Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- The Ignorant Muslims In Ruins
- A monkey like Fernandez
- His Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition
- Some States Allow For The Renunciation Of Islam
- Pesakit kanser wajar berehat atau direhatkan
- Clear and present danger?
- Daughters & Fathers
- Presiden UMNO sendiri pernah berkata "Allow Muslims to convert if they choose to"..
- Do you have licence from God to lord over us, Nash?
- Once a Muslim, always a Muslim
| Posted: 13 Nov 2012 04:26 PM PST Brader Anon, this is not about the Egyptians eating grass or eating sand alone. The Pyramids have been standing there from before the time of Islam or Christianity. Jesus Christ and the christians did not destroy them. Neither did the Prophet of Islam or the Caliphs who came after the time of the Prophet. If there was a need to destroy them, surely Jesus Christ or the Prophet would have advocated destroying them. That did not happen. Are you cleverer than the Prophet of Islam or the Caliphs of Islam about whom you are so proud? Why didn't the Rasul destroy or break these ancient ruins that are found not just in Egypt but also in many other places in Jordan, Arabia, Syria, Yemen and elsewhere? You must ask yourself this question. Why didn't the Rasul break these ancient ruins? The answer lies in the following verses in the Quran :
After the people of Lot were destroyed, some of the ruins or signs (ayat) of their existence were left standing as a profound lesson for people who understand. So we should visit and study the ruins of the past generations to understand what happened to the previous generations. This is called archeology, history, social anthropology and such. Also known as using your brains. Unfortunately the Muslims like you are very short in this area. Brains are a rare commodity. If you go and destroy the pyramids, then how are you going to study what happened in the past? Also you do not know your own Quran. Hence you talk stupid. When you dont know the Quran and you dont believe in the Quran you have no choice - you will become stupid. Here are a few more verses from the Quran : [29:38] Similarly, 'Aad and Thamoud (were annihilated). This is made clear to you through their ruins. The devil had adorned their works in their eyes, and had diverted them from the path, even though they had eyes. Again the ruins of the Aad and the Thamood people were made clear to the Rasul. The devil had adorned their works in their eyes - and consequently the Aad and the Thamood met with disaster. So we have to travel and see the ruins of the past like that of the Aad and the Thamodd to see what happens to people who do not use their brains. Here is another verse in the Quran that talks about observing ancient ruins : [28:58] Many a community we annihilated for turning unappreciative of their lives (wealth). Consequently, here are their homes, nothing but uninhabited ruins after them, except a few. We were the inheritors. So again we must visit and study the dwellings and the ruins of the past societies and see what happened to them when they turned unappreciative of their own lives, their wealth and comforts. We must study them. You can only study them if you preserve them. 20:128 Does it ever occur to them how many previous generations we have annihilated? They are now walking in the homes of those before them. These are signs for those who possess intelligence. 32:26 Does it ever occur to them how many generations we have annihilated before them? They now live and walk in their ancestors' homes. This should provide sufficient proofs. Do they not hear? Some people still live and walk in the dwellings of their previous generations who were destroyed - because of their ignorance and their arrogance. So you may even live in the ruins of your grandfathers. Easier for you to realise the mistake made by your grandparents.
