Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

The NATO syndrome
The devil’s advocate: just for the heck of it
Keeping the faith
Why apostasy is good for Islam
Stemming the incoherence of misguided Muslim pundits’: my response
Visualisation of the unseen
Why the need for political reforms
Why so kaypoh one?
To know Malaysia is to love Malaysia
Must be Sirim-approved first

Posted: 15 Nov 2012 05:47 PM PST

If we really want to show the compassionate side of Islam then the proper thing to do would have been to investigate the reason why that soldier stole. If it is true that he stole because he is too poor to feed his daughter, then instead of jailing him he should have been put on welfare and every month the religious authorities give him money to feed his daughter.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Ex-soldier jailed 3 months for stealing RM22 milk

(Bernama) - A former soldier was sentenced to three months' jail by the magistrate's court here today for stealing a packet of milk worth RM21.99 from a supermarket last Tuesday.

Senior Assistant Registrar Jesseca Damis handed down the sentence on Mohd Sobir Kashim after he pleaded guilty to the charge.

She ordered Mohd Sobir to serve the sentence from today.

Mohd Sobir, 32, was charged with stealing a packet of Anlene Gold milk at the Jaya Gading Supermarket in Semambu near here at 2.15pm last November 13.

In her judgment, Jesseca said the offence committed by Mohd Sobir was serious although the amount involved was small.

"You are a former soldier and should not have committed an offence like this," she added.

Earlier in mitigation, Mohd Sobir, from Padang Serai, Kedah, said he stole the packet of milk so that he could sell it to get money to buy food for his daughter.

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

Two days ago, His Highness the Sultan of Selangor spoke up regarding Islam. Yesterday it was the turn of His Highness the Sultan of Pahang. Today, Their Highnesses the Sultan of Terengganu and the Raja of Perlis spoke up.

That makes four with five more to go.

Their Highnesses want only those 'qualified' to do so to speak on Islam. Those non-qualified should not do so, titah (decree of a royal nature) Their Highnesses. And 'qualified' here means you must possess a piece of paper with your name on it.

I have never been one to follow royal decrees. When my uncle and aunty were summoned for an audience before His Highness and were ordered to instruct me to apologise regarding what I said about His Highness the Sultan of Perak, I did the opposite. I whacked even harder.

Then I was told to comply with this royal decree or else get disowned by my family. And my family would inset notices in the mainstream newspapers to announce to the world about my 'eviction' from the family.

My response to that was to 'disown' my family by going into self-imposed exile. Hence before my family can sack me, I sack my family first. And I swore I would never ever step foot in Selangor again.

So I will have no choice but to live and die by that oath.

Will I ever go back to Malaysia? many people ask me. I doubt it. Like it or not, I have already burned my bridges and I do not want to become another Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, Rais Yatim, Kadir Sheikh Fadzir, Ibrahim Ali, etc. who also burned their bridges and swore that if they died and got reborn they would still never rejoin Umno -- and then went and rejoined Umno.

I would like to be like Tunku Abdul Rahman and Tun Hussein Onn who held on to their principles. They never rejoined Umno and died outside Umno even though both were once Prime Ministers of Malaysia.

So, the more Their Highnesses say don't talk about Islam, the more I want to talk about it -- because I never listen to royal decrees. But I am not going to talk about the Qur'an or whether Muslims should or should not be allowed to leave Islam. Instead, I want to talk about the story (above) regarding the soldier who was jailed three months for stealing a packet of milk.

Theft is theft (or shoplifting is shoplifting) and under the law you are punished for that crime even if the amount you stole is a mere ten cents (that is if anything in Malaysia can still be found priced at ten cents). That is how the law works.

But that is not how it works in Islam and I do remember people saying that Malaysia is an Islamic country (according to Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad to be exact) and that Islam is the religion of the Federation (according to the Federal Constitution of Malaysia) and so on.

Okay, so we have some ambiguity here. Malaysia is not an Islamic State. Malaysia is not a Secular State either. Malaysia is a Westminster Parliamentary Democracy with Islam as the religion of the nation where the laws are passed by Parliament but certain laws passed by God will affect only the Muslims while non-Muslims are spared God's commands.

Does that sound confusing? I hope so because that was the intention!

Anyway, that Malay soldier, who I assume is also Muslim, stole a packet of milk, and what appears to be a non-Muslim judge punished him with three months jail.

Now, in Islam, the soldier should have been asked why he stole that packet of milk. And this is what the news report said: Mohd Sobir, from Padang Serai, Kedah, said he stole the packet of milk so that he could sell it to get money to buy food for his daughter.

Once that soldier makes this declaration, the judge should have summoned the Kedah Religious Department, which comes under the PAS-led Kedah State Government, to go to court to explain why a soldier who has served his country at a great risk to his life should be in a situation where he has to steal something worth RM22 to feed his daughter.

The religious authorities collect millions of Ringgit every year from Malaysians. And some of that money is supposed to be used to help the poor, weak, old, sick, crippled, homeless, destitute, orphans, widows, unfortunate, etc. So what happened to all that money, which by now must come to billions?

If the Kedah Religious Department did not help this soldier who is too poor to feed his daughter, and hence had to steal to feed his daughter, then the Kedah Religious Department should be chided and the judge should order them to look after the financial welfare of the soldier.

If the Kedah Religious Department still fails to look after the welfare of the soldier and he has to continue to steal to feed his daughter, then the Director of the Kedah Religious Department should be sent to jail instead.

If you steal out of greed then you pay for that crime. But if you steal out of necessity then the authorities must be punished instead. That is how Hudud works, although Malaysia does not implement Hudud.

Okay, Malaysia does not implement Hudud. But Malaysia does implement the tithe collection system (zakat and fitrah), which is compulsory for Muslims and they can be arrested if they do not pay this tithe.

It is nice to see Their Highnesses making statements upholding Islam. But Malaysia seems to be suffering from the NATO syndrome, a.k.a. no action, talk only.

That is what they would do in a 'kafir' country like Britain, which is not an Islamic country but more Islamic than Malaysia.

Yes, every year we celebrate 'heroes day' to remember all those so many soldiers who died for their country. Then we send the not yet dead soldier to jail because he had to steal to feed his daughter. We honour the dead and jail the living. Only dead people are heroes. Living people are a burden to the country.

And then we scream that this is Islam and that we should uphold Islam and that those who speak against Islam should be punished and all that crap. Islam is not about talking. Islam is about acting. And we expect soldiers to die for us so that we can have a good life and when they can't feed their children we send them to jail.

How can I not cry when I write this article? Am I getting too emotional in my old age or am I the only Muslim who has a heart? Maybe I am getting too old and that's why I cry a lot.

Oh, by the way, the nine Rulers are Colonels-in-Chief of the various branches of the Armed Forces while His Majesty the Agong is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.

I hope Their Highnesses are ashamed with themselves. And that is all I want to say about that particular matter.

And don't you wankers ever try to suggest that the Malays get all sorts of benefits while the non-Malays are oppressed -- not while we still have Malays who cannot even feed their children, especially Malays who risk their lives so that the non-Malays can have a peaceful and prosperous county to live in.

