven and hell even exist. So how can we guarantee Pakatan Rakyat our votes? In the first place, should we even be giving anyone this guarantee? If you want me then come and court me. Bring me flowers and chocolates. Take me out to dinner. Come meet my parents and bring me to visit your parents. Then I will decide whether you are going to get into my pants. If you merely want a wham bam, thank you ma'am, then go visit a brothel. And if you are a prostitute and are prepared to prostitute yourself, well and fine. But don't expect me to do the same just because you are doing that. If you can't convince me to vote for you that is your problem, not mine. If you don't know how to win my vote then you do not deserve my vote. That is the long and short of it all. I am not here to serve the politicians. It is the politicians who must serve me. So serve me. And convince me that you are worthy of being my servant. I need not convince you of anything because the vote is in my hand, not yours. As the boy said to the girl when he dropped his pants to show her his dick: I have this, which you need. And the girl dropped her knickers to show the boy her pussy: ah yes, but with one of these I can get ten of those.

Sending mixed signals Posted: 14 Nov 2012 06:50 PM PST   In Islam you cannot separate the church from the state like they do in Christianity. Islam is closer to Judaism than to Christianity. The Jews consider themselves a race and they aspired to set up their own nation, Israel. The Muslims, too, consider themselves a nation -- an ummah (community) -- and they too aspire to set up an Islamic nation (or Islamic State). How many times have we heard Muslim scholars and religious people say 'Ummah Islam'? This means the Community of Islam or the Nation of Islam. THE CORRIDORS OF POWER Raja Petra Kamarudin Don't mix Islam with politics: Selangor Sultan (Bernama, 14 Nov 2012) -- The Sultan of Selangor, Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah, has warned against an inclination of mixing Islam with politics for it could confuse and divide the Malays. He said confusion arose when people who were not qualified to interpret Qur'anic verses began elucidating them based on their own understanding and desire or it could go against the actual meaning. "Qur'anic verses are not like poetry verses that can be interpreted according to one own taste and belief." "I want the Malays to defend the sanctity of Islam through their might and wisdom as had been done by Prophet Muhammad, his companions, mujahid (warriors), and Islamic leaders." "The Malay leaders of yesteryears had used their wisdom to define the characteristics of the Malays in Article 160 (2) of the Federal Constitution that they should adopt the Malay culture, speak Bahasa Melayu and being Muslims," he said at the state-level Maal Hijrah celebration at the Sultan Salahuddin Abdul Aziz Shah Mosque here, tonight. *************************************************** That was what His Highness the Sultan said last night, as reported by Bernama. As what His Highness has titah (royal decree), I will not quote and interpret any verses from the Qur'an. After all, I am not taking Qur'anic studies in Oxford. I am just taking history, plus philosophy of religion thrown in. Hence I shall restrict my comments to only the historical aspects of the subject. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are what we call the Abrahamic faiths. And note the word 'faiths', which means you need to believe in the absence of evidence. Now, they are called 'Abrahamic' faiths because all three have their roots in the Prophet Abraham (or Ibrahim, to the Muslims). In fact, the Muslims believe that Abraham and his son Ismail (Ishmael) built the Ka'bah in Mekah, the direction Muslims face when they pray. The Jews are a race. You need to be born a Jew. You cannot 'become' a Jew like you can become a Christian or a Muslim -- although some people have converted to Judaism. Followers of Christianity and Islam, however, are not a race. Christians regard Christianity as a faith (of the Christian faith) while Muslims regard Islam as an adeen (a way of life). And that was why the Jews wanted a 'homeland', which they now have. So the Jews went on to create a nation called Israel. The Christians went on to separate the church from the state. And the Muslims went on to form governments and conquered new territories to extend their system of government to these territories. If you were to ask a Muslim as to why Islam 'interferes' in the lives of the people, why they 'police' behaviour/morality, why they want to impose an Islamic system of administration and laws, etc., they will reply that this is because Islam is not a religion but a system of governance -- meaning a complete way of life (adeen, as mentioned in the Qur'an). Using the Muslims' own arguments, Islam is a total/complete political system that determines the administration and laws of the country. And that is why Muslims talk about an 'Islamic State' -- or, as Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said, Malaysia is a Muslim country. Hence, Islam is not merely a religion where you pray, fast, pay tithes, etc., and then go on and lead your own life without any interference from the government. Islam is a form of government -- it governs what you can and cannot do very strictly, even in the privacy of your bedroom. So how can His Highness the Sultan of Selangor decree that Islam and politics should not mix, or that you should separate politics from religion? Islam is politics! In Islam you cannot separate the church from the state like they do in Christianity. Islam is closer to Judaism than to Christianity. The Jews consider themselves a race and they aspired to set up their own nation, Israel. The Muslims, too, consider themselves a nation -- an ummah (community) -- and they too aspire to set up an Islamic nation (or Islamic State). How many times have we heard Muslim scholars and religious people say 'Ummah Islam'? This means the Community of Islam or the Nation of Islam. Now, 'nation' does not necessarily mean 'country'. For example, the 'Indian Nation' is a collection of various Native American tribes within the United States of America. So it can, in a way, be called a nation within a nation. If you were to trace the history of the three Abrahamic faiths, you can see that the Jews started, from the very beginning, as a race or tribe -- for example, Moses led his people out of Egypt to cross the Red Sea. The 'religion' came later. (If Moses had been smart enough to lead his people a bit farther east they would have ended up in Saudi Arabia and today they would own all the oil). Christianity and Islam, however, started as cults. It was much later that Christianity became a religion (with a doctrine or dogma) and Islam became a political system (or way of life, adeen, government, etc.). Hence the Jews emerged immediately as a Nation the day Moses led his people out of Egypt and settled in the 'Promised Land'. The Christians and Muslims, however, evolved over time and transformed into what Christianity and Islam is today by 'reinventing' itself through a clearly defined doctrine. Christianity began to lose its cult status after the time of Jesus and during the time of Paul (see the timeline below). However, it was not until more than 300 years later that Christianity was 'defined' with a clear doctrine and almost 800 years before Catholicism took root. As for Islam, as early as during the time of Prophet Muhammad it established itself as a system of government and the Battle of Badr in 624 defined what Islam was going to become -- a political force. Now, since His Highness the Sultan is Malay, and hence will be from the Shafi'i school of Islam, let us talk about Mazhab Shafi'i or the Shafi'i school of Islam. The Shafi'i school of Islam was established around 200 years or so after the time of Prophet Muhammad during the reign of Hārūn al-Rashīd (the Caliph of the One Thousand and One Nights fame). Hence Malays are following a branch of Islam that was established long after the death of the Prophet and during the time of 'liberalisation'. This can be said to be the beginning of the 'separation of church and state', when power over religion was transferred into the hands of the scholars (ulama') who were not too happy with the 'liberal' lifestyle of the Caliph. Let me conclude this piece as follows. Islam says it is not a religion but a way of life. Prophet Muhammad embarked upon setting up a system of government based on an Islamic system of administration. Malays follow the Shafi'i school of Islam, which was established 180-200 years after the death of Prophet Muhammad and when the Hadith began to emerge (and that is why Malay Muslims talk more about the Hadith than the Qur'an). In short, just like what happened in Christianity, Islam was defined (or redefined) later and what Malays practice today is the 'reinvented' version of Islam, just like what the Christians are doing. Hence His Highness the Sultan's Royal Decree is not in line with the Medina version of Islam but follows a later form of Islam where religion and state are separated. If you follow Prophet Muhammad's Medina version of Islam then Islam is the state. Of course, I am analysing things from the historical point of view and not from the theological point of view -- so certainly theologians will disagree with my hypothesis. But then that is their view (based on theology) while I have my own view (based on history). *************************************************** TIMELINE Paul the Apostle's (c. AD 5 – c. AD 67) leadership, influence and legacy led to the formation of communities dominated by Gentile groups that worshiped the God of Israel, adhered to the "Judaic moral code", but relaxed or abandoned the ritual and dietary teachings of the Law of Moses, that these laws and rituals had either been fulfilled in the life of Christ or were symbolic precursors of Christ, all on the basis of Paul's teachings of the life and works of Jesus Christ and his teaching of a New Covenant (or "new testament") established through Jesus' death and resurrection. The First Council of Nicaea was a council of Christian bishops convened in Nicaea in Bithynia (present-day İznik in Turkey) by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325. This first ecumenical council was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom. The Battle of Badr was fought on Saturday, 13 March (AD) 624. The Second Council of Nicaea met in AD 787 in Nicaea (site of the First Council of Nicaea) to restore the use and veneration of icons (or holy images), which had been suppressed by imperial edict inside the Byzantine Empire during the reign of Leo III (717–741). His son, Constantine V (741–775), had held the Council of Hieria to make the suppression official. Caliph Hārūn al-Rashīd (17 March 763 or February 766 – 24 March 809) was the fifth Arab Abbasid Caliph that encompassed modern Iraq. Imam Shafi'i a.k.a. Abu Abdullah Muhammad ibn Idris al-Shafi'i (AD 767-820) or 150-204 years after Prophet Muhammad's hijrah/migration from Mekah to Medina.