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: 13 Nov 2012 04:13 PM PST I don't know who Derek Fernandez is trying to attack with his remarks - the Federal government run by his political foes or the Malaysian Civil Service - but I know it's uncalled for. I also know there are just too many monkeys like him around. Orang Melayu panggil perangai macam ni kurang ajar. PJ mayor 'promoted', says Ali Hamsa MONDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2012 - 17:42 by Terence Fernandez THE transfer of Petaling Jaya City Council (MBPJ) Mayor Datuk Mohamad Roslan Sakiman to the State Secretariat is a promotion. Chief Secretary to the government Datuk Seri Ali Hamsa attempted to clear the air over the controversial transfer saying that it was not a lateral transfer as suggested by certain parties. "We are promoting him to a higher position. He will head the State Economic Planning Unit (UPEN)," Ali told The Malay Mail. "We had spoken to the mayor and he feels the move to the State will be good for him as it is a promotion with more benefits," Ali said, adding that several candidates had been identified to take over from Mohamad Roslan, who is scheduled to be appointed deputy state secretary (development) on Dec 1. Councillor Derek Fernandez said while MBPJ was against a lateral move by the Public Services Department (PSD), it would have no objection if it was a promotion that would benefit Mohamad Roslan. However, he insisted that the choice of mayor, including Mohamad Roslan's transfer must be on the endorsement of the state. "If what the chief secretary said is true, then it is good for Mohamad Roslan. "If he is moving up to a Superscale B (from the present Superscale C) then it is good for him," he said. However, he said with regards to the federal authorities' list of successors, "let's see who the candidates are. If they are going to nominate some monkeys, we will reject."
| ||||||||||||||
| His Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition Posted: 13 Nov 2012 03:26 PM PST According to him, that situation worsened with an increasing population as it would render the individual's voice even more insignificant. It was a prognosis that called for a 'papa knows best' remedy, wakakaka. Until recent times, national strongmen (to borrow Josh Hong's term in his criticisms of Dr Mahathir Mohamad), especially though not exclusively those in Asia's SE Asian and Far East regions (with the possible exception of a US controlled and democracy-indoctrinated Japan) took on the role of 'papa' who knew best. We are more familiar with the strongmen of our own SE Asian region, blokes and blokesses like Dr Mahathir, Lee Kuan Yew, Suharto, Sihanouk, and the oligarchy in the Philippines - am leaving out the communist and military dictatorships in Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar and until recently Thailand (and f* Brunei, wakakaka).
Probably the Malaysian votes for 'Top Papa' would go down to the wire between (Tun) Dr Mahathir and (Knight of The Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, wakakaka) Lee Kuan Yew or Sir Harry*. * The British knighthood system is weird in that by convention the knighted person is addressed by his personal name rather than his surname, eg. Sir Cliff for Cliff Richard, Sir Sean for Sean Connery, thus Sir Harry (Lee Kuan Yew's western name) or if you like, Sir Kuan Yew. I personally feel that the title of 'Top Papa' should go to Sir Harry (Lee Kuan Yew) because he was more "innovative" than our own Dr Mahathir, in his Singapore variant of Westminster democracy, as follows:
In 1984 Singapore had a constitutional amendment which allocated the opposition with a minimum of 3 seats in Parliamentary regardless of whether it won those seats or not. However,the member occupying those (awarded) seats were not allowed to vote in the new Parliament. It was a fortunate constitutional amendment because after the results of the Singapore 1988 elections were announced, there was only one opposition MP, namely Chiam See Tong of the Democratic Party. The embarrassment for Sir Kuan Yew's majority ruling PAP was that it won 80 out of 81 seats with just 61.8% of the votes. Alamak, just one opposition MP to show for 40% of the Island State's votes? Thank goodness, the 1984 constitutional amendment allowed Parliament to top up the opposition numbers to a more though superficially respectful 3, but in real terms, only one had voting rights in Parliament. But those face saving (for Singapore's democracy) seats didn't provide legal immunity for their occupants. Indeed after that election, Lee Siew Choh (Workers' Party) and Francis Seow respectively faced legal damages for comments (Lee) made about PAP during the 1984 election and trial for (Seow's) alleged tax evasion.
Anyway, my post is more about what Westminster democracy termed His/Her Majesty's "Most Loyal Opposition". John Cam Hobhouse, 1st Baron Broughton, was credited with this term in 1826 when he attacked George Canning, the Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons, stating: "It is said to be hard on His Majesty's Ministers to raise objections of this character but it is more hard on His Majesty's Opposition to compel them to take this course." In mature Westminster democracies such as in Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the Opposition Leader of Her Majesty's "Most Loyal Opposition" is picked from the political party (after the ruling party) with the largest number of seats and who, traditionally, comes from the Lower House (Dewan Rakyat).
