Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Let the pictures do the talking
Relative to time and place
By whose interpretation?
Touché
The trouble with mother-tongue education
I believe, hence I am right
When different yardsticks are applied
Self-righteous and high and mighty
It’s the result, not the problem
Behind the veil of hypocrisy

Posted: 02 Sep 2012 02:39 PM PDT

Many accuse me of being cheong hei. Well, today I am not going to write anything. Instead I am just going to show you some pictures and see if you are smart enough to get the message. If not then never mind.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Relative to time and place

Posted: 01 Sep 2012 05:52 PM PDT

Hence we are no different now than we were hundreds of years ago. We pick and choose as to what is right/moral and what is wrong/immoral. We discard religion and apply 'modern standards' for some things (such as slavery and age of consent) but in other matters we use religion as the standard (such as what religion you must follow).

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Can we be good without God? At first the answer to this question may seem so obvious that even to pose it arouses indignation. For while those of us who are Christian theists undoubtedly find in God a source of moral strength and resolve which enables us to live lives that are better than those we should live without Him, nevertheless it would seem arrogant and ignorant to claim that those who do not share a belief in God do not often live good moral lives--indeed, embarrassingly, lives that sometimes put our own to shame.

But wait. It would, indeed, be arrogant and ignorant to claim that people cannot be good without belief in God. But that was not the question. The question was: can we be good without God? When we ask that question, we are posing in a provocative way the meta-ethical question of the objectivity of moral values. Are the values we hold dear and guide our lives by mere social conventions akin to driving on the left versus right side of the road or mere expressions of personal preference akin to having a taste for certain foods or not? Or are they valid independently of our apprehension of them, and if so, what is their foundation? Moreover, if morality is just a human convention, then why should we act morally, especially when it conflicts with self-interest? Or are we in some way held accountable for our moral decisions and actions?

Today I want to argue that if God exists, then the objectivity of moral values, moral duties, and moral accountability is secured, but that in the absence of God, that is, if God does not exist, then morality is just a human convention, that is to say, morality is wholly subjective and non-binding. We might act in precisely the same ways that we do in fact act, but in the absence of God, such actions would no longer count as good (or evil), since if God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. Thus, we cannot truly be good without God. On the other hand, if we do believe that moral values and duties are objective, that provides moral grounds for believing in God.

Dr. William Lane Craig

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

That was just three paragraphs of a long thesis by Dr. William Lane Craig, which I had to read for my Philosophy of Religion course. Basically, we were going through the various arguments to support the belief regarding the existence of God and one of those arguments was that God certainly has to exist since God is the source of morality. Hence, since morality exists then God definitely has to exist.

Hence, also, we know what is right and what is wrong because God 'tells' us what is right and what is wrong (or implants in us the notion of right and wrong) and if there were no God then we would not know what is right and what is wrong. (Note: this is just one of the various arguments that theists use to support the view that God exists).

In my essay, I disagreed with this 'popular' view based on the argument that right and wrong are relative to time and place and are dynamic, not static. In other words, the definition of right and wrong changes over time and over regions. There would certainly be a very long list of examples to emphasis this point but let us take just a few. Slavery would be one example. At one time slavery was considered right anywhere in the world. Today, slavery is considered wrong, but only is some parts of the world.

Do you know that as recent as just before Merdeka slavery still existed in Malaya? I am not going to go into details lest I embarrass certain members of the Royal Family but just let me summarise it by saying that many of my 'adopted cousins' would be considered slaves by western standards (and I emphasis 'western standards')?

In fact, J.W.W. Birch, the first British Resident of Perak, was killed in Pasir Salak on 2nd November 1875 because of his opposition to slavery. Birch had attempted to ban slave trading in Perak and the slave traders, basically the elite of the Perak ruling hierarchy, got rid of him.

It took another 100 years before slavery really ended and I was already around to see it before it ended. No doubt this is never discussed (for obvious reasons) and Malaysians generally are not aware of this scourge. And it was not just the Malays who were guilty of this; let me assure you of that.

The point I want to make, though, is that slavery, which is considered wrong, would only be wrong depending on the time and place you happened to be living in. So, are you sure that wrong is wrong? Could it not actually be right? And does right become wrong only because you happen to live in a certain region and in a certain time and that if you lived somewhere else and in another time this would be right rather than wrong?

Hence, my conclusion in the essay which I wrote was that right and wrong is relative. And since it is relative, how can morality come from God? If morality came from God then it would not change over time and region. It would be static, not dynamic. So, if you use morality to argue the existence of God, then God cannot exist because morality does not exist.

Now, when I say 'morality does not exist' I mean it in the sense that what is moral to one person may be immoral to another. Having four wives would be considered immoral, as would be the case for keeping mistresses. But that would only be immoral now, and in western society. In Muslim countries, for example, that is not immoral. So, again, time and place decides what is moral and what is immoral.

Take the definition of children, as another example. A couple of hundreds of years ago, 'children' were those who had not reached puberty yet (or girls who are yet to get their period). In 1212, tens of thousands of boys and girls aged 9-13 were sent to the Crusades. (Read 'La croisade des enfants' [The Children's Crusade] 1896, by Marcel Schwob).

Today, these 9-13-year old boys and girls are considered children but back then they were adults and old enough to be sent to fight against the Muslims. Incidentally, none of them returned home.

Hence even the definition of children changed over time and place and today sex with a 13-year old girl is considered a crime (immoral) because at 13 she is classified as still a child. In the past, though, at 13, a girl was not only old enough to get married but also old enough (moral) to be sent to war and to die for Christ.

But times have changed. Today we no longer use religion's definition of adult to classify children as adults. Today we use man-made laws and not God's law to define adults as those above 18 while those below 18 are considered still children -- although in the past a girl of 18 would be considerer too old and her chances of getting a husband at that age would be reduced drastically.

I am okay with that, though. I realise that slavery is now no-go and adults would legally be those above 18 (even though slavery is still legal in Islam). No longer can we use old standards and yardsticks. All those old values used to determine morality need to be discarded in favour of modern standards.

My only question is why is this limited to just some things? In the past, children of 13 were considered adults and at the same time children had to follow the religion of their parents. If they did not they would be killed as apostates. Apostasy, in short, was punishable by death.

Today, we ban the practice of classifying 13-year olds as adults. You need to be 18 to be an adult (in England, you can't even buy cigarettes and liquor). But we do not ban the practice of forcing children to follow the religion of their parents. Children must follow the religion of their parents or would otherwise be punished.

So, when you say this is right or that is wrong, or this is moral and that is immoral, whose standard are you applying? My standard? Your standard? Society's standard? Religious standard? Western standard? Constitutional standard? Which one?

You argue one point using one standard and another point using a different standard. You decide right and wrong and moral and immoral using what you believe to be right/moral or wrong/immoral. And you expect me to lead my life according to the standards you have drawn up.

If we wish to set certain standards and pass a law that 13 is no longer the age of consent and that an adult is someone who is 18 that is acceptable to me. In fact, that may be good. We redefine right/wrong and moral/immoral. But we should not stop there. There are many other so-called wrongs and immoralities that also need to be addressed.

And one such 'old value' that is just as outdated as classifying 13-year olds as adults is to use religious values to interfere in how I wish to lead my life. That is as outdated as sending 9-13 year olds to die in a war or to get them married off before they reach 15-16 and thus become too old to get married.

By whose interpretation?

Posted: 29 Aug 2012 06:42 PM PDT

Why does the age of the person determine which court has jurisdiction over cases involving illicit sex or zina? Do you mean to tell me that if you are not yet 18 then you are not yet a Muslim? Only when you reach 18 you become a Muslim? Can those under 18, therefore, drink and eat pork and go to church since you are not yet a Muslim and the Sharia court has no power over you until you touch 18?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

You may have noticed that I have not written a thing regarding former national youth squad bowler Noor Afizal Azizan's statutory rape case.

First of all, I thought that since every man and his dog was already talking about it you don't really need me to comment as well. I mean it is not quite the untold story that I normally like to dabble in. It is more like the 'over-told' story.