How information and knowledge changed the world Posted: 13 Nov 2012 07:03 PM PST   So the government must make sure that Malaysians do not think too much. And, to do that, they must ban thinking. And that is why Malaysians are not allowed to have independent thoughts when it comes to religion. They stop you from thinking and will take action against you when you think. THE CORRIDORS OF POWER Raja Petra Kamarudin William Caxton (ca. 1415~1422 – ca. March 1492) was an English merchant, diplomat, writer and printer. He is considered the first Englishman to work as a printer and the first to introduce a printing press into England. He was also the first English retailer of printed books. Martin Luther (10 November 1483 – 18 February 1546) was a German monk, priest, professor of theology, and a prime mover of the Protestant Reformation. His refusal to retract all of his writings at the demand of Pope Leo X in 1520, and the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, at the Diet of Worms in 1521, resulted in his excommunication by the pope and condemnation as an outlaw by the Emperor. In 1534, King Henry VIII separated the English Church from Rome and the Church of England became the established church by an Act of Parliament in the Act of Supremacy, which triggered a series of events known as the English Reformation. **************************************************** No, this is not an article about religion or Christianity. This article is about Reformasi (reformation), which started in Malaysia in 1998 and in Europe 500 years or so earlier. Back in the old days, when we talk about political domination this also means religious domination. And that is why Umno cannot allow Malays to be too independent-minded when it comes to religion, and for sure Umno cannot allow Malays to leave Islam. If the Malays cannot be enslaved religiously then they cannot be enslaved politically as well. This was proven in Europe 500 years ago. When the Europeans removed the shackles of religion they invariably also removed the shackles of politics. In the old days, the Bible was written in Latin. But very few people were proficient in that 'dead language'. Only the learned priests spoke Latin. Hence the priests interpreted what the 'Holy Books' said and the ignorant people had to accept the word of these priests, many who were corrupt and exploited their position to manipulate the people. People like Martin Luther challenged this and soon Bibles were translated into various 'mother tongues'. People now began to understand what they read and they no longer needed 'intermediaries' to interpret the word of God. Nevertheless, Bibles were still handwritten and it could take up to one year for the scribes to complete one copy of the Bible. And that would mean there would not be too many copies to go around so only the privileged could get their hands on one. Then people like William Caxton introduced the printing press and what used to take one year could now be completed in a mere days, with many copies produced at the same time. Furthermore, they were not printed in Latin but in English. So the priests and the church structure suddenly became irrelevant. Then King Henry VIII challenged the authority of the Pope and broke away from the Roman Catholic Church. Now no longer was the Pope considered God's representative on earth. England basically reformed thereafter while Europe remained in the 'Dark Ages' until another 300 years or so when Napoleon Bonaparte conquered and occupied almost the whole of Europe. But England's reformation came with a heavy price, which we shall talk about in a while. Napoleon then separated the church from the state (which the English had done 300 years earlier). Before that, education was provided by the church and even then reserved only for the elite. Napoleon built public schools and opened up education for anyone who wanted an education. In short, religion was sidelined and the people were educated outside the influence of the church. Within 30 years, Europe suffered a series of revolutions, which eventually saw the end of the monarchies and empires and the emergence of independent republics. (France also saw its second revolution then). Now, what happened 500 years ago in England and in Europe around 300 years later? Well, basically what happened at that time in England and Europe was what is happening in Malaysia today. The only difference is, in England and Europe, it was education (knowledge) and the availability of books (information) that triggered these changes. Today, in Malaysia, it is the Internet and the Information Revolution that the Internet spawned. Malaysia is walking down the same path that Britain and Europe once did. Information is easily available to Malaysians and the Internet is that catalyst for the spread of this information. So change is going to come to Malaysia. Now, back to that 'heavy price' that England paid for its reformation, which I mentioned earlier. Two generations later, in the early 1600s, England 'exploded' when the people challenged Charles I. Civil War soon broke out and that totally changed England forever. 250 years later, this 'disease' spread to Europe when the Europeans too challenged their absolute monarchies and its 'running dogs', the church. Education and information are dangerous things. It changed England and, later, Europe. And it was the printing press and books that achieved this. It made the people literate. And once the people become literate they no longer accept the system and will challenge the system. The only way Umno can extend its shelf-life is to ensure that Malaysians remain illiterate. But it is too late for that. Malaysians are now educated and can think for themselves. So the government must instead make sure that Malaysians do not think too much. And, to do that, they must ban thinking. And that is why Malaysians are not allowed to have independent thoughts when it comes to religion. They stop you from thinking and will take action against you when you think. England and Europe made a huge mistake. They educated their people. They provided information to their people. They allowed their people to think. And this resulted in the people throwing off the shackles of slavery by removing the dictators and autocratic leaders. Malaysia must not make that same mistake. And the only way to avoid that mistake is to keep the people ignorant. And one way to keep the people ignorant is to shackle their minds and use religion as that tool. So now do you know what this whole issue of freedom of religion is all about? It is about perpetuating power and to not lose power. It is about not allowing what happened in England and Europe to also happen in Malaysia. And that is what Malaysia Today is all about. It is about making you think. It is about making you challenge the system. It is about rejecting bullshit. And even if that bullshit is religion we must also reject it because there are no borders, boundaries or sacred cows here. Oh, and part of this education process is provocation. So trust Malaysia Today to provoke you. Only through provocation can your brain work overtime. If not most of you will just go to sleep and continue slumbering right into 2020.

Do you feel like kicking yourself? Posted: 12 Nov 2012 04:03 PM PST   So now Malaysians moan, groan, whine, bitch, complain and grumble about the 55 years of Umno rule and the 22 years of mismanagement and autocracy by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. But Malaysians know it need not have been 55 years of Umno rule and the 22 years of mismanagement and autocracy by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. THE CORRIDORS OF POWER Raja Petra Kamarudin Who's in charge of Malaysian democracy? Yet, if Malaysians have been exercising their right to democracy, why and how have we been subject to a degenerating regime for the past 50-odd years? We speak of change, but our concept of change can only materialise at the ballot box. In other words, we can only change once every five years. Our reaction to this degenerating regime would instinctively be the fact that our leaders are lacking in competence, and that it is their fault that we are in the position that we are in. But, tying this back in with the opening paragraph of this article ― is this really the case? Is Malaysia degenerating because of what our leaders are doing to us? Or are we degenerating because of what we fail to do? Michelle Ng, The Malaysian Insider (READ MORE HERE) ***************************************** That was an extract of what Michelle Ng wrote. Basically, Malaysians moan, groan, whine, bitch, complain and grumble about the 55 years of Umno rule and the 22 years of mismanagement and autocracy by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. As Michelle said, we always grumble about what the others do. However, could it not instead be because of what we did not do? My analogy will be as follows. Someone gives you the winning numbers of a lottery. You pooh-pooh the whole thing and do not act on it. Then you find out that the numbers was really the winning numbers and you missed out on the RM25-million prize money. You would certainly feel like kicking yourself. This was an once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make an obscene amount of money for very little effort and you did not act on it. That opportunity has now passed and it will never come again. Of course, you will not admit that this is your fault. You will try to pin the blame on something else or someone else. Gambling is haram anyway. Who could have known that the numbers was for real? It is just not your fate to become a millionaire. Basically, you need to console yourself that your lack of action is actually not your fault. It is not because of what you did not do. Other factors are to blame. If it had not rained that day then you could have gone out to buy the lottery. If the car had not broken down then you could have gone out to buy the lottery. If your mother-in-law had not dropped in for a visit then you could have gone out to buy the lottery. If not because of this. If not because of that. So now Malaysians moan, groan, whine, bitch, complain and grumble about the 55 years of Umno rule and the 22 years of mismanagement and autocracy by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. But Malaysians know it need not have been 55 years of Umno rule and the 22 years of mismanagement and autocracy by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. This could have ended back in 1990. It could also have ended back in 1999. Then it would not have been 55 years of Umno rule and the 22 years of mismanagement and autocracy by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. But back in 1990 and/or 1999, Malaysians did not act. There are dozens of excuses why they did not act. And all those excuses concern what others did or did not do. They are not about what we did or did not do. We are not to blame. Others are to blame. The Malays will blame the Chinese, the Indians and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak. If not because of the Chinese, the Indians and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak, change would have come to Malaysia back in 1999, or even back in 1990. But the Chinese, the Indians and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak let the country down. They betrayed Malaysia. And the Chinese, of course, will blame the Malays, the Indians and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak. If not because of the Malays, the Indians and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak, change would have come to Malaysia back in 1999, or even back in 1990. But the Malays, the Indians and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak let the country down. They betrayed Malaysia. And so on and do forth, the blame game goes around and around. So, today, Malaysians moan, groan, whine, bitch, complain and grumble about the 55 years of Umno rule and the 22 years of mismanagement and autocracy by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. And they do so because they are angry and frustrated. The Malays are angry with the Chinese, the Indians and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak. The Chinese are angry with the Malays, the Indians and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak. Everyone is angry with 'the other person'. Actually, the truth is, everyone is angry about what they themselves did not do back in 1990 and/or 1999. They know they screwed up big time. They know it is their own fault. They know they missed the boat back in 1990 and/or 1999. They suspect that the opportunity may never come again. And this makes them feel very frustrated. But how to say, "It is my fault"? How to admit, "I am to blame"? So the Malays blame with the Chinese, the Indians and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak; the Chinese blame the Malays, the Indians and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak; and so on and so forth. The reality of the whole thing, however, is that Malaysians are a bunch of losers who cannot accept the adage that you deserve the government you voted for. And because Malaysians are a bunch or losers they will never win. Losers can never be winners. So Umno will continue to rule. And Najib Tun Razak will remain the Prime Minister for at least another term. Even if he retires, another Unmo leader will take over as Prime Minister. And to feel good about the situation and not feel frustrated about what is happening in the country, Malaysians will moan, groan, whine, bitch, complain and grumble about the 55 years of Umno rule and will look for someone else to blame about this. Well, I suppose we can always release some of that frustration by screaming "ABU!" as if it is not our fault that Umno has been in power for 55 years.