Our current federal Opposition Leader was originally an unelected person but who is now a MP though not from a political party (after the ruling party) with the largest number of seats in Dewan Rakyat, wakakaka. But I must admit his selection has been by consensus among the Pakatan allies. The Opposition Leader in mature western democracies is treated as the PM-in-waiting and accordingly, provided with all the privileges/perks such as salary/allowance/staff and status, meeting foreign dignities (together with or separately from the PM) and being briefed on intelligence and national security issues. The Canadian Leader of the Opposition even has an official residence in the capital, known as Stornoway.
| ||||||||||||||
| Some States Allow For The Renunciation Of Islam Posted: 13 Nov 2012 03:18 PM PST One should distinguish between what the Islamic law in some States is from what it ought to be. This post is about the former, not the latter. In Perlis, Selangor, Perak, Penang, Malacca and Negeri Sembilan, the relevant State laws provide that the Syariah High Court shall in its civil jurisdiction, hear and determine actions and proceedings that relate to, among others, a declaration that a person is no longer a Muslim and/or a declaration that a deceased person was a Muslim or otherwise at the time of his death. See:
In Johore, section 141(2), Enactment No. 14/1978 (wef 16.2.1979) is a mandatory provision wider in scope than those of the aforesaid States and reads as follows: Read more at: http://www.loyarburok.com/2012/11/13/states-renunciation-islam/
| ||||||||||||||
| Pesakit kanser wajar berehat atau direhatkan Posted: 12 Nov 2012 12:40 PM PST Seperti pengidap kanser, ia akan selalu berusaha untuk mengubati penyakit yang merbahaya itu, tetapi akhirnya tubuh akan mati juga. Pesakit dan pengidap kanser akan melakukan apa sahaja untuk berubat samada menggunakan ubat tradisi atau ubat-ubat moden di hospital-hospital. Selalunya pesakit kanser akan berbuat apa sahaja untuk meneruskan kehidupan. Jika ada yang memberikan nasihat untuk pergi ke tempat-tempat di mana-mana sahaja untuk berubat pesakit atau penjaganya akan pergi untuk memberikan harapan untuk terus hidup. Tetapi akhirnya pesakit-pesakit kanser yang sudah pulih itu hanya mengalami pemulihan sementara sahaja dan akhirnya mereka akan mengakhiri kalamnya kerana penyakit itu juga. Tetapi saya tidak menafikan yang ada yang selamat sehingga satu jangka yang lama (dengan izin Allah), tetapi lambat launnya pesakit itu akan meninggal kerana penyakit itu. Begitu jugalah UMNO. UMNO telah mengidap penyakit ini agak lama, tetapi oleh kerana UMNO ini parti kaya-raya dan dipimpin oleh semua pemimpin-pemimpin yang 'kaya baru' maka hayatnya telah dapat di sambung kerana yang kaya selalunya akan dapat berubat dan pergi terbang ke seluruh pelusuk dunia untuk berubat. Penyakit kanser UMNO ini sebenar nya sudah lama kerana ramai yang berpendapat ia mula merebak sejak pemerintahan Dr Mahathir. Tetapi UMNO mampu berubat kerana kekayaan pemimpin-pemimpinnya maka UMNO dapatlah untuk terus hidup sampai ke pilihanraya 2008 dahulu walaupun tanda-tanda kematian sudah jelas nampak apabila hilang majoriti 2/3 di Dewan Legislatif Parlimen. Tetapi seperti yang saya katakan tadi, yang akan membunuh UMNO itu ialah penyakit kanser yang di hidapi selama ini juga. Sebagai pesakit kanser seseorang itu terpaksa berbelanja besar untuk membeli ubat dan membeli 'supplement' yang mahal-mahal untuk menyekat kemaraan penyakit kanser itu. Maka kita sedang melihat bagaimana UMNO terpaksa berbelanja besar untuk merawat penyakit yang di hidapinya itu. Najib terpaksa ke hulu ke hilir serta mundar mandir ke darat dan ke baruh untuk memanjangkan usia parti yang sedang menghadapi penyakit yang serius itu. Sekali Najib melawat jutaan wang ringgit dibelanjakan dan semuanya ini adalah wang rakyat. Seperti yang saya katakan peruntukan besar terpaksa di adakan untuk membeli segala 'supplement' yang di katakan baik untuk mengekang penyakit ini dari merebak.