Furthermore, do you really need more 'noise'? There is such a thing called overkill and flogging a dead horse (an idiom). There is also such a thing called information overload, which makes people lethargic and sometimes immune to the issue. Hence 'too much' can be counter-productive.

Secondly, this appears to have turned into an opposition crusade, which is bad. Once it is perceived as a political issue rather than an issue of justice, people become divided on the issue based on political leanings and not because it is either the right thing or the wrong thing. People will oppose right or support wrong if the criteria is politics. Take crossovers as one example.

Anyway, what is my take on the issue?

Okay, are you outraged about the court's decision because you are an opposition supporter or because it is morally (or legally) wrong to not classify the case as statutory rape instead of consensual sex? (Note that even some of those in government feel the same way as you do although they speak 'gentler' in expressing their view and without the venom).

I think a more important question would be are you capable of setting aside politics when you talk about this issue -- or any issue for that matter that involves justice, civil liberties, etc? Can we leave our Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat hats outside the door and come to the table as Malaysians of common interests and concerns?

That is the one thing we find most difficult to do. It is always politics first and everything else second, even in matters such as Hudud, which is supposed to be above politics but is not.

Okay, so a man (or boy) has sex with an underage girl. My first question would be: are the men/boy and girl Muslims? If they are then this is zina (illicit sex or sex outside marriage). And is not zina a crime under the Sharia (Islamic law)? Hence should not the boy and girl be tried under the Sharia?

If the man/boy and girl were both above 18 they would have been brought to the Sharia court. Why are they not brought to the Sharia court just because one or both are below 18?

In Islam, the 'age of consent' would be the age of puberty. For girls that would be once she gets her period and that could even be when she is nine years old. According to the Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, the Prophet Muhammad married Aishah when she was six but did not 'take her' until she was nine. And aren't Muslims supposed to believe in and strictly follow the Hadith and Sunnah or else they cease to be Muslims and would become kafir (infidels).

Hence if the girl is 13 and she already has her period, is she legally (in Islam, that is) a woman who can consent to sex or is she still a child? And hence, also, since she is a Muslim and 'legally a woman', is she accountable for her 'crime' of consenting to sex or is she blameless? In other words, if the Sharia court were to try them, would both be on trial or only the man/boy?

Okay, we can argue that the Sharia court does not come into play here. This matter does not involve the Sharia court.

Why not? If Muslims above 18 'get caught' for illicit sex they get dragged to the Sharia court. The common law court has no power to try Muslim adults who have sex outside marriage. In fact, sex outside marriage is not a crime under common law (even for Muslims) unless it is same-gender or gay sex.

Why does the age of the person determine which court has jurisdiction over cases involving illicit sex or zina? Do you mean to tell me that if you are not yet 18 then you are not yet a Muslim? Only when you reach 18 you become a Muslim? Can those under 18, therefore, drink and eat pork and go to church since you are not yet a Muslim and the Sharia court has no power over you until you touch 18?

Okay, what if the church or Christians preaches Christianity to Malay boys and girls of 13 or 14 (in short, below 18). Is this a crime? A crime under which law? Common law? Under common law it is not a crime to preach Christianity to Malay children. It is only a crime according to the Religious Department.

But the Religious Department does not have power over us until we are 18. Islam recognises 9-year olds as adults. Common law does not. We are adults only at 18. And common law decides whether we are adults. Not the Religious Department.

So how?

The question is: who has power over Muslims? The common law courts or the Sharia courts? And why does the common law court have power over us until we are 18 and then the Sharia court takes over after that? Is age 18 the 'legally adult' age in Islam? And if 18 were the legal adult age under Islam, can Muslims below 18 get married?

Yes, Muslims below 18 can get marriage on condition they are 'adults' (meaning reached puberty) and they have their parent's consent. Hence at that age they are already responsible for their own actions, even in crimes of illicit sex.

But then we are not talking about the Qur'an, Hadith, Sunnah or Islamic law here. We are talking about common law. Hence common law overrides the Qur'an, Hadith, Sunnah or Islamic law and will decide at what age you are an adult and at what age you are still a child. And you will face the common law court when you are legally a child and the Sharia court once you are legally an adult. And although Islam has decided the age of adulthood, Islam has no power over Muslims because the laws of the land and Islam do not work in tandem.

Crazy or not? In Islam, religion decides when we become an adult and hence can get married and have sex. But Islam does not have the power to decide at what age we would be considered as having consensual sex outside marriage. That the common law decides. And that age is 18.

Now, who decides when we cease being a child and legally become an adult although at the age of nine we already discovered the difference between a boy and girl and knew what to do with that thing between our legs? Well, the 222 Members of Parliament, of course. They pass all the laws and they have decided that only at age 17 we can drive and at age 18 we can have sex and at age 21 we can vote.

But why at age 17, 18 and 21 respectively?

Queen Isabella of Valois married Richard II when she was 6 years, 11 months and 25 days old.

David II married Joan, the daughter of Edward II, when he was 4 years and 134 days old.

Louis XIV of France became King at age 5 and took over full control at 23.

Joan of Arc led the French against the English at age 17.

And of course we have that story regarding Aishah, the wife of Prophet Muhammad.

In those days, you married as soon as you legally became a woman, which was when you got your period, and would have been around age 9-11. At age 10-13 boys joined the army and fought and died for their country. These were ages when you were no longer children.

I know, times have changed and we no longer consider girls of 10 or boys of 13 as adults. That may be so when it comes to common law but not if we consider religion.

So, are we outraged about the case of Noor Afizal Azizan because we perceive it as him having sex with an underage girl and the law says a girl of 13 cannot consent to sex and hence he broke the law? Okay, so it is the law that we are concerned about, am I correct?

The law says that a girl of 13 cannot consent to sex. This is a law passed by Parliament, the body that can legally pass laws, which we all must follow. And since Noor Afizal Azizan broke the law passed by Parliament we are outraged.

Okay, I can accept that. The law must be followed. After all this is a law passed by Parliament. But hold on, Parliament also passed a law that says we must get a police permit if we want to hold a demonstration. Should this law not also be followed since we are extremely concerned about the law? Was Tunku Abdul Aziz Tunku Ibrahim therefore correct in that the law must be followed?

Hmm...touché or not touché?

Touché

Posted: 28 Aug 2012 06:47 AM PDT

Itulah. When I try to tell you, you cakap macam-macam. Now I diam. And now that I diam you all are foaming at the mouth like rabid dogs. Hey, just focus on the next general election. Just vote Pakatan Rakyat. Why worry whether Cina bertanding kawasan Melayu or Melayu bertanding kawasan Cina or whether after this we are going to get Hudud or Muslims keluar Islam masuk Kristian? All that never mindlah! What matters is asal bukan Umno. Itu saja.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

To the Malay-medium or Chinese- and Tamil-educated readers who think that 'the devil you know' refers to a verse in the Qur'an or Bible, touché means...oh what the hell, go look it up yourself.

Is it too early to write another 'I told you so' article? Well, as they say, the early bird catches the worm, so it is never too early to say 'I told you so'.

Now, for those of you who don't speak English at home or English is not your mother-tongue -- my late mother was British so I suppose I can claim that English is my mother's tongue -- I am NOT admitting that I am a bird or that I eat worms, although I do have a 'bird', if you know what I mean. This is what we English-speaking people would call an idiom, the latest topic of discussion in Malaysia -- alongside Hudud, crossovers, and other such matters.

Anyway, back to the early bird catches the worm thing.

I did try to tell you so many times about the unresolved issues facing Pakatan Rakyat. And I did not just write about it in Malaysia Today. I even said this to Anwar Ibrahim's face in a forum in London. I did not hold my punches (an idiom). I said it no holds barred (yet another idiom).

And this got not only Anwar but also all the other Pakatan Rakyat leaders hot under the collar (yes, another idiom). Finally, I decided to say what I had been trying to tell them in interviews in the mainstream media.

Boy, and did all hell break loose (correct, again, an idiom). They felt I was trying to teach grandfathers how to suck eggs (a Malaysian-Chinese idiom which means...hmm...not sure what that means because I am a grandfather of five grandkids and I certainly don't suck eggs).