The Malays must wake up konon Posted: 10 Nov 2012 06:30 PM PST   The Malays must wake up konon! Podah! Everything wrong with Malaysia is the fault of the Malays. The non-Malays are mere victims. You buggers deserve to be victims and I hope you will remain victims for another 100 years for your sin of being traitors to the cause back in the 1980s that allowed the country to decline to its present level and for allowing Umno to rule for 55 years. THE CORRIDORS OF POWER Raja Petra Kamarudin I have not written anything over the last two days because Mat Sabu and another PAS leader from Melaka were visiting me in Manchester so I was quite tied up. I must admit that we had a most interesting two days discussing current issues affecting Malaysia, in particular about politics and matters related to politics. Anyhow, all I can say is that Mat Sabu and I share the same views on practically most of the issues. I don't think I need to go into details about what we spoke, though, or else this article is going to run into ten pages. Furthermore, my opinions have already been clearly expressed in the numerous articles I have written over these last 20 years or so since I started writing about politics back in the early 1990s. What I want to address today is the 'favourite' comment many readers have posted in Malaysia Today over the last four years since 2008. And this comment is: the non-Malays have already woken up. When are the Malays going to wake up? These readers are, of course, referring to the March 2008 'Tsunami' where 50% of the Malays voted opposition while the figure for the Chinese and Indians was much higher -- an estimated 70% plus and 80% plus respectively. Many argue that in the coming general it is going to be higher for the Chinese -- maybe more than 80% -- while for the Malays it may remain at 50% or even decline to below 50%. They do not talk too much about the Indians, though, but it is estimated that this time around the Indian vote for the opposition may fall to just 50% or less. It is puzzling as to why you say it is the Malays who need to wake up. The Malays had already woken up back in the late 1980s. And that was 25 years ago. When the Registrar of Societies deregistered Umno in 1988 and two new Malay parties were formed in its place -- Umno Baru and Semangat 46 -- the Malays became divided and have remained divided ever since. In the 1990 General Election two years later, Kelantan fell to the opposition and has remained opposition ever since. The PAS-Semangat 46 coalition called APU (Angkatan Perpaduan Ummah) also captured many seats in Terengganu, although not enough to take the state. Unfortunately, the other two coalitions that Semangat 46 had with the non-Malay political parties -- with DAP on the West Coast (called Gagasan Rakyat) and with PBS in Sabah -- did not do as well as APU. While the Malays voted opposition, the non-Malays on the West Coast and those in East Malaysia refused to do the same. Hence the opposition dream of kicking out Umno and Barisan Nasional and of taking power at federal level was shattered. In the end it became a Malay dream and not a Malaysian dream. Since Umno had been deregistered (Umno no longer existed), MCA had to take over the leadership of Barisan Nasional and the MCA President took over as the Chairman of Barisan Nasional. By right, although not by law, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who was now 'partyless' and an independent Member of Parliament should have resigned as the Prime Minister and the MCA President, who was now the Chairman of Barisan Nasional, should have taken over as the new Prime Minister. But Barisan Nasional (meaning the non-Malays) did not do this. They allowed Dr Mahathir, a man without a party and hence with no majority in Parliament, to remain as Prime Minister. In that sense, even Ibrahim Ali or Zul Nordin (who both also have no party) can become the Prime Minister of Malaysia -- going by what they did 25 years ago in the late 1980s. We Malays were very disappointed with the non-Malays in both West and East Malaysia. Dr Mahathir should have been kicked out. Umno no longer existed and Dr Mahathir was no longer the leader of the largest party in Parliament. Dr Mahathir was now merely a calun bebas. Why was he still the Prime Minister? And why were the non-Malays still retaining him as Prime Minister when the majority of the Malays wanted him out. Umno Baru was then formed. Technically, however, it was still an independent party and not a member of Barisan Nasional. Barisan Nasional then called for an emergency meeting, chaired by the President of MCA. No one from Umno (Baru) attended the meeting. At this emergency meeting, it was UNANIMOUSLY agreed (with not a single dissenting voice) that Umno Baru be admitted as a member of Barisan Nasional (not READMITTED but ADMITTED, because Umno no longer existed and Umno Baru was a brand new party). It was also UNANIMOUSLY agreed (with not a single dissenting voice) that Dr Mahathir be invited to take over as the new Chairman of Barisan Nasional. I was there that day (standing outside the meeting room, of course, since I was not a leader of Barisan Nasional and hence could not be inside the meeting room). We were anxiously expecting at least one member of Barisan Nasional to vote against admitting a 'new party' into Barisan Nasional -- and hence Dr Mahathir would have to resign as the Prime Minister and the new Chairman of Barisan Nasional, who was also the President of MCA, would take over as Prime Minister. I was very angry that day. The Malays had made their move. We were going to be rid of Umno and Dr Mahathir. But the non-Malays sold us out. The non-Malays betrayed us. From that day on we realised that the non-Malays cannot be trusted to change the country. We Malays are on our own and will have to do it ourselves. Ten years later, we had our second chance. This time it was because of the conflict between Anwar Ibrahim and Dr Mahathir. In the 1999 General Election we did better than in the 1990 General Election. Not only did the opposition retain Kelantan (without the help of Semangat 46 this time, mind you, since that party had closed down and most of its members had rejoined Umno) but it also won Terengganu after 25 years of trying (since 1974). Furthermore, the opposition won 8 out of the 15 Parliament seats in Kedah (more than half) plus it managed to deny Barisan Nasional its two-thirds majority in the Kedah State Assembly (which happened exactly one year later in the Lunas by-election). That was a new landmark for the opposition. Unfortunately, all this happened in the Malay heartland of Kelantan, Terengganu and Kedah. In those constituencies where the Malays do not represent 90% or more of the voters, Barisan Nasional still ruled. In fact, any constituency where the Malay voters are less than 80% it was quite impossible for the opposition to win. No doubt, in constituencies where the voters are predominantly Chinese and the candidate is a Chinese from DAP, then there is a strong possibility that DAP can win that seat. But this was the exception rather than the rule -- sometimes even the top guns of DAP suffered defeat because the Chinese voters rejected them. In 2008 that all changed, of course. But whether this change is permanent or temporary is left to be seen -- and we shall know soon, come the next general election. But what perturbs me is that the Malays have been struggling to see change for about 25 years now. But we failed to see change because of the recalcitrant Chinese and Indians, and those from East Malaysia. No doubt, in 2008, more than half the Chinese and Indians from West Malaysia voted opposition while only 50% of the Malays did so. But the Malays have been divided between Barisan Nasional and the opposition since the 1980s. The Chinese and Indians from West Malaysia have only just woken up very recently (while those from East Malaysia are still sleeping). Hence I can't understand why the Chinese (and some Indians) keep asking the Malays to wake up. Can't they understand that the Malays already woke up a long time ago? The Chinese and Indians (and even then only those from West Malaysia, mind you) woke up only very recently. If they had woken up 25 years ago like the Malays had, Dr Mahathir would have ruled Malaysia for only 7 years and not 22 years and Umno would have been in power for only 30 years and not 55 years. So what's all this nonsense about 'ABU' and '55 years is enough' and 'the Malays must wake up' all that shit? We have seen 55 years of Umno rule and we need an ABU movement because of the treacherous Chinese and Indians from West Malaysia and those non-Malays from East Malaysia. And, today, you blame the Malays and scream that it is time that the Malay woke up. What crap is this? And stop giving the excuse that the non-Malays had no choice. Stop saying that back in the late 1980s if MCA had refused to allow Umno Baru to become a member of Barisan Nasional and had refused to allow Dr Mahathir to remain as Prime Minister the army would have stepped in -- hence the Chinese and Indians and those from East Malaysia were forced to do what they did. Are you saying that the army has already been disbanded? Are you saying that only in the late 1980s Malaysia had an army and today we no longer have an army? That is utter bullshit and a bloody lame excuse. If you could not change the government in the 1980s because of the army then what makes you think you can change the government today when we still have an army? Would you accept the excuse that the Malays have no choice but to vote Umno because if Pakatan Rakyat takes over then apostasy would be allowed and Muslims will leave Islam in droves to become Christians? I think this is as legitimate an excuse as the one that the non-Malays are giving as to why they did what they did 25 years ago back in the late 1980s. The Malays must wake up konon! Podah! Everything wrong with Malaysia is the fault of the Malays. The non-Malays are mere victims. You buggers deserve to be victims and I hope you will remain victims for another 100 years for your sin of being traitors to the cause back in the 1980s that allowed the country to decline to its present level and for allowing Umno to rule for 55 years. Let me assure you I have already woken up. 35 years ago back in the late 1970s I woke up to the evils of the government and 25 years ago back in the late 1980s I woke up to the treachery of the non-Malays who propped up Umno and kept them in power. So no need to ask me to wake up! Today I have woken up even more. I have woken up to the hypocrisy of the non-Malays who 'created' Umno and then now blame the Malays for what Umno does.