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: 11 Nov 2012 07:36 PM PST Many Malaysians surely must be sick to death – I know I am – of the latest ploy by hateful people, many within this regime, to split this country even further, to cultivate distrust at a time when they themselves have lost the trust of the people. I am talking, of course, of this pathetic 'strategy' of churning out one bogeyman after another to frighten Malaysians, especially Muslims, presumably in the forlorn hope that we will all run back into the exploitative arms of this regime and its underlings. Nasharuddin Mat Isa's latest diatribe and Utusan Malaysia's latest sojourn into the realm of lies and fantasy are illustrative of this desperation. First, Utusan, not for the first time, in its Sunday edition, Mingguan Malaysia, brings up the topic of the Christian community and talks about a couple of Malaysia's top church leaders apparently criticising Penang Chief Minister, Lim Guan Eng. The report, titled 'Jangan heret gereja' (Do not drag the Church [into politics], quotes two top church leaders as apparently reacting negatively to an earlier call by Lim. Lim's call, at a dialogue with about 300 church leaders, was for the church to stand up against injustice and to build a better community. Nothing wrong there, I would think. Indeed, if we were to recall the work of the liberation theologians in Latin America and even in Marcos's Philippines, these church leaders were certainly right out there fighting injustice. Closer to home, Father Paulino Miranda, parish priest of the only Catholic church in Shah Alam, comes to mind. Islam, too, is resplendent with tales of leaders and scholars speaking out, even rising up, against injustice and tyranny. Among the more 'acceptable' scholars in Malaysia, Perlis mufti Dr Juanda Jaya and USM Islamic scholar Dr Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin, have indeed spoken out against wrongdoing and misrule, Asri famously speaking up for street demonstrators awhile back. Be that as it may, certainly in an attempt to make Lim look bad and, perhaps, in an attempt to emphasise to the Christian community – can you imagine anyone from that community reading Utusan? – that they should keep their houses of worship free of politics, the paper paraded this nonsense on their front page last Sunday. But, of course, the church leaders have now come out openly to say that they had said no such thing, that they were misrepresented and that the report "is a complete lie". In response, quite predictably if I may say so, Utusan's reporter comes out, guns blazing, saying that she stands by her story. It is a mere coincidence, I'm sure, that she should say this a day after the two church leaders reportedly said they would not take legal action against the rag because they had other things to do. No apology, no retraction So, it looks as though there will be no apology, no retraction, by the paper since, from past experience, these niceties only happen when such disputes end up in court. This doesn't say much, of course, about the integrity of the paper and its reporter. But we must remember that this is the same rag whose deputy chief editor not so long ago declared that the paper is willing to 'spin the truth'. Nasharuddin's recent outburst also concerns the Church and Christians. His is a more toxic, hate-filled accusation that Sarawak DAP had "held prayers seeking the formation of a Christian state during its thanksgiving dinner after the 2011 Sarawak state elections". For him, "this was a strategy being planned by Allah's enemies". His is a nasty presentation that could easily be seen as attempting to drive a wedge between the political parties in Pakatan, especially the DAP and Pas, and also between their members and supporters. At a wider level, it certainly seems like an pathetic attempt to drive a wedge between Muslims and Christians in Malaysia. It is the latest in a long line of conspiracy 'theories' hatched by irresponsible, certainly divisive, people and parties uncaring about the implications of their outbursts. Rightly, both Muslim and Christian leaders have come out to speak up against Nasharuddin's unsubstantiated and, for me, despicable, allegation. However, I believe that the rest of us too need to speak out against these hateful allegations that are manifestly untrue.