Then they started accusing me of being on someone's payroll and demanded to know where my funding was coming from. And, today, Suaram has come out to admit that it is indeed being financed through foreign funding to the tune of RM100,000 a month for the last many years (read about it here).

So there you are. Touché.

Then there was the matter of crossovers plus the lack of quality of the people that Pakatan Rakyat was attracting that I spoke about. Now even the Pakatan Rakyat people are divided on whether it is morally right to poach politicians from the opposite side of the fence. And many voters have said that in the coming general election they will be voting based on candidates and not based on parties.

So, again, touché!

I also spoke about the lack of unity in Pakatan Rakyat and how DAP, PAS and PKR tidur satu bantal tapi mimpi lain-lain (a Malay idiom). I touched on the inter-party and intra-party bickering and how the issue of seat allocations and who should be taking the lead needs to be resolved.

And today, again, touché!

Then there is the matter of Hudud, which had earlier resulted in the breakup of the opposition coalition, Barisan Alternatif, followed by the 2004 general election disaster, and how this matter needs to be resolved before Pakatan Rakyat faces the coming general election (read about it here).

And, yet again, touché!

Okay, those are just some of the issues I have been screaming about. There are many more, of course. And when they responded with personal attacks against me, and allegations of mala fide and paid assassin and so on, I took to the mainstream media and that was the straw that broke the camel's back (yeap, one more in my string of idioms -- don't you just love this English language lesson?).

So, what more can I say other than touché? I am not really that silly after all, am I? Now I keep quiet. Now I just watch and snigger while all you buggers squeal like a stuck pig (you got it, another idiom).

So, why make so much noise about Hudud? You want ABU (anything but Umno), right? Hudud is not Umno. So why get so upset? As long as it is not Umno then diamlah!

Touché!

The trouble with mother-tongue education

Posted: 27 Aug 2012 04:11 PM PDT

I was puzzled. I asked my Chinese friends: why support the opposition and yet vote government? And these Chinese told me: "Barisan Nasional may be the devil, but better we vote for the devil we know than the angel we don't know. We know Barisan Nasional and we know how to handle them. We don't know the opposition and we are not sure what they will be like if they came to power."

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Kenyataan Mahathir memakan diri

Dalam al-Quran tiada istilah malaikat lebih buruk berbanding syaitan

Khaulah Azwar, FMT

Timbalan Mursyidul Am PAS, Datuk Dr Haron Din, menegaskan tidak ada istilah atau ayat di dalam Al Quran yang menjelaskan syaitan lebih baik dari malaikat.

"Di dalam al Quran juga tidak terdapat ayat yang mengatakan malaikat sama ada dikenali atau tidak dikenali sebagai makhluk Allah yang lebih buruk atau derhaka kepada perintah Allah."

"Malaikat dijadikan Allah sebagai makhluk yang patuh dan tidak derhaka akan perintah-Nya. Mereka akan kekal begitu sejak dari awal hingga ke akhirnya."

"Ia berlawanan dengan sifat syaitan kerana mereka memang diakui sebagai makhluk yang jahat dan derhaka kepada perintah Allah," katanya.

Pemimpin PAS itu mengulas kenyataan dibuat bekas Perdana Menteri, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad dalam blognya www.chedet.cc pada 22 Ogos lalu yang berharap rakyat tidak memberi mandat kepada Pakatan Rakyat (Pakatan) dalam pilihan raya akan datang.

Dr Mahathir menulis, "better the devil you know than the angel you don't" yang membawa maksud "lebih baik syaitan yang anda kenali daripada malaikat yang anda tidak kenali".

"Tiada istilah atau ayat di dalam al Quran yang menjelaskan begitu", katanya.

Dr Haron seterusnya berkata, kenyataan Dr Mahathir itu ternyata memakan diri sendiri dan Umno-BN kerana umum terutamanya umat Islam mengetahui syaitan itu adalah makhluk Allah yang paling kejam dan derhaka.

Sebagai bekas pemimpin tertinggi negara dan pernah mengetuai Umno-BN untuk tempoh yang lama, tambahnya, adalah amat tidak wajar Dr Mahathir membuat kenyataan sedemikian rupa dengan melabelkan sesuatu pihak atau pertubuhan dengan nama seburuk itu.

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

Learn English Today

English Idioms & Idiomatic Expressions

Idioms are words, phrases or expressions which are commonly used in everyday conversation by native speakers of English. They are often metaphorical and make the language more colourful.

http://www.learn-english-today.com/idioms/idioms_proverbs.html

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

How many of you who went to a Malay-medium, Chinese or Tamil schools learned English? And did they teach you idioms or expressions in your English language class? Let me give you some examples of idioms:

Better the devil you know.

Letting the cat out of the bag.

Barking up the wrong tree.

Adding fuel to the flames.

Bite the hand that feeds you.

Breathe down your neck.

Build bridges.

Burn your bridges.

Burn the candle at both ends.

Bury your head in the sand.

Bury the hatchet.

The carrot and the stick.

Clipping someone's wings.

Cramp someone's style.

Cross the Rubicon.

Dig one's own grave.

Drag your feet.

Eat dirt.

Eat out of house and home.

Err on the side of caution.

Pardon my French.

Fall over backwards.

Fiddling while Rome burns.

Follow one's nose.

Follow in someone's footsteps.

Those are actually just some of so, so many 'colourful' sayings in the English language. And I just love these sayings and use them all the time, especially when I talk -- though not so much when I write because many readers do not understand English well enough to even detect sarcasm even when it bites them in the arse (another idiom).

When Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad first came out with his 'better the devil you know than an angel you don't know' idiom, every man and his dog (another idiom) jumped onto the bandwagon (yet another idiom) to whack the daylight out of him (I think this is an idiom also).

Actually, 'better the devil you know' is the shortened form of the full idiom, 'better the devil you know than the devil you don't'. That is the correct English version. In Malaysia, however, especially amongst the Chinese, they say 'better the devil you know than the angel you don't know'.

I learned the 'power' of this idiom back in 1999. That was soon after the birth of the Reformasi Movement and not long after the 10th General Election of 29th November 1999. The Malays voted opposition while the Chinese voted Barisan Nasional. Even those who hated Barisan Nasional and supported the opposition voted for the ruling party.

It was then when reality hit me. The Chinese, as my Chinese friends kept reminding me, are pragmatic people. They are not emotional like the Malays. So they use their head and not their heart to vote. And they will work with the 'devil' rather than the 'angel' if the 'devil' is a known factor and the 'angel' is an unknown factor.

In other words, stick with what you know even if the alternative may be better because there are uncertainties with the alternative.

Not many years later, Dr Mahathir said the same thing when he was interviewed soon after the retired in 2003. Dr Mahathir was asked about what he would consider as his greatest regret in his 22 years as Prime Minister and he replied: my greatest regret is I failed to change the Malays. And he lamented: the Malays are too emotional and too feudalistic. Why can't the Malays be more pragmatic like the Chinese?

Dr Mahathir was, of course, referring to the 1999 General Election where the Malays voted opposition while the Chinese voted for 'the devil they knew', which was Barisan Nasional.

Last week, when Dr Mahathir made that quip, many Malaysians jumped and said that Dr Mahathir admitted that Barisan Nasional is a devil while the opposition is an angel. I was so tempted to write this article but I knew that most readers would interpret this as a show of support for Dr Mahathir. So I refrained from writing about it.

Actually, this is not a show of support for Dr Mahathir but a show of opposition to stupidity. I am opposing stupidity, not supporting Dr Mahathir. But stupid people will view it as my support for Dr Mahathir rather than my opposition to stupidity.

Then the renowned cleric, Datuk Dr Haron Din, started quoting the Qur'an (read the news item above) and tells us that what Dr Mahathir said is not in the Qur'an. Then I thought I had better say something before people start whacking Islam, the Qur'an, Prophet Muhammad, etc., and bring ridicule to the religion.

Of course it is not in the Qur'an. Dr Mahathir was not quoting the Qur'an. Dr Mahathir was quoting an English idiom, which has been 'Malaysianised' from 'better the devil you know than the devil you don't' to 'better the devil you know than the angel you don't'.