There is freedom of religion in Malaysia Posted: 07 Nov 2012 05:21 PM PST   Hence how can Nurul Izzah be wrong for saying that there is freedom of religion in Malaysia? The fact that so many Malays have left Islam and the government does nothing about it means that there is freedom of religion in Malaysia, even for Muslims. THE CORRIDORS OF POWER Raja Petra Kamarudin Improper to use freedom of expression to confuse people, says Mashitah (Bernama) - It is improper for an individual to use the freedom of expression as a reason to state an opinion which can confuse the people, especially Muslims, in the country, the Dewan Rakyat was told today. Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Senator Datuk Dr Mashitah Ibrahim said that though the government believed in the principle of freedom of expression to state an opinion, matters related to religious issues were most sensitive to Muslims. "In the effort to exercise control over sensitive issues among Muslims, action can be taken under Section 298A of the Penal Code which relates to causing disharmony, disunity, or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will, or prejudicing the maintenance of harmony or unity, on grounds of religion," she said when replying to a question from Amran Ab Ghani (PKR-Tanah Merah) on the measures taken by the government to control the issuing of 'fatwa' (rulings) by unauthorised individuals. Mashitah said the legal proceedings under the provision were handled by the civil courts and a convicted individual could be sentenced to jail for between two and five years. Replying to a supplementary question, from Datuk Mohamed Aziz (BN-Sri Gading), Mashitah said that though there were no legal provisions to act against Muslims who propose that Muslims should be free to choose their religion, action could be taken against them for insulting Islam or causing it to be despised. Mohamed Aziz has asked what action could be taken against PKR vice-president Nurul Izzah Anwar for having said last Saturday that Malay Muslims should be free to choose their religion. Mashitah said enactments in certain states provided for a fine of up to RM3,000 or a jail sentence of up to two years, or both, for those convicted of insulting Islam or causing it to be despised orally or in writing. ******************************************** Jais should probe Nurul Izzah's statement: Khalid (Bernama) -- The Selangor Islamic Religious Department (Jais) needs to carry out an investigation regarding Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) vice-president Nurul Izzah Anwar's statement on freedom of religion, said Selangor Menteri Besar Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim. Abdul Khalid, who is also the state executive councillor in charge of Islamic affairs, this was necessary to prevent Muslims from becoming confused and ensure that there was no negative impact to the ummah (faithful) in the wake of the controversy surrounding the issue. "I support an investigation into the matter and the actions taken by Jais on it as it is a positive thing, no Muslim wants another to leave the religion (Islam)," he told reporters here today. However, he added that Nurul Izzah, the MP for Lembah Pantai, should be given the opportunity to come forward to clear the air over the matter as there were many versions on the issue in media reports. He was commenting on a report in a news portal which had reported Nurul Izzah as saying at a forum held in Subang Jaya on Saturday that each citizen of the country had the right to profess the religion of his or her choice and that this included the Malays, all of whom are Muslims. ******************************************** Siti Kasim, a member of the Bar Council human rights committee -- and the person who asked Nurul Izzah Anwar that most controversial question regarding freedom of religion -- said she is disappointed that Nurul has "retracted" her remark. "I believe Nurul was just trying to impress the people, she didn't think of the consequences," she told FMT. Siti said Nurul should have stood firm on her remark that freedom of religion was a right for all including the Malay-Muslim. (READ MORE HERE) I would have to agree with Siti. Whether what Nurul Izzah said was politically correct or politically incorrect, she has already said it so she should stick to her guns. She should challenge her critics to explain what it is she said that was wrong. If they think that what she said was wrong then they have to come out to explain what is wrong with her statement. Nurul Izzah is now blaming Utusan Malaysia for this whole thing. Is she saying that she did not say what they said she said and that Utusan lied? Or is she saying she only meant that freedom of religion is for non-Muslims and Muslims do not have freedom of religion? I personally know a number of ex-Muslim Malays who have left Islam to become Christians. And according to the Perak Mufti, about 500,000 Malays want to leave Islam. I doubt someone of a Mufti's status would lie. Hence it must be true that 500,000 Malays want to leave Islam. But why did the Mufti say 'want to leave', as if they have not quite left yet? Islam is about akidah or faith. And if you no longer have faith in Islam then you no longer have any akidah. And if you no longer have any akidah then you are automatically no longer a Muslim. In short, you do not have to 'leave' Islam. By your very lack of faith you have been 'kicked out' of Islam, so to speak. Hence, it is not that 500,000 Malays 'want to leave' Islam but 500,000 Malays 'have already left' Islam because they no longer have any akidah. The absence of akidah means you are not a Muslim, plain and simple. Is this too difficult to understand? Now, how does the Mufti know that 500,000 Malays want to leave Islam? He can only know because the government has checked and they know the numbers because they know whom these people are. There are two ways to leave Islam. One would be to no longer have any akidah. Another would be to go to the National Registration Department (NRD) and inform them that you have left Islam and you want the 'Islam' on your identity card removed. Now, whether the NRD does or does not remove the 'Islam' on your ID does not matter. 'Legally', you may still be a Muslim if they do not amend/update your ID. Technically, you are no longer a Muslim. Hence Islam is not about the word 'Islam' on a piece of plastic. Islam is about what is in your heart. And if you heart is no longer a Muslim then you are no longer a Muslim, never mind what that piece of plastic says. Some people dispute the Perak Mufti's figure of 500,000. They say that figure is too high and that it is actually much lower than that. Okay, so it may not be 500,000. It may be only 100,000 or 50,000 or just 10,000. Whatever the figure may be, the government does not deny the fact that some Muslims want to or have already left Islam. And I personally know some of these people. I also know many Muslims who still regard themselves as Muslims but reject the Hadith. The government calls these people 'anti-Hadith'. However, these people say they are not anti-Hadith but pro-Qur'an -- or as what some would call 'Qur'an alone' Muslims. Trust me, there are many such Muslims, even amongst the Malays or Malaysians. Now, according to the Malaysian government's interpretation of Islam, you must accept the Qur'an, the Hadith and the Sunnah to quality as Muslim, all three. If you reject even one of the three then you are no longer a Muslim. In other words, tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of Muslims are no longer Muslims because they refuse to accept the Hadith and/or the Sunnah. Hence, according to the Malaysian government, these people have 'left' Islam. In fact, they would be considered heretics or even apostates, and heresy as well as apostasy attracts the death sentence in all three Abrahamic faiths (although those in the west no longer follow this rule -- as they no longer follow the rule on homosexuality, gay marriages, etc.). The bottom line is, by act of rejection of certain doctrines of Islam or by total rejection of Islam, many Malays have already 'left' Islam (or have been 'kicked out' of Islam). That is the reality. And has the Malaysian government arrested these people or punished these people in any way? The answer is, of course, 'no'. And since the government has not taken action against so many Malays who by act of omission or act of rejection have left or have been kicked out of Islam, would that not mean there is freedom of religion in Malaysia, even freedom for Muslims to leave Islam? Hence how can Nurul Izzah be wrong for saying that there is freedom of religion in Malaysia? The fact that so many Malays have left Islam and the government does nothing about it means that there is freedom of religion in Malaysia, even for Muslims. And that is why Nurul Izzah should not act like she has done something wrong. Instead of sounding very defensive and apologetic she should go on the attack. She should challenge the government to prove her wrong. She should challenge the government to state that there is no freedom of religion in Malaysia and any Malay who leaves Islam will be arrested and will be put to death. Nurul Izzah is probably afraid that she will lose Malay support if the Malays believe that she supports apostasy. Hence she is doing some damage control. It looks like the government has her on the run and she is falling right into it. The video recording of that forum is now on Youtube and what Nurul Izzah really said is there for all and sundry to see. It is too late to try to explain what she really meant or accuse Utusan Malaysia of distorting or twisting what she said. Maybe she meant something else and they interpreted it as something else. But so what? Nurul Izzah should not play this 'I have been misquoted' game that most politicians play. Instead, she should say, "Yes, I said that there is freedom of religion and prove that I am wrong." Challenge all those people who whacked you and make them state that there is no freedom of religion in Malaysia. Then, once they do that, challenge them to explain, if there is no freedom of religion in Malaysia, why has the government done nothing about all those many Malays who have left Islam? The best form of defense is an offense. Nurul Izzah should go on the offensive rather than appear defensive. They are trying to bring her down, that's for sure. If she has to go down then go down fighting. She should stand by what she said and make the government explain what it is she said that is wrong. I doubt anyone will dare say that there is no freedom of religion in Malaysia and any Malay who leaves Islam must be put to death. If they dare say this they would have said it a long time ago. I would play poker and see what hand they have. I bet you their cards are, as the Chinese would say, chekai. Come on Nurul, fight back, don't back down. And cancel your meeting with JAIS tomorrow. Tell them to go to hell. Why do you need to explain yourself unless you have done something wrong? Who the fuck are Nurul Izzah's advisers anyway?