The devil’s advocate: just for the heck of it

Posted: 13 Nov 2012 06:46 AM PST

Hence the argument that Biblical records are evidence is a fallacy. The so-called records are 'modern' and were created centuries after the event. How, therefore, can we claim that they are accurate or authentic records when there exists a gap of so many centuries.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The physical evidence in the real world shows that the earth is young, probably a few thousand years old as Biblical chronology shows. The so-called 'scientific' evidence that the earth is several billions of earth old is based on assumptions and has no hard physical evidence. -- upsidedown119

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

'upsidedown119' has been flooding Malaysia Today with comments, in particular in his or her debates with 'Lord Jim'. I thought I would join the fray just for the heck of it and play the devil's advocate. 'upsidedown119' posted the comment above in response to my article Keeping the faith. Maybe I can respond to that response.

Religionists always use the argument that science cannot prove this or prove that. Hence claims by scientists cannot be accepted as fact or evidence. Religion, however, can prove all its claims because it has Biblical records to support these claims.

Most times science is based on observations, sometimes with experiments thrown in. From these observations, scientists make assumptions and come to conclusions. At the end of the day it is all just that -- observations and assumptions, and conclusions based on these observations and assumptions.

Hence science is still not really conclusive. It is what at that point of time they think it means. There have been occasions later on, it could even be centuries later, when scientists come out with new findings based on new observations and they deduce that earlier observations and assumptions, and the conclusions resulting from them, were wrong.

In other words, nothing is permanently conclusive. It is only conclusive at that point of time. That could change later when new findings emerge. Science is always searching and researching for new evidence to either prove earlier findings correct or to prove them wrong.

In the old days, say 2,000 years ago, there was no technology called carbon dating. Hence the only source of reference as to how old the earth is was Biblical records. Today there are many ways to date archaeological discoveries. And, through modern technology, archaeological discoveries of what appear to be human remains have shown that they are hundreds of millions or even billions of years old.

Let us assume that science and technology is wrong and wherever science is in conflict with Biblical records we reject science in favour of Biblical records. This is well and fine. But then we would have to question the accuracy and authenticity of Biblical records.

Biblical records of, say, 3,500 years ago, must be authenticated through the same process that science proves other things. In other words, can we carbon date these Biblical records and prove that they are 3,500 years old?

The oldest Hebrew manuscript (not complete text) is about 200 BCE -- that is 200 years before the birth of Jesus Christ. That means there is a 'gap' of roughly 1,000 years or more from the time of the event till the time of the records.

The oldest complete Greek text is dated more than 300 years after Christ. And Greek was not the language that Christ spoke. Hence there is no Aramaic record from the time of Christ. In other words, this is a 'translation', but a translation of what? There is no original text in Aramaic.

This means we must take everything at 'face value' based on accepting the word of the creator of the document, as the legal fraternity would say. And this would also mean at least 300 years have passed from the time of the event till the record of the event.

What happened in those 'missing' 300 years?

Between 1946 and 1956, the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered on the northwest shore of the Dead Sea. The Dead Sea Scrolls are written in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Nabataean, mostly on parchment, but some written on papyrus and bronze. These manuscripts have been dated between 408 BCE to 318 AD.

Around 40% of the Scrolls comprise of Biblical records but then they are in Hebrew, not Aramaic. Hence the evidence is still not conclusive. There are no Aramaic Biblical records from the time of Christ amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls. And there are certainly no Biblical records from 1,000-1,500 BCE, what we refer to as The Old Testament.

Human memory is fallible. What happened hundreds of years ago when all those people involved in the event have already died and when stories of the event were passed down by word of mouth over centuries will invariably be distorted and exaggerated. Even stories regarding Robin Hood are questionable even though that was supposed to have been less than 1,000 years ago.

The earliest official written records in England were created about 1,000 years ago during the reign of King William the Conqueror. Before that there were no official records other than those created by the church and even then mostly regarding the palace and the royal family.

King Arthur was supposed to have lived around the late 5th and early 6th centuries. However, till today, they still do not know the location of Camelot and whether Camelot and Arthur really did exist or is a mere myth.

We can trace the history of England to about 55 BCE. And this is only because the Romans came to England at that time and they maintained records. Before 55 BCE England more or less did not exist, so to speak, from the records point of view. Around 410 AD the Romans left England but by then Christianity had come to England -- around 100 years before that. So the church 'took over' when the Romans left.

So England's historical records can be accurately traced back to about the time of Christ. Nevertheless, while there are records from this era, there are no records of an Aramaic Bible. Many records from the time of Christ are available except records of an Aramaic Bible. The earliest Bible is in Greek and dated about 300 years after Christ.

Hence, in short, nothing is conclusive. Hence, also, we cannot argue that one type of evidence outweighs another. If we want to accept Christianity based on evidence then there are none. Christianity must be accepted based on faith, not based on evidence.

And faith is the word to describe lack of evidence.

Keeping the faith

Posted: 12 Nov 2012 08:11 PM PST

Yes, religionists need miracles. They need a sign from God. And these miracles and signs help strengthen our faith. And faith is what religion is all about. We see signs and miracles everywhere. We can even see them when they are not there. That is how strong faith can be.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Malaysia church gets window with Virgin Mary image

(AP) - A Malaysian church is taking possession of a hospital window that has attracted hundreds of people who believe it bears an image of the Virgin Mary.

Prayerful crowds of Roman Catholics have gathered outside the Sime Darby Medical Center in a suburb near Kuala Lumpur since last weekend after an image believed to resemble the Virgin Mary was spotted on the hospital's seventh-floor window.

Rev. Simon Labrooy of the suburb's Church of St Thomas More says he met with hospital officials and agreed the crowd situation could affect medical emergency services.

He said in a statement late Monday that the hospital glass panel would be moved to a church and tested by theologians and religious authorities.

Christians comprise nearly 10 percent of Muslim-majority Malaysia's population.

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

First Map Produced of Universe 11 Billion Years Ago

(Reuter) - An international team of astronomers has produced the first map of the universe as it was 11 billion years ago, filling a gap between the Big Bang and the rapid expansion that followed.

The study, published in the journal Astronomy & Astrophysics, shows the universe went through a phase roughly three billion years after the Big Bang when expansion actually started to slow, before the force of so-called 'dark energy' kicked in and sent galaxies accelerating away from each other.

Much is known about the immediate aftermath of the Big Bang from studies of its afterglow in the cosmic background radiation, and its accelerating expansion over several billion years can be seen with a look at the way distant galaxies are moving.

"Only now are we finally seeing its adolescence... just before it underwent a growth spurt," said Mat Pieri at the University of Portsmouth in Britain, one of the authors of the study.

Little is known about dark energy, and its counterpart dark matter, but astronomers argue the force must exist to account for the speed at which the universe is expanding. Together, dark energy and dark matter are believed to make up about 96 percent of the universe.

The new study supports the theory that dark energy was somehow created as the universe expanded, by detailing a period when gravity was winning the tussle and slowing the expansion.

"If we think of the universe as a roller coaster, then today we are rushing downhill, gaining speed as we go," said Pieri. "Our new measurement tells us about the time when the universe was climbing the hill – still being slowed by gravity."