Must we keep arguing Islam and quote the Qur'an for every issue? General elections are also not in the Qur'an. Choosing governments through the ballot box is also not in the Qur'an. Getting 222 Members of Parliament to formulate laws is not in the Qur'an either. There are millions of things not in the Qur'an -- such as detention without trial, hanging people who traffic in drugs, jailing people who drive dangerously and kill someone walking beside the road, and so on.

Bank accounts are not in the Qur'an. Paying your workers monthly salaries is not in the Qur'an. Paying your workers' salary by cheque is not in the Qur'an. Stocks and shares, Amanah Saham included, are not in the Qur'an. Driving licences are not in the Qur'an. Business licences are not in the Qur'an. Signboard permits are not in the Qur'an. Police permits for rallies are not in the Qur'an. Gun licences are not in the Qur'an.

If we follow the Qur'an, then you must pay your workers at the end of each and every working day in gold or silver (not with 'worthless' paper), and we can drive and own a gun without the need of licences. We can also carry bows-and-arrows, spears, swords and knives when we leave the house. The Qur'an does not allow the government to arrest us for carrying dangerous weapons in public.

Bersih is not in the Qur'an. ABU is not in the Qur'an. Islamic parties are not in the Qur'an. Pakatan Rakyat is not in the Qur'an. Election Commissions are not in the Qur'an. Anti-Corruption Commissions are not in the Qur'an. Human Rights Commissions are not in the Qur'an. State governments are not in the Qur'an. Prime Ministers are not in the Qur'an. Members of Parliament are not in the Qur'an. Income tax is not in the Qur'an. Import duty, sales tax and road tax are not in the Qur'an. Insurance and EPF are not in the Qur'an. You name it and most likely it will not be in the Qur'an.

Oh, and according to the Qur'an, we can also own slaves. We can either buy these slaves from the market or invade someone's territory and capture them. And slaves are our property so we can have sex with them. That is not zina (illicit sex).

Why pick and choose certain items from the Qur'an? If you want to talk about the Qur'an then there will be many things to talk about. And one thing that PAS will need to do is to announce that it will NOT be contesting the coming general election because this is not what the Qur'an says we must do and this is not the way that governments are chosen in Islam.

Will Pakatan Rakyat now just be PKR and DAP? At least that will solve the current impasse regarding Hudud. Problem solved. No more PAS in Pakatan Rakyat so no more Hudud.

I believe, hence I am right

Posted: 25 Aug 2012 06:51 PM PDT

Not even a priest or an imam will 'serve God' if they are not being paid a salary. It's all about money, even those who claim to be serving God. So get off your high horse and stop all this self-righteous bullshit. Every single one of you does things for money. So stop slandering this person and that person as doing things for money. You too are as much money-motivated as the other person you are accusing.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

I can't understand why Malaysia Today's readers are foaming at the mouth and whacking Hudud. Some have even gone beyond just attacking Hudud and have even whacked Muslims and Islam. A police report has already been made against Malaysiakini. Do you also want a police report to be made against Malaysia Today?

Most of you may think that Malaysia allows freedom of expression. Well, Malaysia may allow freedom of expression up to a certain extent but that freedom is not absolute. There are limits. And that is why Malaysia has many laws that are aimed at 'ensuring the peace and stability' of the nation, the Sedition Act being one of them.

This means you cannot simply say what you like, not even in America or Britain. For example, if you start talking about Muslim terrorists, Jihad and bombs while in a plane you can get into trouble anywhere in the world. You might argue that it is your fundamental right to talk about whatever it is you want to talk about. The police, however, will not agree with you as they drag you away in handcuffs. Try it if you don't believe me.

So perish the thought regarding absolute freedom of expression. It does not exist. There are boundaries and you must navigate within these boundaries. I, for one, can tell you that this is absolutely true. I, too, have learned that you cannot say everything that is on your mind. There are some things you can say and there are many things you cannot say. And if you violate this rule you will get vilified like hell. I am speaking from experience here.

Look at what happened to Tunku Abdul Aziz Tunku Ibrahim. His party expressed support for the Bersih 3.0 rally while he said that although he is for clean elections he does not feel that breaking the law is the way to send the message to the government. And for saying that he was whacked kaw-kaw until he felt so hurt he left the party. I suppose anyone who is called foul names would feel the way he felt. I mean people do have feelings, even Pakatan Rakyat leaders.

In the first place, Tunku Aziz should not have joined a political party. He is not a politician, period. And he should have realised that once you join a political party you must toe the party line. You cannot do what the people would view as breaking ranks. They will kill you, figure of speech, of course. And once you join a political party and then resign, you will be accused of being bought off, of selling out, and all sort of foul things. It is better you had not joined in the first place. Then you can say what you like.

Once you join a political party you need to sacrifice certain freedoms for the sake of party unity. Even when you talk in closed-door meetings or unofficial meetings you need to watch what you say. In politics everyone is an enemy, even the person sitting next to you in the meeting. And what you say will be leaked to embarrass you. And the Penang PKR chief, Datuk Dr Mansor Othman, has found out the hard way what damage these leaks can do.

Of course, Dr Mansor has denied saying what he is alleged to have said. The minutes, though, appear to prove otherwise. But minutes can be forged. After all, only those who attended the meeting would know.

No doubt, none of the others who attended that meeting have come forward to reveal that they had attended the meeting and that the minutes had been forged and that no such thing was ever said in the meeting. Nevertheless, whether the people believe that denial is another thing. After all, politicians deny allegations all the time. Clinton denied. Nixon denied. And in the end it was proven that these denials were all lies. In fact, Najib Tun Razak has also denied the allegations against him but we all don't believe his denials -- am I not correct?

The golden rule in politics is when cornered deny or say 'no comment'. Of course, most people are of the opinion that when politicians deny it then it must be true and when they say 'no comment' that means they are admitting the allegation. But the most important thing is no one can prove it. And this is what matters in the end. Can you prove the allegation?

What you need to do, before they even deny it or say 'no comment', is to challenge them to prove that the allegation is false. Under normal circumstances one is assumed innocent until proven guilty. But if you want to corner a politician you twist it the other way. You ask them to prove that the allegation is false. That is actually quite impossible to do.

Anwar was convicted and sentenced to a total of 15 years jail because he could not prove his innocence. The Federal Court later overturned that conviction on grounds that the Prosecution failed to prove his guilt. Nevertheless, Anwar had already served six years of the 15 years before he saw freedom. Thus, sometimes, the guilty until proven innocent rule does work in certain cases.

New laws are being introduced in Malaysia where you will need to prove you are innocent or else you are presumed guilty. We had 52 years of the Internal Security Act where an estimated 10,000 people had been detained without trial on that same assumption -- guilty until proven innocent. They detain you first and then later you need to convince them that you deserve to be released. It is impossible to prove you deserve to be released when your detention is on the basis that one man, the Minister, believes you are a threat to national security.

I mean how do you prove a belief wrong? You have a belief, and that belief is I am a threat to national security. How do I prove this belief wrong? How do I prove any of your beliefs wrong? You believe that Hudud is God's law and is mandatory. You believe that the Qur'an came directly from God and is God's word. You believe the Bible is the Holy Book of God (in fact, you swear an oath on the Bible although it may have been printed by a printer in Jalan Chan Sow Lin). You believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God and was crucified and died for our sins. How do I prove all these beliefs wrong?

So, I can't prove any of your beliefs wrong, even the belief that I am a threat to national security. And that means I will remain under detention without trial until your beliefs change and you now believe that I have reformed and have turned over a new leaf and am no longer a threat to national security.

Such are beliefs. And beliefs are impossible to prove wrong. If you had to prove your belief right, that would be another thing altogether. To prove your belief right you will need evidence, which you may or may not have. But for me to prove your belief wrong is a non-starter never mind what that belief may be. Beliefs do not require evidence. Hence you can believe something even if there is no evidence. And for me to prove your belief wrong when your belief is void of evidence would mean I would not have the evidence to prove your belief wrong.

Can you see how it works?

Many friends have been in touch with me to ask me to clear the air on what people are saying about me. These friends tell me that people believe I am this or I am that or I have done this or I have done that. But that is just it. This is what people believe. How do I prove this belief to be false?