The doctrine of I’m right and you’re wrong Posted: 06 Nov 2012 08:04 PM PST   The fact that scholars all over the world and for hundreds of years are not unanimous or united regarding the meaning of the verse 'there is no compulsion in religion' in the Qur'an means it is open to interpretation. Does it mean you are not forced to become a Muslim? Does it mean you are not forced to become a Muslim but once you do you must remain a Muslim? Does it mean you are not forced to remain a Muslim but can leave Islam if you want to? THE CORRIDORS OF POWER Raja Petra Kamarudin Mujahid Yusof Rawa, a PAS leader and the son of one-time PAS President of about 30 years ago, has taken Nurul Izzah Anwar's side in the current controversy she is facing. And this controversy is about her statement regarding freedom of religion. The ex-Mufti of Perlis, Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin, also supports Nurul Izzah's statement. None of the other muftis have said anything yet though, although I am eagerly awaiting their statement so that we can resolve this matter once and for all. Ex-Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, however, disagrees with Nurul Izzah. The Tun said that Islam is like Hotel California: you can check out but you can never leave. That means once you are a Muslim you cannot leave Islam. Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister's Department, Mashitah Ibrahim, agrees with Dr Mahathir, as does Ibrahim Ali of Perkasa. In short, never mind whether they are government supporters, opposition supporters, or neutral like Mohd Asri -- and I would like to believe that includes me as well -- Malays-Muslims are deeply divided on matters related to Islam. You see, religion, Islam or otherwise, works on the doctrine of I'm right and you're wrong. All religions work on this principle. They also work on the principle of if you are not with me (meaning of my same religion) then you are against me (meaning you are my enemy). Sure, religionists would deny this. They would say that their religion is not like that. That, of course, is utter bullshit. At best they would tolerate your religion, as we have heard them say often enough. Tolerate is what you do when you are faced with something obnoxious like your neighbour's dog shit on your lawn or the loud noise from your neighbour's karaoke session way past midnight. You tolerate something foul. So, if you tolerate another religion that means you consider that religion as foul. But religionists would deny this. And this is because they have perfected the art of self-hypnosis. They can make themselves believe in something false. Hence they can make themselves believe that they are not like that even though they are exactly like that. They have made denial syndrome into an exact science. And this means whatever comes out of the mouths of religionists must be treated with great suspicion. They are great con artists. They can con themselves so what more con other people. And this is why Nurul Izzah Anwar is now in trouble. She gave her opinion. But as long as her opinion is also your opinion that is okay. Once her opinion differs from yours, then you will make her eat shit. In the first place, why was Nurul Izzah so silly as so attend that forum? And who was that stupid person who trapped Nurul Izzah by asking her that question? Did they intend to trap Nurul Izzah knowing that once they pose that question she would be in trouble whichever way she replied to it? If Nurul Izzah had said she does not support freedom of religion she is in trouble. If she says she supports freedom of religion she is also in trouble. Both ways she is cooked. And if she had said' no comment' she is also cooked. I suspect that Nurul Izaah was set up. I thought she would be savvy enough to realise that religionists can never accept opinions. The correct opinion is their opinion. Your opinion is the wrong opinion. That is how it works. According to the Selangor Islamic Affairs Council (MAIS), who spoke on behalf of His Highness the Sultan of Selangor, His Highness is upset with Nurul Izzah. That is what the MAIS chairman, Mohamad Adzib Mohd Isa, said. Whether that is true or not I am not sure but most times these people put words into the Sultan's mouth and the Sultan would be too scared to contradict them lest His Highness is accused of supporting apostasy. So there you are. After trapping Nurul Izzah, they now trap the Sultan, knowing that His Highness would not dare say otherwise. Did I not say that Umno is clever? How many times must I repeat that Pakatan Rakyat is not as clever as Barisan Nasional at this game? Religionists in general and Muslims in particular do not tolerate differences of opinion and differences in interpretation. Religion, after all, is just that -- opinions and interpretations. For example, when religious scholars or ulamak make a statement or issue a decree, they will always start with "According to so-and-so….yada, yada, yada…"  or "As reported by so-and-so…yada, yada, yada…". That means this is the opinion of a third party. And this also means that it is purely hearsay. The fact that scholars all over the world and for hundreds of years are not unanimous or united regarding the meaning of the verse 'there is no compulsion in religion' in the Qur'an means it is open to interpretation. Does it mean you are not forced to become a Muslim? Does it mean you are not forced to become a Muslim but once you do you must remain a Muslim? Does it mean you are not forced to remain a Muslim but can leave Islam if you want to? Yes, what does it mean? Some Muslims (from both sides of the political divide) say it means you cannot leave Islam while others (from both sides of the political divide) say you can. Muslims are not really sure what it means but they take the stand that it means whatever I say it means. Okay, let's look at this from another angle. Is Malaysia a Parliamentary Democracy or a Theocratic State? It can only be one or the other. If, as some people say, the Sharia applies and all Muslims are bound by the Sharia, then clearly Malaysia is a Theocratic State. And if Malaysia is a Theocratic State then we have to abolish general elections and elect our leaders based on the principle of a Council because general elections will allow non-Muslims to become leaders -- which is not acceptable at all in a Theocratic State. However, if we elect our leaders through a general election (which will allow non-Muslims to become leaders) then we are a Parliamentary Democracy -- and that would mean we are not bound by the Sharia but the Federal Constitution would prevail instead. Our political leaders from both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat must clarify this point. Are we a Theocratic State where the Sharia applies or are we a Parliamentary Democracy that allows its citizens freedom of thought, freedom of opinion, freedom of association and freedom of religion? Currently, Malaysia's status is very confusing. And that is why Nurul Izzah is in trouble. She spoke as a Democrat. But the religionists will not allow that. They want her to speak as an Islamist, not as a Democrat. As a Democrat she is right -- you do have freedom of religion. As an Islamist you do not have freedom of religion. Once you are a Muslim you remain a Muslim till the day you die. And if you leave Islam then you die, now. In short, you are put to death as an apostate. Do you know who is to blame for all this? The politicians use religion for political gain but they leave things very vague so that we remain confused. The more confused we are the more they can exploit the issue. Anwar Ibrahim, the Opposition Leader, must take a stand on this since he is the Opposition Leader. Najib Tun Razak, the Prime Minister, must also do the same since he is the Prime Minister. Can Muslims leave Islam and if they do then what does the government do to them? Will they be arrested, jailed, or put to death? Malaysians need to know so that this episode can be put behind us and we can move on to more important matters. And as long as Anwar and Najib remain silent that is how long this matter would go unresolved and Malaysians will continue to fight over religion. Now do you know why I don't support both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat? They are both very devious and mischievous. They confuse us and make us fight just so that they can gain power.