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: 11 Nov 2012 03:09 PM PST
Josh Hong is one of my fave columnists at Malaysiakini. I've been following his articles for several years, enjoying his generally astute grasp of international politics. However, I have not blindly agreed with everything he wrote. For example, in January 2005 I disagreed with some points in one of his MKINI articles Chinese racism - not quite in a nutshell. In that very well written article, while I agreed/agree with his observations that some Chinese have what I termed as a boorish 'Middle-Kingdom' mentality, I believed (still do) that he was incorrect in querying (surprised?) that China's humiliation at the hands of western powers in the 19th Century did not affect the Chinese perception of their grandiose civilization, which according to Hong's line of argument, perhaps might not have been so grandiose after all .
In a letter to MKINI I stated my disagreement with Josh's contention on the following points: An English anthropologist, Edward Burnett Tylor, described 'civilization' as synonymous to 'culture', which he termed as that complex whole including knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society. Also, UNESCO defines 'culture' similarly as a set of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features of society or a social group and that it encompasses, in addition to art and literature, lifestyles, ways of living together, value systems, traditions and beliefs. Therefore, regardless of the fact that China was defeated pitifully in its military encounters with the western powers or a technologically more advanced Japan during World War II, the greater body of Chinese 'civilization' would remain largely intact as it must have, …
… though of course like all values and norms that come into contact with foreign culture, they would evolve naturally to eventually change the greater whole. Now, whether this [change] was fast or significant enough for Josh's liking remains subjective. However, what we may say with some certainty is that Chinese ego after a serious of military humiliations and foreign occupation would be considerably dented, but a crushed conceit or flattened arrogance would be quite different to their awareness/perception of their magnificent 5000-year old civilization.
The Chinese would in all probability be banging their head hard against the walls, lamenting wailfully how in the f*, given their great civilization and thus supposed 'superiority', they had come to be so defeated ... and not surprisingly, might have even blamed it all on that nebulous feng shui thingy, wakakaka.
If we look at the great civilizations of Greece, Rome and Egypt, which in turn were invaded and severely defeated by other nations or even nomadic hordes through the ages, the depth, durability and indeed grandiosity of their civilizations have never been in question, and exist till today (through assimilation) in the civilizations of modern European and American nations. Indeed Western philosophy, politics, culture, arts, and science can trace their origins to Greece while we know that western laws draw heavily from Roman law, even preserving many of its Latin terms. While Rome had considered Greece as its model, the latter in turn viewed Egypt as their spiritual and cultural example.
I had (then) stated that Josh might have been confused between Chinese civilization and Chinese pride. While the latter is influenced by the former, the former is not necessarily by the latter. Thus the former would remain intact even if the latter might have been dented. Now, whether one should consider Chinese civilization as grandiose would be also another subjective issue, but in this regard I believe there is already virtually universal acceptance (especially in learned/academic circles) it has been so. However, as an associated item of interest (related to another of Josh's remarks), the Japanese, who denigrated the Chinese shockingly as sub-humans (as the Nazis had termed the Jews, and the Israelis had termed the Palestinians), had no compunction about adopting the Chinese language as its own. It is suggested that half the Japanese vocabulary are of Chinese origin. Even the name Japan or Nihon consists of 2 Chinese characters.
A curious trivia in the shared language has been the Japanese adopting or inheriting the Chinese's superstition in the utterance of the word '4', pronounced as sì in both languages (in the 4th tone in Chinese), a taboo-word on auspicious occasion. According to the Chinese dictionary, there are 15 different words pronounced as si of which 9 are in the 1st tone, 1 in the 3rdth tone. Because the one in the 3rd tone, which means 'die' or 'death', is almost similar in pronunciation to the word '4' (4th tone), its utterance is studiously avoided during auspicious occasions like weddings, birthdays, New Year period (15 days), etc. tone and five in the 4. But the Japanese easily and cleverly avoid the taboo by resorting to an indigenous Japanese word for '4', namely yon. But nonetheless the avoidance indicates the Japanese inheriting Chinese belief (culture).