Most of those people who believe these things about me also believe in God and believe in a religion. Is there any basis for these beliefs? Is there any evidence to support these beliefs? Can they prove that their beliefs are facts and not myths?

Of course they can't. They just believe it, that's all. There is no basis for these beliefs. They heard stories and they believe these stories. These are all stories without evidence. Then they support these stories and justify their beliefs by showing us a Holy Book, which they said came from God but was printed by a printer in Jalan Chan Sow Lin who himself does not believe in God and is printing this 'Holy Book' just to make money from the printing contract

Thus this is the mindset of these types of people. They are susceptible to believing things that cannot be proven. And these same people also believe certain things about me. So how do we talk to such people when they are already prone to believing things that they imagine to be true even when it cannot be proven true?

Can you see the futility in trying to turn these people? It is as difficult as trying to convince a Catholic that Prophet Muhammad is a Prophet of God or trying to convince Muslims that Jesus is the Son of God -- or trying to convince readers of Malaysia Today that Hudud is God's command and is mandatory for all Malaysians.

The best would be to just let people believe what they want to believe. Most of these people believe that they are sincere and noble while all the rest are scumbags anyway. Only they are true. All others are false.

Look at the party hopping issue as one example. Most believe that it is wrong for people to leave their party to join the other side. But it is not wrong for those from the other side to leave the other side to join their party.

If they leave the other side to join their side then it is a sincere and noble gesture. But if they leave their side to join the other side it cannot also be because of a sincere and noble gesture. It can only be because of money and for no other reason.

This is the belief.

You do things out of sincerity and for noble reasons. Others are not noble or sincere and do things merely for money. You do not do things for money.

As I said, this is the belief and they believe that their belief is right. But is it?

Their parents sent them to school to receive an education. I have Chinese friends who tell me that education is at the top of the Chinese priority list. Education comes first and everything else comes after. This is what my Chinese friends tell me and since so many seem to tell me the same thing I am inclined to believe it.

Then I ask them, why? To the Malays, religion comes first. That is way at the top of the priority list of the Malays. Go ask the Malays and see what they say. But why do Chinese put education and not religion at the top of their priority list?

And they tell me it is because you need a good education to be ensured a good future. Only a good education can ensure a good future. And many Malaysians, after they have received that good education, choose to stay overseas to work. They have spent so much money on their education that they need to work overseas because the salary they will earn back in Malaysia would be too low and they will never be able to recover the cost of their education.

So people get an education. But they go and get an education not because they seek knowledge. They go and get an education so that they can get a good job that pays good money.

Everybody works. And they all work because they want money. Only with money can they buy things and live a good life. They want a house. They want a car. They want to get married. They want power, position, prestige, recognition, and whatnot. And all this requires money.

Why do they want all these? Are these not all for selfish reasons? You can go live in a jungle and not starve. There is food everywhere. You can live off the land. You can build a roof over your head from what you find in the jungle. You can use the streams and rivers to wash and bathe. You do not need money. You do not need a job. You do not need to spend so much money getting educated.

So, yes, everyone does things for money, even those of you who believe you are sincere and noble. Do you need money? Actually you do not. You don't need money. You just want money. And you want money because you want the good things in life.

Are you prepared to resign from your job and go work in one of the African countries for no salary? They will provide you a tent to sleep in and three meals a day. They will also provide you with khaki uniforms. But other than that you will receive no money.

Is that not a noble and sincere thing to do? You work for no money but only to serve humankind. You get to eat and sleep in a tent, that's all.

At least a prostitute is honest about what he or she is. That is more than I can say for you.

When different yardsticks are applied

Posted: 24 Aug 2012 07:58 PM PDT

If I were a non-Muslim, I would not get involved in the Hudud debate, knowing that the Malays-Muslims themselves will never come to an agreement on the matter. Once I get involved, then we face the danger of the Malays who oppose Hudud agreeing with those who propose Hudud merely because they want to defend Islam from what they view as an attack by the non-Muslims.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

When we apply two different approaches to a subject, invariably, we will not be able to reconcile the answer we seek. For example, seeking the answer to our existence would not give us the same result when one is guided by theology and the other applies sociology, anthropology, history and archaeology.

Why do we exist? Is it by accident or is it by design? And is our existence the ultimate purpose, which will end when we expire, or is it merely a temporary step to a final destination, which will be determined by how we live our life in this world?

Such a basic question but not one that can be answered that simply. The answer, invariably, will be determined by what 'logic' we apply. And is the logic we are applying really logical? How, in the first place, can we define logic when different yardsticks are being applied? And when should logic be discarded for a higher discipline, that of the word of God, which is above logic and requires faith?

No, it is not a simple puzzle to solve. Even the matter of freedom of expression falls victim to many different viewpoints. Is name-calling and labelling someone Keling Pariah, Mamak Tongkang or Cina Mata Sepet, exceeding the boundaries of freedom of expression and falls within the classification of racial slurs or is this what freedom of expression is all about?

Try calling a British of Pakistani origin a Paki here in Britain and see what will happen to you. Is not a British a Brit and an Australian an Aussie and an American a Yank? So what's wrong with a Pakistani being called a Paki? It is not that a Pakistani is not a Paki but the fact that it has been 'agreed', by whom I do not know, that the word Paki is a racial slur.

And it is not just that society accepts the word Paki as a racial slur. It is also how you say it -- the tone of your voice and the look on your face. A Malay is certainly a Melayu, there is no denying that. But it is how you use the word Melayu that counts. Using the 'correct' tone of voice and with the 'right' look on your face, the word Melayu can be turned into an insult.

So how do we resolve the matter of Hudud, the punishment for crimes under the Islamic laws known as the Sharia? Before that, can this matter even be resolved in the first place? Well, not if we apply two different yardsticks in arguing the case for or against Hudud. No issue can be resolved when two different yardsticks are applied and both are considered logical to the proponents as well as the opponents of Hudud.

A Pakistani is a Paki to a non-Pakistani but an insult to a Pakistani. Both are right. Yet both can never come to an agreement as to whether it was meant as an insult or not. Maybe it was a statement of fact. Maybe it was an insult. The only way to avoid the crosswire would be to call a Pakistani a Brit and leave it at that.

After all, Britons no longer exist anyway. Every Brit is a son or daughter of an immigrant. The only thing is did they migrate to Britain 100 B.C. or 2,000 years after that? Invariably, every Brit, if the roots are traced, came from somewhere outside Britain. That is the reality of the whole thing. At best, they can claim some British blood but can never lay claim to a thoroughbred Brit. Hence, the Pakistani is as British as the Royal Family or the Prime Minister of Great Britain.

When would we consider the cut-off date? If the year 100 were the cut-off date then the Italians would be Brits. If 300 were the cut-off date then the Scandinavians would be Brits. If 500 were the cut-off date then the Germans would be Brits. If 1100 were the cut-off date then the French would be Brits. If 1990 were the cut-off date then those from the Indian subcontinent would be Brits. If there is no cut-off date then everyone is a Brit. There are no Pakistanis in Britain, and hence no Pakis as well.

See how simple it is in Britain. Britain never saw independence because it never lost its independence. Britain was conquered by one power after another over more than 2,000 years and the conquerors became Brits, even when they spoke French and not a word of English. So everyone in Britain is a Brit and there are no pendatangs. If there are pendatangs, then every single person in Britain is a pendatang. It is as simple as that.

But in Malaysia it is more complicating. Malaysia never existed until 1963. From 1957 it existed as Malaya. Before that there was no Malaya. The British created Malaya. And in creating Malaya they also created Malays, who also never existed until the British created them. And the British declared that Malaya belonged to the Malays and everyone else is an immigrant.

But what is the cut-off date? The cut-off date is not clear. If the cut-off date were 1700 then the entire Selangor Royal Family would be pendatang. If the cut-off date were 31st August 1957 then only those born outside the country after that date would be pendatangs. Those born outside Malaya before 31st August 1957 and those born in the country after 31st August 1957 would be Malaysians.