The map, the work of 63 scientists from nine countries, was compiled using a novel technique for studying the intense light from 50,000 distant quasars as it passes through clouds of hydrogen in space on its way to Earth.

They produce a picture of the ancient universe in same way thousands of flashlight beams would light up a bank of fog.

"The quasars are back-lights," Pieri told Reuters, and the way the gas in front of them absorbs some of the light allows astronomers to get a detailed picture of these distant clouds of gas known as the intergalactic medium.

The study is the first fruit from a five-year project started in 2009. The team, from the third Sloan Digital Sky Survey, expect to expand the survey with light from about 160,000 quasars by the end of the project.

"We're essentially measuring the shadows cast by gas along a series of lines, each billions of light-years long," said Will Percival, a cosmology professor the University of Portsmouth.

"The tricky part is combining all those one-dimensional maps. The problem is like trying to recognize an object from a picture that's been painted on the quills of a porcupine," he said.

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

Religion works on the basis of faith. That is why religions are called 'faiths'. And, to keep the faith, we need miracles. Every prophet had his miracle(s). And the Muslims believe that Prophet Muhammad's miracle was/is the Qur'an.

To those not schooled in Islam, Prophet Muhammad was said to be illiterate. He could neither read nor write. Hence he could not have written the Qur'an himself. Hence, also, the Qur'an must have come from God, through, the Muslims believe, the Angel Gabriel.

That is the Muslim belief. And the faith that the Qur'an came from God, and hence Prophet Muhammad is a true Prophet of God (proven by the existence of the Qur'an), makes a Muslim a Muslim and keeps a Muslim a Muslim.

Without this miracle of Muhammad, meaning the Qur'an, Islam would not exist and in that same spirit Muslims would not exist.

The miracle of Muhammad ended with the revelation of the last verse of the Qur'an. However, from time to time, new miracles need to emerge to strengthen the Muslim faith. For example, in the 2004 Boxing Day Tsunami, the entire Aceh disappeared except for just the mosque (see picture below).

Muslims hail that as a miracle. This, said the Muslims, is a sign from God. The fact that all other buildings were built from timber while only the mosque was built from concrete (and hence could resist the Tsunami) was not a consideration. The fact that only the mosque remained standing is what is considered the miracle and the sign from God.

Some Malaysian Muslims also said that the 2004 Tsunami that hit the island of Phuket in Thailand is also a sign from God. Phuket is a 'sin city', they say. Hence God punished Phuket because of the sins perpetuated in that town/island.

(You must visit the Banana disco in Phuket where all the delicious lady boys hang out).

But then only 8,000 or so people were killed in Thailand for their 'sins'. And almost 170,000 people were killed in Indonesia, 31,000 in Bandar Aceh alone. If God was punishing Phuket for its sins, why take 31,000 devout Muslims from Aceh and more than 100,000 others from other parts of Indonesia, many who were devout Muslims?

So what is God's message here when He punishes 8,000 'sinners' and then kills another quarter of a million non-sinners in the process, many of them innocent women and children?

The Holy Books guide us in our faith. The Holy Books say that humankind has existed for 6,500 years ever since earth was first created and Adam and Eve walked the face of this earth.

Now the stupid and ignorant scientists say that earth has existed for billions of years. They are wrong. Satan is deceiving them. They are trying to mislead us. How can they say something contrary to what the Holy Books say?

Why apostasy is good for Islam

Posted: 12 Nov 2012 07:03 PM PST

I suppose one way to solve the serious AIDS and drug problem amongst the Malays-Muslims would be to allow them to leave Islam. Once all these people have left Islam then the high incidence of AIDS and drugs amongst the Malays-Muslims would also end because these people would no longer be Muslims but would be ex-Muslims. (And, according to the Constitution, you must be Muslim to be Malay -- so ex-Muslims would also be ex-Malays).

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

"Call to reject Muslim leaders who do not uphold Islam," said The Borneo Post. Bernama, on the other hand, said, "At Islamic meet, Jakim hopes to slow Muslim AIDS spread". You can read both news reports below.

I remember Tan Sri Sanusi Junid, the one-time Menteri Besar of Kedah, saying that the highest incidence of AIDS is amongst the fishermen community. He also said that the state with the highest incidence of AIDS is Kelantan.

Sanusi was then the Minister of Agriculture when he said that (in a gathering at the MCOBA building) and what he really meant was that the highest incidence of AIDS is amongst the Malays-Muslims, and the poorer segment of society on top of that.

It was roughly 25 years ago when Sanusi said that. Apparently, after 25 years, Malaysia still faces the problem of Malays-Muslims having the highest incidence of AIDS.

According to the authorities, not only is AIDS the highest amongst Malays-Muslims (estimated at 70%), but it is highest amongst drug addicts (90%) as well. Hence it is drugs (the sharing of needles) and not sex that is the main cause of AIDS -- although in many cases it can be both because drug addicts also become 'sex workers' to earn money to finance their very expensive drug addiction.

Someone once told me (I don't know whether this is true or not) that the highest divorce rate is also amongst the Malays-Muslims. This could be true because it is easier for Muslims than non-Muslims to divorce. The husband just needs to utter the words "I divorce you" and the divorce is complete.

Of course, the wife can always go to the Shariah Court to lodge a complaint. But anyone who has ever dealt with the Shariah Courts will tell you that these courts are male-friendly and female-unfriendly. Hence expect the wife to not receive justice.

And I speak from personal experience because many of my lady friends who were divorced by just these three words were subjected to that injustice. (Yes, I do have many divorced lady friends). I must say I felt strongly for these women (but not in the way you think, though) who were manipulated by the system and mocked by their husbands who abandoned them without any income.

Back in the 1970s, I used to frequent the bars in Kuala Terengganu and Kota Bharu. (Well, I never said I am an angel, did I?). Of course, that was when I was in my 20s and before I became a Born Again Muslim.

Most of the bargirls I spoke to all had one story to tell. They got married in their teens. They now have children. And their husband had abandoned them and had 'disappeared'.

These girls (many in the 20s and even some in their late teens) have no education or qualification. Hence they need to work as bargirls to earn a living and feed their child/children.

By why do they need to live such immoral lives? What are the Shariah Courts doing about their plight? Nothing, of course, and many of these abandoned girls/women indicated that they would be happy to become my second, third or fourth wife (or even my mistress) for just a couple of hundreds of Ringgit a month 'allowance'.

Yes, for a mere RM1,000 a month, I could have supported three additional wives (at least back in the 1970s). However, when you are married to a Thai (like me), never try that. Thailand has the most number of 'Bobbitt' cases in the entire world. (And if you don't know what 'Bobbitt cases' mean, read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_and_Lorena_Bobbitt. Charles…this part is meant for you, mate).

Anyway, this piece is not meant as a Malay-Muslim bashing exercise. What I wish to highlight is regarding the serious social problems faced by the Malays-Muslims, which the government has known about for more than three decades and which it can't seem to solve.

I used to joke that the way to solve the high divorce rate amongst Malays-Muslims would be to not force them to get married. Let them just live together, and then when they separate they just separate. If they are not married then their separation would not be called divorce. Hence the high divorce rate amongst the Malays-Muslims would end.