Thus Japanese culture borrowed heavily from and adopted Chinese culture. Another interesting item is that the Japanese monarchy continues until today the tradition of having a Chinese name for a newborn baby. Crown Prince Naruhito and Crown Princess Masako named their daughter with a Chinese name, Aiko. Most Chinese would recognize the words Ai and ko.
This practice stems from medieval times when the refined Chinese language was largely (and only) spoken by Japanese royalty, nobility and the cultured. Josh had an interesting theory on why Chinese harbour a latent and seldom discussed animosity towards the Japanese – he believes the Chinese detested and still detest the Japanese because they couldn't accept being beaten by a barbarian race of dwarfs. Well, I didn't agree with his way out theory because matey, being brutalized, raped, tortured and massacred by the Japanese during the last war were terrible and hateful enough without worrying about Chinese-Japanese comparative culture or the enemy's anatomical measurement.
I then riposted with my theory as to why the Japanese were unusually feral with the Chinese, calling them sub-humans and showing no bounds to their bloody barbaric brutal savagery, horrendously demonstrated in the most primitive genocidal fashion in Nanjing – the Japanese could not accept being culturally beholden to the 'weak man' of East Asia, thus they strove to erase completely from their consciousness and physical presence this reminder of their embarrassing cultural womb. The Japanese atrocities merely demonstrate that while Chinese racism is real and regrettable it is not unique. Now, why have I brought out more than 7-year old response to Josh's earlier article today? I want to disagree again with a few points in Josh's latest article in Malaysiakini 'Daughter of a strongman'. Josh wrote about Park Geun-hye, the daughter of daughter of Park Chung-hee, the military strongman who oversaw the most spectacular transformation of an economic backwater into an industrial powerhouse in the 1960s through the 1970s. Ms Park aspires to be President of Korea but when confronted with revelations of corruption by her aides, she saw her initially comfortable lead in the presidential race chipped off, and was (as Josh wrote) "… forced into a corner, she had no option but to publicly apologise for all the wrongdoings committed by the state during her father's economically miraculous but politically oppressive rule."
Josh was obviously attempting to draw a parallel between Ms Park and Marina Mahathir – namely, daughter of strong powerful father who ruled their respective nation with a strong hand and had forcefully dragged their societies into the 21st Century. Park has apologized for her father's oppressive rule, why hasn't Marina? In encapsulating the essence of his article with the sub-title 'Mahathir at the centre of Malaysian malaise', Josh queried Marina: In her recent interview in Singapore, Marina Mahathir talked candidly about what she considers has gone wrong in Malaysia: the education system, censorship, money politics and the resort to sex in the political scene. I am certain her views as such echo Malaysian public sentiments, but in choosing to downplay her father's influence in her position today, I cannot help regretting that she is still not facing up to the realities. I'm not aware that Marina had "downplay her father's influence" or that "she is not facing up to realities".
I'm disappointed with Josh for wanting an Asian child to publicly criticize her (or his) parents, especially as Josh was educated in the Chinese medium which includes Confucian teachings. For a start, Marina cannot be equated to Park Geun-hye. Marina is NOT a politician nor is seeking political office, whilst the latter is and thus found it politically expedient to do so. Josh also wrote: Hence, how can Marina Mahathir simply dismiss her father's political impact on the nation by saying "often people made me feel I had to be responsible for everything he did", and "sometimes I became the surrogate for criticism"? Pray tell me how or where in those words quoted from her, has she dismissed her father's political impact on the nation? My dear Josh, your argument/logic has gone off cocked. Marina was just saying how or why should she have a need to explain or apologize for any unhappiness/dissatisfaction towards her dad, or for that matter, feel any responsibility for his actions?