Nevertheless, the British had decided that Malaya would be given independence on 31st August 1957 and with independence we would receive a written Constitution, something that the British themselves do not have. And in this written Constitution it would be stated plus implied that the Malays own the land. And to reinforce this ownership, Islam would be the religion of the land, Malay would be the official language, and Malays would be accorded certain privileges.

This was the agreement, whether stated or implied. And it was an agreement that all the races in Peninsular Malaysia agreed to adopt. It was not unilateral. It was bilateral. Was this a mistake, especially on the part of the Chinese and the Indians? On hindsight it is always easy to talk. Everyone is an expert on hindsight. It is foresight that matters. Did the Chinese and Indians not have the foresight to see that an open-ended agreement with no expiry date would be binding to future generations of Chinese and Indians who would still be regarded as Chinese and Indians and 'secondary' Malayans?

And this is why we are currently facing a problem regarding Hudud. To Malaysians who are not Muslims, Hudud is viewed as a legal matter. It involves the punishment meted out for certain crimes. Hence Hudud needs to be discussed under the ambit of the legal system.

They are, of course, correct.

To Muslims, however, Hudud is not about the law. It is about what God has commanded. And God's command is beyond discussion. It is about acceptance without argument. To reject God's command is like the Catholics rejecting the Trinity or the Jews rejecting the Ten Commandments. It is a matter that cannot be compromised.

They are, of course, also correct -- at least as far as each religious faith is concerned.

So both are correct, no one is wrong. So how do we resolve a situation where both are correct and no one is wrong but the 'correctness' of their views places them at odds?

As long as the Muslims in Malaysia believe that Islam is the religion of the land and hence whatever is mandatory in Islam becomes mandatory for the whole country then this is not a matter that will see a solution.

All other religions will be allowed, but Islam is the religion of the land, not the other religions. The Malays are masters of the land. Non-Malays will be allowed a place under the Malaysian sun but will be secondary to the Malays. This is what the British intended for independent Malaya. And the British made sure that this intention was clearly stated in a written Constitution.

Basically, we are faced with a belief system here, the belief that the Malays are the masters of the land and Islam is the religion of the land. And belief systems are not easy to eradicate. Can we convince the Christians that Jesus Christ was a mere man and not divine or the Son of God, hence the Trinity does not exist? Can we convince the Muslims that the Qur'an was not the word of God because it was compiled by a 'committee' years after the death of the Prophet and 'strengthened' by the Hadith, which was a creation of 'spin-doctors'?

I fear that would be an impossible task. Both the Christians as well as the Muslims would never change their belief system just because you say so. Belief systems are carved in stone. And the belief that the Malays are masters of the land and Islam is the religion of the land is not a belief system that the Malays or Muslims will readily reject.

So what do we do about Hudud? What can we do about it? As long as the Malays believe that the Qur'an is God's word and that Hudud is God's command and that Islam is the religion of the land there is nothing we can do about it.

Can we resist or oppose Hudud? Well, can we resist or oppose the law that forbids Muslims from leaving Islam to become Christians, Hindus or Buddhists?

The only 'good' thing about the Hudud issue -- if you were the eternal optimist who always tries to see good in everything, like the 'blessing in disguise' thing -- is that Hudud has been reduced to a political issue. Hence, when it becomes a political issue, one side will oppose when the other side proposes. And this would mean that even amongst the Muslims the Hudud issue would never be resolved.

Let me put it another way. When the Chinese are of the opinion that Chinese education is 'under attack', even the MCA and DAP people can sit at the same table under the umbrella of Chinese education to hammer out an issue of common interest. And this is what can happen when Hudud is viewed as 'under attack' -- the Malays will share a common platform in the interest of 'mempertahankan kedaulatan Islam' (in defence of the sanctity of Islam).

So be careful with what you say. Calling a Pakistani a Paki may be kosher to you. The Pakistani, however, may view it as an insult and you can go to jail in Britain if you pass racial slurs. In that same spirit, labelling Hudud as barbaric and those who propagate it as stupid is certainly your right under freedom of expression. To the Muslim, however, that is an insult to God and freedom of expression does not include insulting God.

So what do we do then? Do we just shut up and accept the fact that we must lose certain freedom of expression? Or do we speak our mind whatever the consequences in the interest of freedom of expression?

Honestly, I really do not know. When two different sets of values are applied I am at a loss. My solution would be to just let the two sides argue and we see where the cards fall. Most likely they will continue to argue into the next generation without any resolution. In that case nothing will happen so we do not need to address anything.

Is this a solution? Maybe not! It is more like ignoring it and hoping it will go away. But that is how I sometimes handle the common cold and it does go away. Then, sometimes it may become pneumonia, who knows? But next month I will be 62 and I am still alive. So maybe I have not come out the worst for ignoring the common cold and just allowing it to run its course after all.

But, yes, I know, we all want to speak and say something. We do not want to allow the 'other side' to speak unchallenged. So we speak even when what we say is not going to achieve anything. And we will all scream and oppose or scream and defend Hudud when we know nothing is going to happen in the end. And we will find out that loose lips sink ships. But never mind if the ship sinks as long as we can talk while it sinks.

Such is the folly of mankind. And aren't wars fought in defence of national pride and dignity when all that is merely another word for ego? And who am I to take away your right of free speech, never mind what is being said will see no light at the end of the tunnel? That, in the end, is what will prevail.

Self-righteous and high and mighty

Posted: 22 Aug 2012 05:26 PM PDT

Hence 50% of the Malays were already opposition-minded during the time when 70% of the Chinese and 90% of the Indians were still voting for the ruling party. It is the Chinese and the Indians who just woke up. And they woke up only recently in 2008. Before that they refused to wake up and still voted for the ruling party when the Malays were already with the opposition.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Then why do the 50% of the 92% endorse corruption and wrongdoings like it is part of their religion? Should they not vote the regime down? (Comment by Babu in the report 'So you think you know the voters')

Then what is it going to take to simplify the Malay minds? A new miracle or just DUIT? Or maybe an Arab Spring just might do the trick. (Comment by Siudi in the report 'It's the result, not the problem')

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

Those were just two of many such comments posted in Malaysia Today this week. Most I just deleted but I allowed those two because I wanted to reply to them. Consider this my reply to all the others as well, including those that were deleted.

'Babu' is quite a diligent poster of comments and at times we get a flood of comments from him/her. Unfortunately, though, I have had to delete most of his/her comments not because I am against free speech but because he/she clearly does not comprehend the issue and his/her comments were way off the mark.

By the way, I also delete comments with racial slurs or comments mocking race and religion. I mean, you can hate Samy Vellu for what he did but not because he is Indian or a Hindu, or hate Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad because he is of part-Indian parentage. After all, many opposition leaders are also part-Indian (or full-Indian). So would what you say about Samy of Dr Mahathir not apply to them as well? How would Anwar Ibrahim feel if you post a comment that says Dr Mahathir is evil because he is a Mamak?

Anyway, back to the comment by 'Babu'.

'Babu' wants to know why 50% of 92% of Malays voted for Barisan Nasional, which he equates to endorsing corruption and wrongdoings like it is part of their religion. Actually, it is not 50% of 92% but slightly under 51% of the total number of Malays who came out to vote. That is the correct statistic for the last general election -- which therefore means more than 49% of the Malays who came out to vote voted for the opposition.

Okay, in the last general election, roughly 50% of the voters voted for the ruling party while the other 50% voted for the opposition. Hence, if roughly 50% of the Malay voters voted for the ruling party, this means the other 50% who also voted for the ruling party were non-Malays. And considering that there are more than 50% Malay voters compared to non-Malay voters, this would mean the per capita of non-Malays who voted for the ruling party was higher.

Now, is it fair to say that more non-Malays than Malays voted for the ruling party because, as 'Babu' said, they endorse corruption and wrongdoings like it is part of their religion? (Note that 'non-Malays' here are not confined to just the Chinese and Indians but the natives of East Malaysia as well).

So you see, if those who voted for the ruling party did so because they endorse corruption and wrongdoings like it is part of their religion, as 'Babu' said, then the non-Malay voters would be even guiltier of this transgression considering that the per capita that voted for the ruling party was higher amongst the non-Malays.