And whose fault is this? Posted: 05 Nov 2012 05:21 PM PST   So, no, whatever is happening in the country is not Umno's fault. It is not the fault of the Malays or the Muslims either. It is the fault of the non-Malays and the non-Muslims from West Malaysia and East Malaysia who collaborate with Umno to deny Malaysians their right to think and their right to express what they think. THE CORRIDORS OF POWER Raja Petra Kamarudin (The Malaysian Insider) - Following attacks on Nurul Izzah Anwar for her statement that allegedly supports religious freedom, the PKR vice president today said she is ready to give her statement to the Selangor Islamic Affairs Department (JAIS). The Lembah Pantai MP also said she will take legal action on those who had hurled accusations against her, and will leave the issue to the country's legal system. "I'm ready (to be called by JAIS)...(but) on lawyer's advice, I will take legal action," she said. ***************************************** (The Star) - Police have re-arrested a 27-year-old man alleged to have posted insulting remarks on his Facebook page against the Johor Sultan. State police chief Deputy Comm Datuk Mohd Mokhtar Mohd Shariff said the suspect was detained again after police failed to get an extension on the first remand order from the court. He added that police have opened two investigation papers against the suspect. ***************************************** (The Malaysian Insider) - The Johor police have started criminal defamation investigations against The Malaysian Insider and Malaysiakini for their coverage of last week's arrest of a man who allegedly insulted the Johor Sultan on his Facebook page. Johor CID deputy director Asst Comm Nor Azizan Anan said the probe was following two police reports lodged by state police on articles carried by the two news portals regarding the arrest, Berita Harian reported today. ***************************************** You have read the three news items above, right? Now, in case you do not yet understand what is going on in Malaysia, allow me to enlighten you a bit. I know that many Malaysians are brain-dead so unless I help walk you through the issue this whole thing would be lost on you. The issue is simple, really. When the mainstream media reports that you said something, you are in deep shit. Action will be taken against you super-fast. You might say that the mainstream media lies, it never tells the truth, it cannot be trusted, and so on. That will still not save you from the long arm of the law. Hell, I should know. When the mainstream media reported that I had made an allegation against 'First Lady' Rosmah Mansor regarding her alleged involvement in the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder, I was arrested and charged in court. The fact that I never made such an allegation but actually said that someone else (Lt. Kol. Azmi Zainal Abidin) had made that allegation did not save me. If the mainstream media said I said it then I said it. Plain and simple! Then when I gave an interview with the mainstream media to explain what happened and I stressed that I was arrested and charged for something that I did not do (meaning I did not make any allegation against Rosmah Mansor), the mainstream media reported that I had done a U-turn and that I now withdraw the allegation. And that got me into a heap of other problems. So, can we believe the mainstream media or can we not believe it? In my case the mainstream media report was to be believed. Then I suppose in all those other cases the mainstream media reports are to be believed as well. You have to make up your mind. Do you accept what the mainstream media says or do you not? One day you appear to accept what they say and the next day you reject what they say. In short, you accept and reject things at your convenience. It is no longer about the truth. It is about what fits in to your agenda. Okay, never mind, whether the mainstream media lied or not is not as important as the next issue. And the next issue is that Malaysia does not allow freedom of thought, freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, etc. So that means you are not allowed to think and certainly not allowed to say what you think. Doing so is a crime and you can get arrested, put on trial, and sent to jail. And there are certain taboos or sacred cows that if you 'touch' you will get into trouble. The Monarchy/Rulers, Islam, the Muslims, Malay privileges, the National Language, etc., are at the top of this taboo list. You 'touch' these issues and you die. Okay, now tell me, whose fault is this? Yes, that's right, it's the fault of Umno. It's the fault of the Malays. It's the fault of the Muslims. Am I correct? Hmm…I can just imagine most of you reading this now jumping up and down excitedly like what the Malays would call 'kera kena belacan'. Actually, that is not right. No, it is not the fault of Umno, the Malays or the Muslims. How can it be Umno's fault, or the fault of the Malays or the Muslims? I mean, do you really think that Umno, the Malays, or the Muslims, have ABSOLUTE political power? They don't. And look at the four graphics below to see what I mean. The first graphic shows that out of 505 state seats contested in the 2008 General Election, BN won 307 and PR won 197. In the Sarawak State Election last year (graphic number 4), BN won 55 seats against only 15 by PR and one independent. Now, out of a total of 362 state seats won by BN, how many were won by Umno? In Sarawak, not a single seat was an Umno seat. Look at the pie chart (graphic number 2) and the third graphic. Umno controls only about one-third the seats in Parliament, which it won with less than 30% of the popular votes. How can Umno be in power with only one-third the seats and less than 30% of the votes? Okay, for the benefit of those of you who are brain-dead -- and there are a lot of those types of people reading Malaysia Today -- Umno DOES NOT have ABSOLUTE political power and it CANNOT form the government with only one-third the seats and less than 30% the votes. So, no, whatever is happening in the country is not Umno's fault. It is not the fault of the Malays or the Muslims either. It is the fault of the non-Malays and the non-Muslims from West Malaysia and East Malaysia who collaborate with Umno to deny Malaysians their right to think and their right to express what they think. Am I angry with Umno? Of course I am not. Umno is a political party. It is the job of a political party to exploit any issue that can be exploited for political gain. That is what politics is all about. Umno does not hide the fact that it is a party that upholds Ketuanan Melayu and that it will not tolerate anyone who comments unfavourably on issues related to the Monarchy/Rulers, Islam, the Muslims, Malay privileges, the National Language, etc. Umno is honest about its 'struggle'. So why get angry with people who are honest about what they are and then demonstrate that they are honest about what they are? The people I am angry with are the dishonest hypocrites who say one thing and then do the opposite. These are the non-Malays and the non-Muslims who talk a lot and claim the moral high ground but help Umno with only one-third the seats in Parliament and less than 30% votes to deny Malaysians their right to think and their right to express what we think.  What ABU! ABU bullshit! You make it appear like everything wrong with Malaysia is the fault of Umno, the Malays or the Muslims. Everything bad that happens in the country is the fault of Umno, the Malays and the Muslims. Yes, Umno all on its own and with merely a few seats in Parliament that cannot even give them a simple majority in Parliament is to blame for everything that is wrong with Malaysia. Blame Umno. Blame the Malays. Blame the Muslims. The non-Malays and the non-Muslims are not to blame. The non-Malays and the non-Muslims have nothing to do with this.  It sometimes puzzles me that Umno with only one-third the seats in Parliament can form a government and end up controlling almost two-third the seats in Parliament. Magical, don't you think so? I think what is even more magical is how the non-Malays and the non-Muslims can shift the blame entirely on Umno, the Malays and the Muslims as if they are not equally guilty of denying Malaysians freedom of thought and freedom of expression. The Malays-Muslims, in particular those from Umno, are very open about what they stand for. The non-Malays/non-Muslims, however, pretend a lot. They pretend they are not to blame whereas without them Umno would be an opposition party and not the ruling government. The non-Malays/non-Muslims are so full of shit.

Same difference Posted: 04 Nov 2012 06:20 PM PST   "I'm certain that she is ignorant, this is why she made such a statement. Her statement has clearly deviated from the maqasid syari'yyah and can be categorised as deviating from Islamic principles. I feel she has been talking without sufficient religious knowledge. It is more honourable for her to retract the statement altogether without twisting it, as God is all merciful," Religious scholar Ustaz Fathul Bari Mat Jahaya was quoted in Berita Harian today. THE CORRIDORS OF POWER Raja Petra Kamarudin Malaysia Today's readers have a serious problem in trying to understand the difference between partisan, non-partisan, bipartisan, etc. And that is why many of them fall into the 'either you are with me or you are against me' rut made 'popular' by US President Bush. How would you take it if a Muslim who propagates the concept of an Islamic State says to you that 'either you are with me or you are against me'? If you do not support the concept of an Islamic State then you are the enemy of Islam and being an enemy of Islam that can be regarded as a declaration of war and anyone who declares war against Islam can be lawfully killed. According to the doctrine of 'either you are with me or you are against me' that would certainly make sense. It may not make sense to non-Muslims or to those who are opposed to an Islamic State but then these people are the enemies of Islam anyway so who the hell cares what they think? Yes, if we support President Bush then we support the concept of a powerful nation having the right to invade another country just because the US does not like its politics. Basically, might is right. Those who control the guns control the world and dictates what the world can and cannot do. Brunei refuses to hold democratic parliamentary elections and refuses to abolish its outdated system of absolute monarchy. Should Singapore bomb and invade Brunei so that democracy can be installed in that Sultanate? Indonesia discriminates against the Chinese and murdered 500,000 Maoist Communist supporters. Should China send a few nuclear bombs to Indonesia to teach it a lesson even though those Indonesian Chinese are Indonesians and not Chinese citizens or of Chinese ethnicity? What about Saudi Arabia and all those other kingdoms, sheikhdoms, emirates, etc? They too do not practice democracy a la the west. Should the US bomb and invade those countries so that the citizens of those countries can hold free and fair elections and elect the government of their choice? If democracy can be forced down Iraq's throat surely