Anyway, jokes aside -- because this is certainly no joking matter -- we have a serious problem. Or rather, we have a serious problem amongst the Malays-Muslims whether it is divorce, AIDS, drugs, or whatever. And it is an old problem since the 1970s that looks like it can never be solved.

So why are these religious people and the religious authorities talking about this person or that person saying the wrong thing and getting all hot and bothered about it?

Okay, so someone said there is no compulsion in religion and Muslims are free to leave Islam if they wish to. Do you think by stopping people from saying there is no compulsion in religion and Muslims are free to leave Islam if they wish to this will make Muslims better Muslims?

Who cares about how many people become Muslims or how many leave Islam? This is not a numbers game. This is not a contest to see who can beat the other in number of 'followers'? Should not the focus be on the quality of Muslims rather than the quantity?

I am not so concerned about how many Muslims there are in Malaysia. I am more concerned about what type of Muslim these people are. Currently, when we talk about corruption, abuse of power, divorce, drugs, AIDS, or whatever other social ills you can think of, it appears that the majority of the transgressors are Malays-Muslims.

Aren't the Malays-Muslims ashamed of this? Then, when the non-Malays/non-Muslims point out that the Malays-Muslims are highly immoral, the Malays-Muslims get angry. They say you are insulting them. They say you are cabaring them. They threaten you with 'May 13'.

The mindset of the Islamists is becoming very ridiculous. They focus on form rather than function. They worry about whether the woman is too sexy or is indecently dressed. The fact that the woman keeps her tudong on but lifts up her baju kurung for a quickie in the pantry is of no concern to these Islamists.

So you want everyone to dress like Mother Teresa. Does that solve our social problems?

The Johor Wanita Umno head, Datuk Sharifah Azizah Syed Zain, wants us to reject Muslim leaders who do not uphold Islam. What does she mean by 'do not uphold Islam'? Not a single Muslim leader upholds Islam in the real sense of the word. So that would mean not a single Muslim leader should get our support and must be rejected, even those from the opposition.

Of course, what Sharifah Azizah meant is that we must reject Muslim leaders who propagate freedom of religion. This is the only act of not upholding Islam as far as Sharifah Azizah is concerned.

And this is why the Malays-Muslims can never progress. They have a very narrow worldview. Not upholding Islam just means freedom of religion. All other social ills, sins and crimes are not included. Those do not come under the ambit of 'not upholding Islam'.

Mampuslah Melayu kalau macam ni!

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

Call to reject Muslim leaders who do not uphold Islam

(The Borneo Post) - The confusing statement made by Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) vice-president Nurul Izzah Anwar on religious freedom should be an eye-opener for the people to reject leaders who failed to protect the sanctity of Islam, said two Wanita Umno leaders.

Johor Wanita Umno head Datuk Sharifah Azizah Syed Zain said such a statement should not be made by a Muslim leader as it could be misinterpreted, especially by the young people.

She said stern action should be taken against the Lembah Pantai member of parliament to serve as a lesson to her not to attempt to misuse Islamic teachings for politics.

"She seems to be desperate to win (in the coming general election) to the extent of exploiting religion.

"I hope this will open the people's eyes to reject such a leader," she told Bernama.

On Nov 3, a pro-opposition news portal had quoted Nurul Izzah as saying that the people should not be compelled to adopt a particular religion, and that this should also apply to Malays.

"When you ask me, there is no compulsion in religion … how can anyone say sorry, this (religious freedom) only applies to non-Malays, it has to apply equally," she was quoted as saying when speaking at a forum on "Islamic State: Which version; Who's responsibility?" in Subang Jaya on the same day.

Sharifah Azizah said she did not believe that Nurul Izzah had unintentionally made the statement.

"She made the statement to show that she is not an Islamic fanatic, supports lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT), rights to religious freedom," she said.

She also questioned the action by Nurul Izzah in suing the mainstream media, instead of the pro-opposition news portal which posted her controversial statement.

Wanita Umno religious bureau chairman Datin Paduka Mesrah Selamat said a Muslim leader, regardless of the party he/she represented, who failed to uphold Islam was not qualified to lead and should be rejected by the people.

She said Nurul Izzah's statement could have an impact, especially on Muslim youths.

Meanwhile, an organisation called Pertubuhan-Pertubuhan Pembela Islam (Pembela) described Nurul Izzah's statement as irresponsible and disrespectful, and urged an investigation be conducted by the relevant authorities.

This controversy, if not stopped, can give a wrong perception of Islam, it said in a press statement issued here yesterday.

In a related development, Cheras Umno leader Datuk Wira Syed Ali Alhabshee said he did not rule out the possibility that the spread of liberalism and pluralism in Malaysia was supported by enemies of Islam from outside the country.

He said the enemies of Islam never ceased with their efforts to erode the faith of the Muslims and cause a split among them, and this situation was exploited by those with vested political interest in the country.

"Nurul Izzah's statement on religious freedom has made the enemies of Islam happy. It can give a bad implication to Muslims," he added.

Syed Ali said the relevant authorities, including the Selangor Religious Council and the National Fatwa Council, should investigate and address the issue

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

At Islamic meet, Jakim hopes to slow Muslim AIDS spread

(Bernama) - It is hoped that the best guideline and resolution to tackle HIV/AIDS can be produced by the three-day 2012 International Islamic Conference and HIV/AIDS from Monday, here.

Malaysian Islamic Development Department (JAKIM) said, the conference would also explain efforts by Muslim leaders, Islamic social activists and numerous parties to tackle HIV/AIDS.

"The conference will enable Islamic scholars, scientists and researchers to discuss issues of HIV/AIDS among Muslims and share experiences and studies," according to Jakim in a statement today.

The conference was organised by Jakim in cooperation with the Health Ministry, Malaysian Aids Council, Ihtimam Foundation and Malaysian Aids Foundation.

It would be attended by 300 participants from government agencies, local and foreign non-government organisations and universities.

Jakim said, the conference would also promote the Islamic approach in tackling the HIV/AIDS problem, as found in the Islamic and HIV/AIDS Manual.

"Currently, Malaysia is the only country with a manual on Islam and HIV/AIDS resulting from close cooperation between Jakim and the Health Ministry".

Four topics of discussion would be tabled: 'Strategy To Prevent HIV/AIDS In Malaysia', 'Addressing HIV/AIDS Epidemic: Analysis of Best Practice', 'Role Played By Malaysian Government & NGO' and 'Social Research On HIV/AIDS'.

Among local presenters were Johor Islamic Religious Council Adviser Datuk Noh Gadut, Malaysian Islamic Doctors Association president Prof Dr Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman, Malaysian Aids Council president Dr Raj Karim and Malaysian Aids Foundation chairman Prof Dr Adeeba Kamarulzaman.

Meanwhile, the foreign presenters were from Uganda, Australia and Qatar.

Stemming the incoherence of misguided Muslim pundits’: my response

Posted: 11 Nov 2012 06:31 PM PST

Truth, error, good, bad, etc. are not absolutes. There are no 'facts' when we talk about truth, error, good, bad, etc., in religion. They are all relative and subject to time and place. And what is good/bad in religion may not be good/bad from society's point of view. And what is good/bad from society's point of view, yesterday, may not be good/bad from society's point of view today.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

It is truly shameful that the affairs of Muslims were being discussed without the guidance of scholars of Islām possessing true and correct knowledge of the religion.