I mean, if 50% of the Malays voted for the ruling party and since, say, 58% of the voters are Malays, then on a per capita basis the ruling party should have got almost 60% of the votes and not slightly over 50%. For the ruling party to get lesser votes than the ratio of Malay voters means more non-Malays than Malays voted for the government.

Now you know why comments like these needs to be deleted. These comments are misleading and do not reflect what really happened. And then, because of such comments, the Malay- and Islam-bashing will start. Readers will vent their anger against Malays, Muslims and Islam as if the problem facing Malaysia is due to the Malays, Muslims and Islam. Do you think such allegations will be beneficial to Pakatan Rakyat and will result in more Malays swinging over to the opposition or do you think the opposite will happen instead?

Hence sometimes I wonder whether readers such as 'Babu' are actually Umno cyber-troopers masquerading as opposition supporters whose real intention is to turn the Malays against the opposition and drive them into the arms of Umno.

Then we have the comment by 'Siudi'. What is 'Siudi' trying to imply? There are many other comments such as the one posted by 'Siudi' that says the Malays (plus the natives of Sabah and Sarawak) are stupid, corrupt, can be bought, will vote along racial lines, are still sleeping and need to wake up, and so on.

Actually, the Malays had already woken up and were already voting opposition back since the time of Merdeka. Weren't Terengganu and Kelantan already under PAS since back in the 1950s and 1960s? Don't forget, PAS was formed in 1956, one year before Merdeka, while the first GE was in 1959.

Do you really think that the Malaysian voters are now 'modern' enough to vote across racial and religious lines? Granted the Malays still hold religion dear to their hearts and will vote based on their Islamic 'conscience'. The poll published in 'So you think you know the voters' is testimony to this. But is this merely a Malay problem?

Let's try a little experiment. In the 97-98% Malay seats in the East Coast, we field non-Muslim Chinese candidates. Then, in the predominantly Chinese seats, say in Penang, we field Malay-Muslim candidates. Let us see whether the Chinese candidates in Terengganu/Kelantan and the Malay candidates in Penang can win the election. At the end of the day, if we field the 'wrong' candidate they are going to lose. And 'wrong' and 'right' here would depend on your race and religion. And the same goes for Sabah and Sarawak. Field the 'wrong' candidate and you will lose.

So this is not just about the 'Malay mentality'. It is about the 'Malaysian mentality'. Racism, bigotry, parochialism, etc., recognises no boundaries. It cuts across all ethnic and religious lines. And to pick on the Malays, Muslims and Islam as if only they are the cause of the problem just sends the Malays-Muslims into defensive mode and merely helps Umno prove what they are saying about the non-Malays.

Is this what you want? Because for sure this is exactly what Umno wants. And you are just helping Umno in its effort to convince the Malays-Muslims that they need to stay united against an onslaught by the non-Malays/non-Muslims.

It’s the result, not the problem

Posted: 21 Aug 2012 06:24 PM PDT

Hence, while Europe was breaking away from church control, the Muslims were going the opposite direction. And there was no one to check the rise of Wahhabi Islam. In fact, the west supported them because they wanted access to the rich oilfields of Saudi Arabia. So the west is not just guilty of creating the Taliban but also of allowing Islamic extremism in the Middle East to flourish 100 years or so ago.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Any medical person can tell you that before the doctor can cure the disease, he or she must first know what it is that is ailing you. Understanding the problem is already halfway to solving it. So unless you know what the 'problem' with the Malays is, you are never going to find a solution to that problem.

I say this not as racial stereotyping. I am looking at things from a purely political aspect, in particular that which will affect the outcome of the coming general election, which will soon be upon us. Unless you know what makes Malays tick, it is going to be very difficult to garner their support. And considering that 'Malay seats' form quite a number of constituencies, it is very crucial that we know what is in the mind of the Malay if we want to win their hearts and minds.

I trust you have read my earlier piece, 'So you think you know the voters'. Having lived in a kampung for 20 years in Kuala Terengganu, and having served as a Chairman of the local PTA (PIBG) in a primary school plus the Deputy Chairman in a secondary school, plus also Chairman of the local mosque as well as a surau during my stint in the East Coast, I pretty well can appreciate the mind of a Malay.

Malay children are sent for Qur'an recital classes at a very tender age even before they go to school to learn how to read, write and count. Hence before they can even spell or add they already know their Qur'anic verses and would have memorised quite a few of them, in particular the last chapter of the short verses of the Qur'an.

Now, most Malays do not speak Arabic. Hence they memorise these verses like a parrot without understanding the real meaning of what they are reciting. As they progress, the religious teacher or ustaz will explain to these kids what these verses mean. Hence also, their understanding of these verses will be limited to what has been explained to them by the ustaz, which most likely will be a very narrow interpretation and according to the ustaz's own limited understanding of what the verses are supposed to mean.

Every Muslim kid knows about the Prophet Muhammad's last sermon in Arafah. Some can even repeat this sermon by heart because they have committed it to memory.

Basically, the Prophet's last sermon is about Muslims being brothers and that nationalism is forbidden in Islam. Some scholars even classify nationalism as assabbiyah and hence would be haram (forbidden). Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the Father of Modern Turkey, is classified as an infidel for propagating nationalism and for separating religion from the state. Turkey is viewed as a very poor example of a Muslim country and the blame, they will tell you, goes to Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the lackey of the West.

Malays are raised with this type of indoctrination. You must be Muslim first and everything else second. The Qur'an is God's word that cannot be changed and there must be no compromise. The Sunnah (examples of the Prophet) and the Hadith (sayings of the Prophet) must be accepted alongside the Qur'an or else you will not be considered a Muslim.

Malays are not taught how to analyse or question. Malays are taught how to absorb and accept. To question is taboo. To disagree is fatal. Hence religion is based on total and absolute acceptance and even the smallest doubt regarding Islam would result in condemnation in the Afterlife.

I used the word 'indoctrination' above because this is basically what it is. The Malay mind has been programmed. And it is not easy to un-programme the mind of the Malay, even those who no longer live in Malaysia but live in one of the western countries. Did I not say: you can take the Malay out of the kampung but you can't take the kampung out of the Malay?

To understand the Malay mind you need to look at Europe, say in the era of the 1700s and before that. The Europeans of the pre-1800s were no different from the Malays of today. But then something happened in Europe. What happened was that Napoleon Bonaparte conquered almost the whole of Europe and then he changed the entire education system.

In short, the Europeans were dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world. Before that, only the sons of the elite were allowed an education. The rakyat and girls were not given an education. And the schools were run by the church. So education was very much religious-based.

Napoleon abolished this system. He established public schools, which were open to anyone who wanted an education, even children of the masses or peasants. The powers of the church were curtailed. Europeans were taught that the Monarchs were not God's representatives on earth. In fact, the Monarchy should be abolished in favour of a republic.

Once the Pandora's box was opened it could never be closed again. Europe went through so many 'mental' revolutions -- plus an industrial revolution and many bloody revolutions as well. Nationalistic sentiments grew and eventually monarchic empires collapsed and were replaced by republics. Italy, Germany, etc., emerged from the ashes of the Holy Roman Empire and the Hapsburg Empire.

Empires not only collapsed but many new nations were born after the death of these empires. New countries were formed based on language and cultural differences.

Basically, nationalism (based on ethnicity) and language decided the new boundaries of Europe. Religion was reduced to a personal thing and no longer united Europe. And non-religious-based education was the catalyst.

This all happened about 160 years or so ago. Of course, there was also a downside to all this. Two world wars were fought not long after that because religious unity was replaced by nationalism. Hence people of the same religion but of different languages and cultures began to fight one another. But that is another issue altogether.

Muslims have not gone through this path. No doubt Mustafa Kemal Atatürk achieved that in Turkey. But if Mustafa Kemal Atatürk had become the Muslim world's Napoleon and had conquered the whole of the Middle East -- and had introduced his reforms to the Middle East -- then maybe what we would see today would be an entirely different scenario.

Instead, the reverse happened. Around the time of the French Revolution, the Wahhabis were engaged in their own revolution in the Arabian Peninsular. Wahhabi Islam is a hard-line and uncompromising interpretation of Islam. However, it was not until more than 100 years later, after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in the early 1900s, did Wahhabi Islam take root in the Arabian Peninsular.