the same should be done to those other autocratic monarchies in the Middle East as well. Okay, so we do not support the idea of a powerful nation being allowed to bomb and invade another nation just because the US does not like its politics. If we support that idea then no country is safe. Anyone who is not pro-US (or worse, anti-US) can get bombed into the Dark Ages with a great loss to property and lives. Who appointed the US the policeman of the world anyway? Must the world do things only the American way? Is the US the trustee of morality and anything considered immoral by US standards must be solved by military action? If we do not support America's action then does that mean we are pro-Saddam Hussein? Saddam just did what Hitler did and if we do not support what Hitler did then surely we cannot support what Saddam did, especially what he did to his own citizens of Kurdish ethnicity. Saddam embarked on ethnic cleansing just like what Hitler did. So how can Hitler be wrong and Saddam be right? Okay, so we do not support Saddam. But then we do not support what the US did either. So what is our stand then? We must either be pro-Saddam or pro-Bush. We can be against both. Either Saddam is right or Bush is right. Both cannot be wrong. Hence it is our duty to support one and oppose the other. My stand is clear. I do not support both. While I do not support what Saddam did to his own people I also do not support the idea that might is right and a powerful nation can legitimately bomb and invade another country. There are many evil regimes in this world. Iraq is not the only one. But why bomb and invade only those evil regimes that are anti-American and then support, uphold and defend other evil regimes that are pro-American? (And this is the basis of America's foreign policy). Is it possible to be opposed to both? Are you obligated to support one above the other? Well, it all depends on whether you are sincere in your 'struggle' and whether your struggle is based on principles or you have other personal and ulterior motives in mind. Most times our struggle is not based on sincerity or principles but is motivated by personal gain (parochial, ethnic, racial, religious, etc., included). And this is what we are seeing in Malaysian politics. The Member of Parliament for Lembah Pantai, Nurul Izzah Anwar, has just attracted some controversy regarding her statement about freedom of choice -- which can also be said to be about freedom of religion. (Read the news report by Malaysian Digest below). The issue is: do we have freedom of choice or do we not have the freedom to choose? In short: is Malaysia a democracy or is Malaysia a theocracy? It is either one or the other. It cannot be both at the same time. This faux pas, as some view it, (or misquote, as Nurul Izzah explains it) is going to be used against her. Trust me on that. Was she misquoted? Was she misunderstood? Did Nurul Izzah do a U-turn? Or are Malaysians not prepared to allow freedom of choice? Now, this is not about Barisan Nasional versus Pakatan Rakyat. Just for purposes of this article let's not be partisan. Let's look at things as if we are not supporters of either Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat. I know most Malaysian brains have not developed to the level where you can do that. But try anyway, sort of like hypothetically speaking. I say this is not about Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat because there are Muslims in both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat, as there are non-Muslims. Malays, Chinese, Indians, and 'lain-lain' are in both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat. So this cannot be about Barisan Nasional versus Pakatan Rakyat. Now, I have been talking about change for quite some time now. Hence our struggle, at least as far as I am concerned, is about change. But are you also talking about change? I hear some of you screaming ABU (Anything But Umno). I hear some of you screaming that we must vote for Pakatan Rakyat. I hear some of you screaming that 55 years of BN is enough. Okay, whatever it may be, those are merely the means to an end. We change the government because we seek change. We are not changing the government just for the sake of changing the government. There must be an endgame and changing the government is just the means to that end. But are we going to see that end? Will changing the government achieve the change that we seek? That is the fundamental question and the question we must address before we take this to the next level, which is the change that we are looking for. Nurul Izzah talked about freedom of choice. And now she is getting whacked for that. So now she has to explain herself or even do a U-turn and retract that statement. The issue is not whether she did say it or she did not say it or whether she was misquoted or misunderstood. To me that is not important. What is important is even if she did say it what is wrong about her saying it? Nurul Izzah was talking about freedom of choice. Was she wrong? Does Pakatan Rakyat or PKR, the party she represents, not support freedom of choice? It appears like Nurul Izzah is going to have to fight this controversy all on her own. No other opposition leader is going to come to her defence. PKR, DAP and PAS are not going to get involved. Let me be clear on this. Pakatan Rakyat is not supporting or is opposing freedom of choice. Pakatan Rakyat is going to remain neutral. Pakatan Rakyat is not taking sides in this issue. Pakatan Rakyat is not for or against freedom of choice, which means that Pakatan Rakyat does not have a stand. Okay, back to the issue of change. I am talking about change. Change means to deviate from what is. Change means to discard the old ways in favour of the new ways. Change means you have freedom of choice. Change means not being forced to do something that you do not wish to do. Change means to be allowed the freedom you do not currently have. So why is Pakatan Rakyat keeping mum? We want to know whether Pakatan Rakyat supports change. We want to know whether this change includes freedom of choice. We want to know whether Pakatan Rakyat's policies are opposite to Barisan Nasional's or exactly the same as Barisan Nasional's? Currently it appears like there is no difference between Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional. Currently it appears like Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional share the same policy. Currently it appears like Pakatan Rakyat, just like Barisan Nsional, does not support freedom of choice. In that case are we really talking about change? Explain to me what you mean by change because I do not quite understand what you mean by it when both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat do not support freedom of choice. Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional appear very united on this issue. That would mean we will not be seeing change never mind who we vote for. ******************************** Fathul Bari Claims Nurul Izzah 'Ignorant', Lacks Religious Knowledge (Malaysian Digest) - Parti Keadilan Rakyat vice president Nurul Izzah Anwar has come under fire over her statement allegedly supportive of freedom of choice for Muslims in selecting their religion. The statement, made at a forum on Saturday, has since drawn heavy criticism from certain quarters, including Muslim scholars. Religious scholar Ustaz Fathul Bari Mat Jahaya said ignorance was to blame for her statement. "I'm certain that she is ignorant, this is why she made such a statement. Her statement has clearly deviated from the maqasid syari'yyah and can be categorised as deviating from Islamic principles." "I feel she has been talking without sufficient religious knowledge. It is more honourable for her to retract the statement altogether without twisting it, as God is all merciful," he was quoted in Berita Harian today. Fathul Bari, who is also Umno Young Ulama (Ilmu) working committee secretariat chairman, said her statement goes against what has been repeated by Nurul Izzah's father, Opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim on maqasid syari'yyah or the key reasons why the Al-Quran was passed down, which are religion, mind, life, property and dignity. "Nurul Izzah should have referred to PAS ulama first. Even the Opposition leader himself always spoke about maqasid syari'yyah," he said. Fathul Bari said Nurul Izzah's statement could have implications on Muslims in the future, resulting in Muslims not placing religion as the most important subject, and steer towards pluralism ideology. "How can we say religion is free and open, or place Islam on the same level as other religions. If this happens, think of why Islam is enshrined in the constitution and what is the purpose of the Malay rulers," he said. Meanwhile, Puteri Umno chief Datuk Rosnah Abdul Rashid Shirlin said Nurul Izzah's statement can create unease within the Muslim community. "Imagine, even with enforcement, there are Muslims who become murtad. The situation will be worse if there is absolute freedom," she said. She said, in matters of faith, it is clearly stated that Muslims should do all they can to preserve Islam and not place it in a vulnerable position. Nurul Izzah, however, has since denied that she had trivialized the issue of Islamic faith and that she supported apostasy. The Lembah Pantai MP said she was disappointed that certain quarters were twisting her statements on the subject of religion being forced onto Muslims in Malaysia. She said she had attended a forum titled 'Islamic State: Which Version? Whose Responsibility?' as a panellist on Saturday. In the question and answer session, one of the questions posed to her was on the issue of Islam being imposed on Muslims. "My answer stressed on the phrase 'there is no compulsion in Islam'. This was taken from verse 256 of the Surah Al-Baqarah in the Al-Quran. The phrase applies to all mankind," she said. Nurul Izzah added that she holds firm to the belief that after embracing Islam, a Muslim is bound by Syariah law, just as how a citizen is bound by the Federal Constitution. "I am disappointed that there are efforts to twist my statement as if I had trivialised faith or easily accepted how Muslims can become apostates," she said, adding that she has always been supportive of educational programmes to strengthen one's faith and increase understanding of the religion. Malaysiakini had on Saturday quoted Nurul Izzah as saying that people should not be compelled to adopt a particular religion, with the same applying to Malays. "If you ask me, there is no compulsion in religion... how can anyone say sorry, this (religious freedom) only applies to non-Malays, it has to apply equally," she was quoted as saying. The report also quoted her as saying that her secondary school education, set amidst a Catholic school backdrop, did not influence her. "Even me, being schooled in Assunta (secondary school) with a huge cross in the hall and an active singing Catholic society did not influence me," she was quoted as saying. However, the report said she stopped short of saying that Malays should be legally granted religious freedom, saying: "I am, of course, tied to the prevailing views."