How can one even be sure that they are speaking earnestly and truthfully on behalf of Islām?

Furthermore, a non-Muslim making ignorant statements about Islām may be excused on the basis of not himself being a Muslim and of being obstinate. Yet, a greater cause for concern is when a ignorant Muslim makes ambivalent declarations about the nature of Islām as a religion.

In fact, this betrays a categorical confusion on her part because from the Muslim understanding, Islām is the true revealed religion, and the affirmation of this fact has consequences both in this world and in the hereafter.

The religion of Islām requires both belief (imān) and submission (islām) from its believers. Both are not identical, but they are mutually inseparable and indispensable, which means that one cannot do without the other.

Those who argue along the lines of half-baked understanding of the Qur'ānic verse often do not even bother to read the second part of the verse that makes clear the distinction between Truth and error. There is no sense in holding on to that verse if this distinction is only mentioned in briefly or outrightly dismissed without equally serious consideration. The religion of Islām makes clear its claim to Truth, and this is why its content is cognitive to the human mind.

A person who is presented with a choice between what is good and what is bad and proceeds to choose the bad is not exercising real freedom. In truth, the person is trapped within his own ignorance, thus unable to make the right choice in choosing for the better, and in doing so, has committed a grave injustice to his or her own self and others.

If we allow the promissory note for such literal interpretation of the verse devoid of scholarly consensus and right guidance, then there would be nothing left to prevent the likes of fanatics, demagogues and even militant extremists from appropriating Islām in order to justify atrocities and perpetuate even further injustices.

READ THE FULL TEXT OF THE LETTER HERE:

http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/letterssurat/52703-stemming-the-incoherence-of-misguided-muslim-pundits

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

Those are some of the extracts from the letter that Muhammad Husni Mohd Amin, Wan Mohd Aimran Wan Mohd Kamil, Muhammad Syukri Rosli and Wan Ahmad Fayhsal Wan Ahmad Kamal sent to Malaysia Today, and which we published today.

I suspect many of you were quite lost by the language used and could not quite make out what the authors were trying to say -- other than that only Muslim scholars should talk about Islam and that Islam is the true religion while all others are false.

Nevertheless, maybe I can respond to some of the salient points raised in that letter. And I am addressing my response to Muhammad Husni Mohd Amin, Wan Mohd Aimran Wan Mohd Kamil, Muhammad Syukri Rosli and Wan Ahmad Fayhsal Wan Ahmad Kamal.

When we debate an issue or argue a point, we must be very clear in our mind as to the intended audience. The audience, on the other hand, must be very clear as to what 'platform' we are standing on in presenting our arguments.

From your arguments, it is clear that you are speaking as Islamists and your audience is meant to be fellow Muslims. You do not care about the views of the non-Muslims. You are giving your views on Islam from the perspective of a Muslim and meant for the ears of Muslims.

In that case, those not of the Islamic faith will never accept what you say. What you say has nothing to do with the non-Muslims. You, a Muslim, talks about Islam, from the perspective of Islam, meant for a Muslim audience.

You have crafted your letter as if you are presenting facts. No doubt, to Muslims, you are definitely presenting facts. To the non-Muslims, however, what you say are not facts. These are merely opinions. And non-Muslims, for sure, will have a different opinion to you.

For example, to the Christians, Jesus is the Son of God, humankind was born with sins, and Jesus died on the cross for our sins. Hence if we accept Jesus we would be saved.

This is an indisputable fact to most Christians.

To Muslims, however, this is not a fact. In fact, Muslims may even consider this a lie. Hence non-Muslims would not regard this Christian doctrine as fact but merely an opinion (and a misguided one at that, too, Muslims will argue). Therefore, being an opinion, and an opinion that Muslims do not agree with, the Christian doctrine could be right or could be wrong (and certainly wrong from the Islamic perspective).

Hence, when you talk to a multi-cultural audience, you need to understand the proper way in doing so. For example, instead of stating 'facts', it would help if you say things like 'according to the Muslim belief', etc. Then we would be implying that this is what I, as a Muslim, believe, but I am not suggesting that you, too, believe what I believe.

Now, in that letter, are you discussing a matter of theology, philosophy, a legal issue, the Federal Constitution, issue of human rights and civil liberties, or what? From my reading of the letter, you are discussing theology, and Islamic theology in particular.

Would Muslims be interested in hearing someone talk about Hinduism or Christianity from the theological aspect? And would Muslims be convinced by these arguments and accept them as the truth?

This is the flaw in most arguments presented by Muslims. You have your beliefs and you present your beliefs as facts and you expect others to also accept them as facts. And when they cannot, you get upset and start screaming that these people have insulted Islam and therefore action should be taken against these people.

Maybe we can look at this issue not from the perspective of theology, in particular Islamic theology. Then, and only then, can we talk to a multi-cultural audience, which I suspect is what you are trying to do since you sent your letter to Malaysia Today.

You spoke about truth and error. You also spoke about good and bad. Now, I am going to address my comments not just to Muslims but also to religionists in general.

In other words, 'good' and 'bad' constantly changes. It changes according to the period. It changes according to the region. And it changes according to the society you live in.

For example, 100 years or so ago, any woman wearing a miniskirt in England would be vilified and maybe even accosted. Today, a woman can walk around town practically in her panties and nothing will happen. So what was bad 100 years ago in England is no longer bad.

Now, if a woman walks around town in a miniskirt in Saudia Arabia, she would be arrested and flogged. In Malaysia, she will not be arrested and flogged. However, if she walks around Kota Bharu in her panties she will, for sure, be in trouble.

Hence is wearing a miniskirt (or just your panties) good or bad? It depends on what period you live in and where you live.

So how can good and bad be taken as absolutes? Good and bad will change across time and across borders. Hence, when you argue about what you consider as good and bad, that is merely your opinion and that does not make it a fact or mean you are right.

Let me give you another example. Marrying off your daughter who already has her period (say at age 11) to a boy who has reached puberty (say age 12) is allowed in Islam. Since it is allowed in Islam then it must be good. But would society also regard that as 'good' just because Islam does not forbid it and therefore it is considered good?

Would you marry off your 11-year-old daughter to a man of, say, 45 (a millionaire Datuk)? There is nothing wrong with that. And since it is not wrong then it is good. However, you would probably not consider it 'good' although it is allowed in religion.

Let me take another example, this time regarding slavery.

Islam has never outlawed slavery. Muslims are allowed to own slaves and you can even have sex with your slaves. This is perfectly legal in Islam. But if I were to offer you some slaves to buy -- and pretty ones who have been 'well-trained' in how to please their master in bed on top of that -- would you consider that 'good'? How can it not be good when Islam allows it?

The slave trade saw about 11 million Africans captured and sold. And many of these slavers were actually Muslim Arabs. The Arabs were still trading in slaves long after the west had outlawed slavery. Society had by then considered slavery as bad when the Arab Muslims slavers were still doing a roaring business in selling captured Africans.

To have an intelligent and intellectual discourse with decorum and civility is not easy in Malaysia Today. Many of the readers are crude and brash and do not understand how to be polite. Malaysia Today readers regard name-calling and mocking as debating. That is the problem we face in trying to build bridges between the different communities in Malaysia.