Now, around that same time, Malaysia was still a British colony -- then called Malaya. But the British more or less did not interfere in religion. It was left very much to the Malays to handle their own religious affairs. Many of the Muftis in Malaya then came from Saudi Arabia or Egypt. And many Malays were sent to Cairo and/or Medina for their religious education and returned to Malaya to become Muftis and religious teachers.

Hence religious education in Malaya was strongly influenced by the Wahhabi doctrine, very intolerant and uncompromising. And nationalism was shunned -- Turkey being quoted as an example of how bad nationalism can be and detrimental to Islam.

For that matter, even the International Islamic University (UIA) in Gombak was set up by Wahhabis from the US while ABIM has links to the Wahhabis (WAMY) and is financed by them as well. And of course Anwar Ibrahim was very much involved in all this back in those days when he was still very much an Islamist.

It took a few revolutions in the mid-1800s and an all-out European war in the early 1800s to help the Europeans break away from church domination. It is going to take nothing less than that to help the Muslims breakout as well.

Unfortunately, the Wahhabi Revolution of the early 1900s and the Iranian Revolution more than 50 years later went the other way. Instead of breaking out, they went deeper into Islam. And the recent elections in a few Middle Eastern countries have seen hard-line Islamic parties take power from the liberals.

The Malays can be considered pretty liberal by Islamic standards. But we must not make the mistake of sizing up the Malays according to how they lead their lives. What they do could be a great departure from what they think. They hold certain values although they may fail to live up to those values.

And this is why it is very difficult to understand the Malay mind because we would imagine that you would live your life according to what you believe and doing the opposite would make you a hypocrite. But the Malays do not see this as hypocrisy. For example, many gangsters who would not hesitate to murder their enemies are also very staunch Catholics and hold religion dear to their hearts. How do you reconcile this? The same goes for 'bad' Muslims who are also devout in their beliefs although lacking in their ways or adeen.

And that is why years ago I had already said that the Malay mind is a very complex creature and very difficult to comprehend. And I can appreciate why my fellow Malaysians get very confused and cannot understand why the Malays do not share the same ideals as those not of Malay origin.

It will require a major mental revolution before we are going to see this change. And this is what I have harping on the last eight years since I started Malaysia Today in 2004.

Behind the veil of hypocrisy

Posted: 18 Aug 2012 07:28 AM PDT

Malaysians by and large are hypocrites who only talk but will do the opposite of what they say. They demand that others do what they themselves refuse to do. They are very fast with their mouth and freely swear and curse others while they will not tolerate any disagreement.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

What irks me is not criticism. I can take criticism. What irks me is hypocrisy. And there is much hypocrisy behind that veil that hides the face. And that hypocrisy comes in many forms.

How do I despise thee? Let me counts the ways.

One form of hypocrisy is regarding Hudud.

I respect the right of Islamists to advocate the Islamic Sharia law of Hudud, as is the right of anyone in a democracy to advocate whatever they want, including more Chinese schools or more Hindu temples or gay rights or whatever.

It is therefore hypocritical, in a democracy, for anti-Hudud proponents to vilify pro-Hudud proponents by calling them barbarians just as it is hypocritical for pro-Hudud proponents to vilify anti-Hudud proponents by calling them infidels (whether they are Muslims or non-Muslims).

In a democracy everyone has the right to advocate whatever he or she want to advocate without being ridiculed and vilified. And both sides -- the pro-Hudud proponents as well as the anti-Hudud proponents -- demonstrate a lack of democratic spirit. This is hypocrisy when you shout about democracy but you refuse to allow democracy.

Whether the Federal Constitution of Malaysia allows the implementation of Hudud is a matter open to debate. Whether Malaysia is a fully-fledged Secular State considering that Islam is stipulated as the religion of the Federation, whether Malaysia is already an Islamic country (not quite meaning Islamic State) as declared by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, and whether the Constitution allows or forbids the implementation of Hudud does not take way the right of anyone who wishes to propagate or oppose Hudud.

You can propose or oppose Hudud. That is your right. You can't take away that right to propose or oppose it. And in this instance both sides are guilty of not respecting the democratic right to argue Hudud and hence both sides are hypocrites.

Malaysians complain that Malaysia does not respect the right of its citizens to criticise the government or the country's leaders. Doing so would result in you facing charges under the Sedition Act, they lament.

However, Malaysians have a very low tolerance level when you criticise the government they love, whether state or federal, and when you criticise the leaders they love, whether from Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat.

This is not in the spirit of a democracy and is hypocrisy from both sides of the political divide.

Muslims talk about Islam almost non-stop. And if you say anything negative about Islam they will scream and accuse you of insulting Islam and will demand your blood. These Muslims say we must follow the Qur'an, the Sunnah and the Hadith and if we do not then we are not Muslims but will, in fact, become an infidel or kafir.

However, these same Muslims elect their government through a kafir system of Parliamentary general elections modelled after the kafir Westminster system of government.

How can Muslims who scream Islam, Qur'an, Sunnah and Hadith adopt a system that does not follow the Prophet Muhammad's Sunnah? Is this not hypocrisy? "But if we do not comply with the kafir system then how would we get into power?" these Muslims will argue. Would cleansing yourself in the toilet bowl purify you?

Muslims refuse to accept that they are saying one thing but doing the other. And that is hypocrisy. If Islam is supposed to be supreme, then everything else that is placed above Islam must be rejected, the general elections included. If not then Islam will not be supreme since Islam will come under the system. Are Muslims prepared to place Islam supreme by rejecting everything that is not Islam, the general elections included, even if they can't get into power?

The Muslims believe that the Four Caliphs who came after Prophet Muhammad were the Rightly-Guided Caliphs, meaning God or Allah guided them. Hence what they did is not what they did but what Allah guided them to do.

When the First Caliph after Prophet Muhammad, Abu Bakar, was about to be chosen, the citizens of Medina asked him how can they be assured that he would be a fair, honest, just, etc., leader?

Abu Bakar took out his sword and placed it on the ground before him and told the crowd that if he deviates and is not true to his word then they are to take his sword and cut off his head. That was the example of Abu Bakar, which Muslims are very proud to tell us.

At the moment we have not even taken a sword to cut off the heads of our leaders yet, which Abu Bakar said we must do and as reported in the Hadith. At the moment we only criticise them in the Blogs and in the Internet and everyone is foaming at the mouth and curse us and call us all sorts of nasty names.

This is hypocrisy, especially those Muslims who are so proud of Islam, the Qur'an, the Sunnah, the Hadith, Prophet Muhammad and the Four Rightly-Guided Caliphs as well as those non-Muslims who say they want to change the government because they want more democracy and freedom of speech.

Malaysians are so passionate about the political parties that they support, both sides of the political divide. They will vilify and curse those who criticise the party they support and will call you all sorts of nasty names.

However, less than one-third of registered voters are card-bearing members of political parties. They are so passionate about 'their' political party and will not tolerate an iota of criticism against 'their' political party. And they love 'their' political party so much that they will not even spend RM1 to become a member of 'their' party.

This is hypocrisy. And they will demand that others who are neutral and are not members of any political party to show loyalty to 'their' party. And if we do not they will condemn us like hell for not showing loyalty to the party that they did not even pay RM1 to become a member of.

Readers of Malaysia Today call me a coward for refusing to go back to Malaysia to 'face charges' when there are no pending charges against me. And they make this allegation using false names and false e-mail addresses while cowardly refusing to register to comment in Malaysia Today because they want to remain anonymous.

This is hypocrisy.

One million Malaysians live overseas and these people are demanding a change of government because they are fed up with the same government for the last 55 years. They want us to sacrifice for the good of the nation. But they refuse to sacrifice their time and money to go back to Malaysia to register as voters or go back to Malaysia to vote during the by-elections or general elections. Sacrifice is what they want others to do, not what they will do.

This is hypocrisy.

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Isnin, 3 September 2012

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Pengikut

Trafik

Live Traffic

Mesyuarat Tingkap

Archive