The al-Bukhary story: how it all began Posted: 29 Oct 2012 08:50 PM PDT   Tun Datu Haji Mustapha bin Datu Harun was the President of USNO and the third Chief Minister of Sabah. Tan Sri Syed Kechik Syed Mohamed was the Legal Adviser to Tun Datu Mustapha and the Director of Yayasan Sabah, the foundation that was set up as the trustee of the state's timber wealth. Syed Kechik's famous (or infamous) nephew cum son-in-law is Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Albukhary, another man of great controversy -- just like his father-in-law, Syed Kechik, and Syed Kechik's 'mentor', Tun Datu Mustapha. THE CORRIDORS OF POWER Raja Petra Kamarudin An embarrassment of business opportunities, political patronage and debts. The Syed Mokhtar al Bukhary story. CT Ali, Free Malaysia Today Syed Mokhtar al Bukhary is like a king? First it was FLOM and now it is SMIK? (Syed Mokhtar is King). What will our king have to say about this pretender to his throne who also happens to be a tycoon – something which our king is not. All this came from that MP from Kinabatangan, Bung Mokhtar Radin. The first question I want to ask of this Sabah Umno leader is why has he got his beady eyes trained on this Syed Mokhtar guy? I am no fan of Syed Mokhtar but why is Bung Mokhtar breaking ranks with Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak in the same way he did with Shahrizat Abdul Jalil – and you know what happened to Shahrizat after that. Or is Bung Mokhtar taking a position to the rear of Najib's unprotected left flank ready to do battle against Najib? Or has Syed Mokhtar done an Abdul Razak Baginda on Bung Mokhtar? Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Albukhary and Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad Remember what Razak Baginda did to Altantuya Shaariibuu? He did a runner on her once he was in the money! Did Syed Mokhtar not deliver on what he promised Bung Mokhtar? There may be loyalty amongst thieves but amongst politicians it is a scarce commodity. Today Najib, tomorrow Muhyiddin Yassin. Today one wife tomorrow two. This is the stuff Barisan Nasional MPs are made of… deceit, duplicity, greed, arrogance, large doses of libido and a misplaced self worth. But Bung Mokhtar's life is just a little sandiwara as opposed to the operatic saga that is Syed Mokhtar's. Is Syed Mokhtar too big to fail? I think the adage that when you owe the banks billions, your continued success in business is as much the banks' interest as it is yours rings true with Syed Mokhtar. READ MORE HERE: http://malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/special-reports/52437-the-al-bukhary-story (READ Umno's chief crony HERE) (READ The timber mafia is larger than you suspect HERE) ****************************************** Tun Datu Haji Mustapha bin Datu Harun Tun Datu Haji Mustapha bin Datu Harun was the President of the United Sabah National Organisation (USNO) and the third Chief Minister of Sabah from 12th May 1967 to 1st November 1975. He is considered by some as one of the founding leaders of Sabah and was an important party in the negotiations leading to the formation of Malaysia on 16th September 1963. In the first state election of 1967, USNO won 14 seats against UPKO's 12 and SCA's four. USNO then set up a state coalition government with SCA where combined they controlled 18 of the 30 seats. ****************************************** Tan Sri Syed Kechik Syed Mohamed Tan Sri Syed Kechik Syed Mohamed was the Legal Adviser to Sabah Chief Minister Tun Datu Haji Mustapha bin Datu Harun. On 15th June 1967, Syed Kechik was appointed the Director of Yayasan Sabah, the foundation that was set up as the trustee of the state's timber wealth. That was more or less the beginning of Sabah's 'timber politics' that prevails until today. Syed Kechik's famous (or infamous) nephew cum son-in-law is Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Albukhary, another man of great controversy -- just like his father-in-law, Syed Kechik, and Syed Kechik's 'mentor', Tun Datu Haji Mustapha. The rest of the story is self-explanatory. ****************************************** Muhyiddin Visits Tan Sri Syed Kechik's Grave (Bernama) — Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyidin Yassin on Saturday visited the grave of Syed Kechik Foundation chairman, Tan Sri Syed Kechik Syed Mohamed, who died of old age and was buried at the Al-Bukhary Mosque graveyard yesterday. Muhyiddin was accompanied by wife, Puan Sri Norainee Abdul Rahman Seri, and Al-Bukhary Foundation executive chairman Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Albukhary and his wife, Puan Sri Sharifah Zarah Al-Bukhary. Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Albukhary Syed Mokhtar, who is the late Syed Kechik's son-in-law, said his father-in-law, who was also his uncle, died at the age of 81 at 3.41pm in his house at Jalan Sultanah here yesterday. He said Syed Kechik served as legal adviser to then Sabah Chief Minister from 1968 until 1975 and was political secretary to then Information and Broadcasting Minister Datuk Senu Abdul Rahman from 1964 to 1965. Syed Kechik left behind a wife, Puan Sri Sofiah Abdullah, three children and 12 grand-children. ****************************************** Feud over Syed Kechik's millions goes to High Court (The Star) - The children of the late Tan Sri Syed Kechik Syed Mohamed Al-Bukhary have gone to court to fight over the RM400mil estate he left behind. The High Court granted an injunction applied by his two daughters – Sharifah Zarah and Sharifah Munira – to prevent their half-brother Syed Gamal from interfering in Syed Kechik Holdings Sdn Bhd's affairs yesterday. Syed Gamal, 45, who is Syed Kechik's only son from his first marriage, is not allowed to intervene in the administration, enter the premises and access the records and accounts of the company. Syed Gamal, the only male heir to the late Syed Kechik He is also barred from interfering in the duties of the company directors. The sisters, who are directors of the company, were not present but were represented by laywer Datuk Vijay Kumar. This is the second injunction granted by a court in the family saga that started after Syed Kechik's death last year. Syed Gamal had obtained an ex-parte injunction at the Syariah Court on Sept 14 to stop his 44% stake in the company from being sold or liquidated. Justice K. Anantham, who presided over the High Court case in his chambers at the Jalan Duta court complex here, ruled that the Syariah Court had no jurisdiction over the company because it is a corporate entity. Syed Gamal, who was with his cousin Syed Azman Syed Mansor Al-Bukhary, said his lawyers would appeal against the decision. "I will continue with my struggle to pursue my rights according to Faraid law. My rights have been denied almost all my life. This is not a struggle for myself but also for my family," he said when met outside the courtroom. Syed Gamal was represented by his three lawyers – Atan Mustaffa Yussof Ahmad, Az-mi Tan Sri Dr Mohd Rais and Zulkifli B.C. Yong. Syed Kechik died at the age of 81 on April 10 last year. His son-in-law is Al-Bukhary Foundation chairman Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Al-Bukhary. ****************************************** Syed Kechik's second wife, daughters lose appeal (Bernama) - The wife and two daughters of the late Tan Sri Syed Kechik Syed Mohamed Al-Bukhary failed in their appeal today to stop his (Syed Kechik's) son from his first marriage to be joint administrator of his RM400 million estate.  Justice Datuk Wira Low Hop Bing, leading a three-man Court of Appeal panel, ruled that the High Court had correctly given due regard to Syed Gamal's right to be co-administrator of his father's estate. He said it was the court's view that the acrimony between Syed Gamal and his stepmother Puan Sri Sofiah Moo Abdullah, 67, and his half-sisters Puan Sri Sharifah Zarah, 42, and Sharifah Munira, 44, was not a good ground to exclude Syed Gamal from being co-administrator of his father's estate. Low said allegations made by Sofiah and her daughters that Syed Gamal lacked knowledge of the father's business, that he (Syed Gamal) was a failed businessman in a T-shirt business and the subsequent sale of a Mercedes car by Syed Gamal were not valid grounds to remove his (Syed Gamal's) right to be considered for appointment as co-administrator. "Success and failure in life, business or any other activity is purely a matter of subjective judgment. Success is not final. Failure is not fatal. It is the courage to continue that counts," he said. The panel, which also comprised Court of Appeal judge Datuk Wira Abu Samah Nordin and High Court judge Datuk Azahar Mohamed, unanimously dismissed the appeal brought by Sofiah and her two daughters and upheld Judicial Commissioner Lee Swee Seng's decision given on July 30 last year that the late Syed Kechik's estate be jointly administered by his wife and three children. "In our view, section 30 of the Probate and Administration Act 1959 provides for the entitlement of all persons who are interested in the estate to be appointed administrators of deceased's estate. "We are unable to identify any error on the part of the Judicial Commissioner in appointing all appellants (Sofiah, Sharifah Zarah and Sharifah Munira) and respondent (Syed Gamal) as co-administrators of the deceased's estate," Low said. The panel ordered Sofiah and her daughters to pay legal costs of RM40,000 to Syed Gamal. Syed Gamal, 46, a cyber-cafe owner, is Syed Kechik's only son from his first marriage to Zainab alias Eshah Abdullah. The feud over the estate began after Syed Kechik died of heart disease on April 10, 2009 at the age of 80 without leaving a will. Syed Kechik was the father-in-law of Al-Bukhary Foundation chairman Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Al-Bukhary, a billionaire listed as one of the richest people in the country. On September 15, 2009, Sofiah and her daughters petitioned the court for a letter of administration to the estate. On April 14 last year, Syed Gamal filed a caveat to stop his stepmother and half-sisters from being appointed sole administrators of his late father's estate. ****************************************** Kumpulan Syed Kechik Sendirian Berhad Kumpulan Syed Kechik Sendirian Berhad is the flagship corporation of the Kumpulan Syed Kechik Group of Companies with diverse interests in multifarious industries incubated and nurtured by Tan Sri Syed Kechik Bin Syed Mohamed Rahmat Al-Bukhary over the past three decades and more. 1. Nira Sendirian Berhad owns and manages its signature corporate address, the Syed Kechik Foundation Building (picture above). 2. Budiman Sendirian Berhad owns and manages Wisma Budiman. 3. Pasar Borong Development Sendirian Berhad holds vast prime lands situated along busy Jalan Ipoh. It also owns and manages a complete block of dual frontage four storey shop offices comprising thirteen (13) units at Block 28, Jalan 6/3A, Bandar Utara. 4. Castlefield Development Sendirian Berhad owns a choice plot of over two acres of commercial land in Puchong, Selangor. 5. Tenaga Minyak Corporation Sendirian Berhad owns and manages five adjoining premium dual frontage four-storey shop offices at Block 7, Jalan 2/3A, Bandar Utara. 6. Taman Melanti Sendirian Berhad owns fully refurbished units of Double Storey Shop Houses, Double Storey Terrace Houses and Single Storey Terrace Houses in the developed, mature and vibrant neighbourhood of Taman Seri Kluang. http://www.kskgroup.com.my/

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