I have given up trying to civilise Malaysia Today readers. So now I talk exactly like how they talk. And, of course, they do not like it one bit. What they fail to realise is that when they talk like that others do not like it as well. But I will continue to give them a taste of their own medicine until they 'vomit blood'.

Nevertheless, I welcome such letters and I hope you will continue sending them to Malaysia Today. The only thing is do not expect intelligent or intellectual responses to such letters. But in the spirit or dakwah do not let that discourage you.

Visualisation of the unseen

Posted: 10 Nov 2012 08:15 PM PST

What we 'see' today, therefore, are the creation of painters of 500-600 years ago who had a fertile mind and an unbridled imagination. They imagined all this in their brain and then transferred their thoughts to canvas and/or walls and ceilings.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

You have probably read the news of the 'appearance' of the Virgin Mary at the Sime Darby Medical Centre in Subang Jaya a few days ago. I find it quite amusing that Christians all over the world have 'seen' Jesus Christ and/or his mother 'appear' from time to time.

Actually, until about 500-600 years ago, Christians had no notion of what Jesus or Mary looked like. Then, during the Early Renaissance period in France from 1385-1520 and the High Renaissance period in Italy from 1475-1525, Christians began to visualise what they could not visualise before that.

The people who can be attributed (or blamed) for this would be the Renaissance painters such as Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci, Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni, Hieronymus Bosch, Jacobus de Voragine, etc. (about 70-80 in all from all over Europe).

Some of their famous paintings are The Last Supper by Leonardo da Vinci, Lamentation of Christ by Mantegna, Sistine Chapel ceiling by Michelangelo, The Descent from the Cross by Rogier van der Weyden, Flagellation of Christ by Piero della Francesca, Isenheim Altarpiece by Matthias Grünewald, Melun Diptych (Virgin and Child Surrounded by Angels) by Jean Fouquet, and so on.

Basically, these painters of 500-600 years ago gave Christendom a visualisation of what God, Jesus, Mary, Satan, the Angels, etc., looked like. Before that there was no visualisation of what could be considered 'divine beings'.

Today, what we 'see' is what those people of 500-600 years ago 'saw'. But did they actually see all this or was this merely a figment of their imagination? I suppose my 'image' of Prophet Muhammad, King Arthur, Merlin the Magician, Robin Hood, etc., would be as accurate as those Renaissance painters of 500-600 years ago.

If I was a painter (and I am not) and I was commissioned by the church to paint the walls and ceilings of cathedrals and churches, I would probably use the images below as my guide. The Virgin Mary would look like a woman from her region and not like a Hollywood actress while Jesus would not be a tall, handsome, blue-eyed, blonde man but someone like Yasser Arafat, as he would most likely have looked like.

The mind is a very powerful thing and you can certainly be made to see what does not exist if you can condition the mind with centuries of brainwashing. I wonder how many of those painters were actually atheists who did not believe in God. Yet they could influence us into seeing what they themselves did not believe in.

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

Virgin Mary image draws Catholics to hospital

(The Malaysian Insider) - Catholic Malaysians have been flocking to the Sime Darby Medical Centre in Subang Jaya to catch a glimpse of an image that has appeared on one of its windows said to resemble the image of the Virgin Mary, The Sunday Star reported today.

The mysterious image of the figure revered by Catholics who believe Mary to be the mother of Jesus Christ was reported to have been spotted a few days ago on a window pane at the hospital.

The image has been captured on camera and spread on Facebook. Yesterday, a group largely composed of Catholics visited the medical centre and sung hymns and prayed before the image.

"It is so wonderful that our Mother has come to us in a hospital, where many of the sick are crying out for her help," Janet Tong, 45, told the English-language newspaper.

Sheree Rao, a businessman who was present at the hospital, reportedly said the image could not be seen from the inside of the window.

"I touched the glass, thinking it could be paint or something else. But there was nothing,'' the 21-year-old was reported as saying.

A 20-year-old student, Nicole Jo Pereira, said she thinks it's a sign for people to practise good deeds.

The hospital authorities and the editor of the The Herald, Malaysia's sole Catholic newspaper have declined to give their comments, The Sunday Star reported.

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

Awestruck by Virgin Mary image

(The Star) - An image of what seems to be the Blessed Virgin Mary on a window at the Sime Darby Medical Centre (SDMC) here is drawing crowds.

A large group of people, mostly Catholics, gathered below the area at the new wing of the hospital yesterday, lighting candles, singing hymns and reciting prayers.

Traffic was heavy around the vicinity, with even tourist buses pulling up by the roadside.

Secretary Janet Tong, 45, described the apparition as "amazing".

"It is so wonderful that our Mother has come to us in a hospital, where many of the sick are crying out for her help," she said.

Several claimed the colour and position of the image also changed.

Businessman Sheree Rao, 21, who went up inside to get a close look at the window, said the image was only visible from the outside.

"I touched the glass, thinking it could be paint or something else. But there was nothing,'' he added.

Student Nicole Jo Pereira, 20, said she believed the image was a call for people to do good deeds.

Teacher Kenneth Fong, 27, said he was sure of an image on the window. "But whether it's from God, I don't know."

Photographs of the image, believed to have appeared several days ago, have gone viral on Facebook.

Access to the window from inside the building has been restricted by the hospital.

A hospital official declined to comment on the matter.

Catholic newsletter The Herald editor Rev Father Lawrence Andrew said the Catholic Church would withhold official comment until the image had been tested and verified by theologians and church authorities.

Catholics believe that Mary, as mother of Jesus Christ, is the Mother of God.

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

Did the Virgin Mary look like the above or the below?

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

Yasser Arafat in the 1940s (above) and later in life (below)

Why the need for political reforms

Posted: 06 Nov 2012 05:53 PM PST

So, let me spell it out to you clearly, yet again. Malaysia needs political reforms. Of course we also need electoral reforms. We also need good governance, transparency, an end to abuse of power and corruption, an end to racial discrimination and religious persecution, and a million other things. But what Malaysia needs most is political reforms and if we can achieve that then many ills facing the country can automatically cure itself.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Eight in 10 Chinese want political reform: survey

(AFP) - BEIJING - Eight out of 10 people in China's major cities support political reform, according to a survey reported Wednesday, on the eve of a once-in-a-decade leadership transition.

Seven in 10 people believe the government should face greater public scrutiny and strengthen its checks against corruption, said the poll, published in the state-run Global Times newspaper.

Corruption topped the survey's list of threats to social stability.

"Most Chinese people believe China should initiate political reform," the newspaper said.

The survey figures come as President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao wind down 10 years of leadership that saw roaring economic growth but also growing popular discontent over problems including corruption and income disparity.

The leaders' expected successors, Vice President Xi Jinping and Vice Premier Li Keqiang, are due to be anointed at a five-yearly Communist party congress beginning in Beijing tomorrow.

They will face mounting pressure to address such issues and spur economic growth, which has slowed to 7.4 per cent, its lowest quarterly rate since 2009.

Analysts say the administration has failed to enact the economic and political reforms needed to ensure steady growth in the coming years.