| ||||||||||||||
| Presiden UMNO sendiri pernah berkata "Allow Muslims to convert if they choose to".. Posted: 11 Nov 2012 01:27 PM PST Utusan Malaysia ataupun Lidah Rasmi UMNO berhempas pulas memutarbelitkan kenyataan Nurul Izzah Anwar. Ia berdasarkan soalan yang diajukan oleh Siti Kasim, seorang yang dilaporlan penganut Kristian berketurunan Orang Asli berhubung ayat suci Al Quran, Surah Al-Baqarah, ayat 256 berhubung konsep 'Tidak ada paksaan dalam agama (Islam)….' Question: "When you speak about freedom of religion, are you actually applying to the Malays as well? Thanks." Read more at: http://darisungaiderhaka.blogspot.com/2012/11/kata-pak-lah-pada-tahun-2007-allow.html#more
| ||||||||||||||
| Do you have licence from God to lord over us, Nash? Posted: 10 Nov 2012 03:59 PM PST Literally, too, if you wished, and no one could fault you if you imagined Moses walking up to Pharaoh and saying, "I am your Lord. Do as I bid you do". I had wanted to stay away from this whole apostasy controversy sparked off by Nurul's statements at a recent forum as we have bigger and more important battles to fight, but Malaysiakini's report today really pissed me off. This UMNO wolf in PAS sheepskin contends that what Nurul said about there being ' "no compulsion in religion" was tantamount to giving religious freedom to Malay Muslims as the verse which she quoted can only be applied to non-Muslims'. The verse can only be applied to non-Muslims? Let's look at the verse again. "There shall be no compulsion in religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in idols and believes in God has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And God is Hearing and Knowing" – Chapter 2 verse 256, Holy Qur'an. Now. like the verse in Exodus, you can read this in many ways, too, but if you're not going to do a literal read, Nash, and read into it something that's not there, you, oh scholarly one, ought to be mindful of this verse. "So woe to those who write with their own hands, then say, "This is from God ," in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn" – Chapter 2 verse 79, Holy Qur'an. Whilst we're on the scriptures, oh scholarly one, since you say Muslims have no choice, pray tell us, who was God addressing in the following verses, marked in red? "And whoever desires other than Islam as religion, never will it be accepted from him, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers. How shall God guide a people who disbelieved after their belief and had witnessed that the Messenger is true and clear signs had come to them? And God does not guide the wrongdoing people. For those, their recompense will be that upon them is the curse of God and the angels and the people, all together, abiding eternally therein. The punishment will not be lightened for them, nor will they be reprieved. Except for those who repent after that and correct themselves. For indeed, God is Forgiving and Merciful. Indeed, those who reject the message after their belief and then increase in disbelief – never will their feigned repentance be accepted, and they are the ones astray" – Chapter 3, verses 85 to 90, Holy Qur'an. Who, oh scholarly one, is God addressing in the words marked in red? Seems to me that God was addressing those who had believed and bore witness to the Holy Prophet (pbuh) and then were now professing unbelief. No?
| ||||||||||||||
| Once a Muslim, always a Muslim Posted: 10 Nov 2012 02:21 PM PST The timing of Dr. Marzuki's assertions of course fits a larger strategy undertaken by the ruling party: to use religion as a wedge between Muslims and non-Muslims in general, but also between the parties in the opposition coalition, especially the Islamist PAS, and the social democrats, DAP. Islam is also of course used to ensure compliance, and to stifle dissent. Having next to nothing to rely on: suffering from massive deficits on the leadership and policy front, and with an increasingly debilitating track record in the economic, social and political front, this is indeed a sound strategy as there are sufficient number of Malaysians, and especially Malaysian Muslims to fall for this – that UMNO is the protector and the guarantor of the sanctity of Islam. To paraphrase and slightly modify Samuel Johnson, "religion is indeed the last refuge of a scoundrel." Another ANU alumnus, Dr. Kikue Hamayotsu, give credence to the argument that Islam is used simply as a means to ensure the continuation of this corrupt regime. In her article, she argues that:
|
| 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 | |
0 ulasan:
Catat Ulasan