China's all-powerful ruling party censors public criticism and its top leaders make key policy decisions and appointments through negotiations behind closed doors.

Two thirds of respondents rated China's development over the past decade as "satisfactory or somewhat satisfactory" while seven in 10 said they felt reform should occur gradually.

After corruption, they ranked the widening rich-poor gap and an inadequate social safety net as the most pressing problems.

About 70 per cent said the government should expand access to healthcare, pensions and social security within the next five years.

Eighty-five per cent said they felt "China is likely to face more challenges in the future".

The survey, of more than 1,200 adults living in seven major cities including Beijing and Shanghai, was consistent with results of prior polls, the Global Times said, citing a Chinese Academy of Social Sciences scholar.

Surveys on such subjects appear periodically in state-run media.

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

I have read many 'theories' posted in Malaysia Today. One is that Singapore is a great nation because it is a Chinese-run island-state. Another is that Malaysia is in bad shape because it has a purely Malay government/administration. A third theory is that back in the days when Malaysia had a Chinese Finance Minister the country's finances were better managed -- hence the answer to Malaysia's problem is to have a Chinese Finance Minister.

I suppose that AFP report above regarding China dispels this Chinese-is-best theory. The fallacy that race determines all is a very Nazi-like theory. Good and bad has nothing to do with race. Evil is colour-blind and if you do not know that by now then you are too dumb to be reading what I write. So go away and go read articles on Malaysia Chronicle -- more your 'level'.

And this is the message I have been attempting to get across to you -- of course in my usual most provocative manner. Well, I did say I enjoy throwing the cat amongst the pigeons and to see 'siapa yang makan cili rasa pedas'. And I must admit that many felt pedas, mainly because they were the ones who makan cili.

Yes, that's right, it is not that difficult to make Malaysians melenting. Rub them slightly the wrong way and they foam at the mouth like mad dogs.

Okay, so I am a sadist. I enjoy torturing you. So sue me! Or just stay away from Malaysia Today. That would be better because I am not honoured by having idiots making up my numbers. I would rather that Malaysia Today be a small website of thinking readers than a large website with idiots as readers.

Two years ago I told you that I had joined the Liberal Democratic Party in the UK and voted for them in the last general election. And I also told you the reason why.

Labour was propagating status quo. Conservative was propagating electoral reforms. Lib Dem, however, was propagating political reforms. I too support political reforms hence I joined Lim Dem and voted for them.

Yes, how many Malaysians would dare declare that they voted in the UK general election, never mind who they voted for. Doing so is grounds enough for you to lose your Malaysian citizenship. Hence most Malaysians would not vote in a foreign country's general election -- even secretly and for sure not openly.

But I did it and I do not hide the fact that I did it. And if the Malaysian government cancels my citizenship then so be it.

Anyway, back to the issue of political reforms.

The Bersih movement is fighting for electoral reforms. The ABU movement is trying to get Umno kicked out. Suaram is fighting for human rights. And so on -- there are many NGOs, movements, societies, associations, etc., fighting for all sort of things.

To each his own, I always say. You have your struggle and I have mine. I may agree with what you do. I may even support what you do. But that does not mean your fight must also be my fight. I may not stand beside you but that does not mean I stand opposed to you.

For example, I support the rights of LGBTs. But that does not mean I want to enter into a gay marriage with you. And just because I do not want to sleep with another man that does not mean I am opposed to gays.

Do you brain-dead wankers get what I mean? And don't even attempt to use the 'either you are with me or you are against me' argument on me or else I will whack you to kingdom come.

So forgive me if I choose a different route to yours. We may all be heading in the same direction and aiming to reach the same destination. But I would rather take a different route to yours. And the route I choose to achieve what I feel Malaysia needs is the route of political reforms.

And because of that I do not embed or attach my struggle into a political party, whether Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat. I strongly believe that what I hope to see can only be achieved outside the political platform.

I suppose it is just like religion. We all want to go to heaven and not go to hell. But each one of us chooses a different route in getting there. Just because one of us chooses Islam and the other chooses Christianity the objective does not change. At the end of the day both believe in the existence of God. Both, however, do not share the same route in 'reaching' God.

Only stupid Muslims will say unless you convert to Islam then you are my enemy.

Why so kaypoh one?

Posted: 05 Nov 2012 08:23 PM PST

I have not heard one comment from any of these people who appear outraged with what they imagine Nurul Izzah had said. Ibrahim Ali of Perkasa too has whacked Nurul Izzah. So have some co-called scholars. But did you notice one thing? They NEVER mentioned the punishment for someone who leaves Islam. Why do they not have the balls to say it?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Malaysians have this very kiasu and very kaypoh characteristic. They worry about what other people are doing (or cannot do). For example, most of the comments about Nurul Izzah Anwar's misunderstood and misinterpreted comment regarding freedom of religion come from the non-Malays/non-Muslims.

And you know what? All those who are making these comments were not even there. So how do you know what she said? Yet you make comments as if you were there and you fully understood what she said.

The non-Malays/non-Muslims do not face any problems with their religion. They can worship trees, rocks, goats, cows, pussies, dicks, statues, etc., or even not believe in God if they wish to. No one can do anything about that. It is the Muslims who do not enjoy that same freedom.

So why are the non-Malays/non-Muslims talking so much about a problem that does not affect them or involve them? Can you imagine the Malays/Muslims making so many comments about the problem the Hindus are facing when they go to pray at Batu Caves?

What problems you face at Batu Caves and what you do at Batu Caves is a Hindu problem. The Malays-Muslims will not masuk campur. Anyway, in the first place, the Malays-Muslims are of the opinion (or misconception, if that word pleases you more) that what the Hindus are doing is wrong. Malays-Muslims consider that as an act of idol worshipping and idol worshipping is forbidden in Islam. So why bother to comment about something you do not believe in anyway?

Okay, okay, okay, we must allow freedom of thought and freedom of expression. So the non-Malays/non-Muslims have every right to say what they think. And they think that it is wrong for Malays-Muslims to be denied freedom of religion. If the Malays-Muslims want to leave Islam then they should be allowed to do so. And since the Malays-Muslims do not have that freedom, then the non-Malays/non-Muslims must speak up and whack Islam.

But that is just it. Did anyone force you to convert to Islam? Are you even a Muslim in the first place? If you are not a Muslim then why do you bother about what Islam does and does not allow? It does not affect you one bit.

And have you stopped to think that maybe the Malays-Muslims are not unhappy about this? You, the non-Malays/non-Muslims, are so unhappy that the Malays/Muslims cannot leave Islam. So you whack Islam. But the Malays-Muslims can accept that. It is the non-Malays/non-Muslims who cannot accept that. Why?

Hindus are forbidden from eating beef, just like Muslims are forbidden from eating pork. Is this not denying Indians their right to freedom of food? Should the Muslims condemn Hinduism and label it as an outdated religion from the Dark Ages? In today's day and age no one should be denied their right to eat whatever they want to eat. Why use a law from the Dark Ages to control Hindus as to what they can and cannot eat?

Why are the Hindus so stupid? In the old days you needed cows as beasts of burden. So you needed to ban the killing of cows or else the people would starve if there were no beasts of burden. Today you don't need cows. You can use tractors and lorries to do that work. So why can't Indians or Hindus kill the cows and eat the meat?

Sounds like a stupid argument, does it not? Well, no more stupid than the non-Malays/non-Muslims trying to teach the Malays-Muslims what 'proper' Islam should be.

Anyway, all this Islam-bashing only works in Umno's favour and most likely the Malays-Muslims will demonstrate their disgust in the coming general election. Then, when Pakatan Rakyat fails to march into Putrajaya, I will write another "Ha, ha, ha…I told you so" article. Trust me to rub salt into your wounds. I love doing that.

Nevertheless, just for the record, let me stress here that I am a strong supporter of freedom of thought and freedom of expression. Take note, though, that freedom of expression does not quite mean freedom to mock or freedom to vilify, which is what many of you do and you call it freedom of speech.

Even sex with an underage girl is considered rape so you can't hide behind the concept of freedom of sex. Freedom of sex comes with conditions -- meaning between two CONSENTING ADULTS. Those are the two key words -- consenting and adults. If not then it would be rape.

So make sure you understand what freedom of thought and freedom of expression really means. Many of you are confused about the concept.

Anyway, back to the issue I want to talk about today. I said I am a strong supporter of freedom of thought and freedom of expression. And this is a problem that Muslims face and which Muslims must address. Let me repeat that. This is a problem that Muslims face and which Muslims must address.

Muslims are not allowed freedom of thought and freedom of expression. And this is why Nurul Izzah is currently in hot soup. She said something, and the media misinterpreted (or twisted) what she said.

I have heard what she said. And what she said was correct. She did not say that she supports Muslims becoming apostates. She did not say that she supports Muslims leaving Islam to become, say, Christians. Personally, she upholds Islamic values and teachings. However, the reality is, in this day and age, people are able to think for themselves and invariably people will follow what they think is correct, even if that 'correct' thing to these people is to leave Islam.

Hence what do we do? If people still leave Islam do we round them up and cut off their heads in a public square? What do we do? In the real world people do leave Islam so that is something we need to live with even though we may be opposed to it.

Is not Nurul Izzah just being practical? You may not like it, but it happens. The question is what action do you take? Why not the various muftis and scholars (ulamak) then tell us what to do. Let us hear these muftis and ulamaks clearly state that all those Muslims who leave Islam must be rounded up and be put to death.

Can you now see why I say that Malays-Muslims are great hypocrites? They do not dare say that apostates must be put to death. Why do they not say it? Idiots!

Nurul Izzah then quoted Tariq Ramadan. And she quoted what Tariq Ramadan said about there not being any compulsion in religion, which is a verse from the Qur'an. Would any mufti or ulamak like to dispute that? If so, say so now, or else forever keep your dirty mouth shut.

Actually, my bone of contention is not with the mufti or ulamak. Most of them are hypocrites anyway so why waste our time with them? They make so much noise but they stop short of telling us what should be done about apostates. My bone of contention is with the politicians.

If the politicians did not play up this issue then the whole thing would be a non-issue. It is because this has been turned into a political issue that we now have a serious racial-religious problem in Malaysia. And all politicians -- Malays/Muslims plus non-Malays/non-Muslims -- are to be blamed for this because everyone is doing it.

Read the statement below:

Timbalan Presiden PKR Azmin Ali pula berkata masyarakat beragama Islam di negara ini masih lagi terikat dengan undang-undang syariah dan itu tidak boleh dipertikaikan.

So there you have it. Azmin Ali, Ibrahim Ali, Hasan Ali, Baba Ali, or whoever, they are all the same. They all say that Muslims are bound by the Sharia and hence Sharia laws cannot be disputed. This means Muslims cannot leave Islam.

Azmin Ali represents PKR and Pakatan Rakyat. And PKR's and Pakatan Rakyat's stand is the same as Umno, Barisan Nasional, Perkasa, or whatever. As far as the Sharia is concerned, both sides of the political fence are unanimous in their views.

So what more to talk? Whether you vote Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat the Sharia cannot be disputed and Muslims cannot leave Islam. So maybe the non-Malays/non-Muslims can stop whacking Islam on grounds that Islam does not allow Muslims to leave Islam because Pakatan Rakyat also shares this view.

Yes, I know what you are now going to say. You are going to say it is political suicide for Pakatan Rakyat to state its stand. So better Pakatan Rakyat just keep quiet and not lose the election.

Okay, I can buy that. Let's just keep quiet and pretend so that Pakatan Rakyat does not lose the election. That is not hypocrisy. That is…err...political expediency. So why talk about the Islamic State then? Why talk about Hudud then? You talk about nine very sensitive things but you refuse to talk about the tenth thing lest you lose the election.

Kan ke bodoh tu?

To know Malaysia is to love Malaysia

Posted: 04 Nov 2012 04:22 AM PST

While the Malays practically monopolise politics, the Chinese monopolise the economy although you are bound to hear most Chinese grumble about the discrimination that they face. Even though the Chinese control the wealth of the nation it is best you do not point this out to those you talk to, as they are more comfortable with the notion that the non-Malays suffer discrimination and unfair treatment in spite of their vast wealth.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Ladies, welcome to our orientation session. These sessions are meant to help the wives of foreign diplomats serving in Malaysia to better familiarise themselves with local culture, traditions, customs and taboos. Actually, Malaysians themselves have not yet come to a decision as to what their culture, traditions, customs and taboos are.

Hence you have to play by ear most of the time and tune in to TV3 every night to monitor what statements come out from the mouths of politicians, which will then give you an idea as to what the flavour of the day is, so to speak. Invariably, this constantly changes from time to time depending on what the political issues of the day are and who is doing the talking.

Malaysia has what they call the New Economic Policy or NEP. This was a policy introduced in 1970 and was supposed to have run for 20 years and end in 1990. Nevertheless, 42 years on and that 20-year policy is still being enforced. It is best you do not try to understand how a 20-year policy can run for 42 years and will probably run for another 42 years with no end in sight.

The NEP was intended to bridge the gap between the haves and the haves-not and to reduce the disparity between the different races. What you will see instead when one day you get to tour the country, however, is that the poor remain poor while the rich get richer. You will also come to realise that it is not the NEP but political power that bridges the gap between the haves and the haves-not and reduces the disparity between the different races. It would be wise, however, if you keep these observations to yourself as it can be a very sensitive issue to most Malaysians.

That is probably the first taboo you need to note.

Malaysia, as most of you know, is a Constitutional Monarchy. It has a Parliament that is elected into office with a Prime Minister as its head every five years. However, unlike Britain, which gave Malaysia this system, the general elections are not held every five years. They are held when the government feels it is strong enough to win the elections.

Malaysia has nine state monarchs with one of the nine becoming its Supreme Head for a period of five years on the basis of a rotation system and based on the concept of first amongst equals, who is called the Agong. Malaysia, therefore, is the only country in the world where the Prime Minister can rule till the day he dies while the monarch rules for only five years.

Furthermore, the monarch cannot remove the Prime Minister while the Prime Minister can remove the monarch, although this is seldom done, at least not since the British gave Malaysia its independence in 1957. Of course, during the time of the British occupation, a number of monarchs who did not demonstrate pro-British tendencies were kicked out of office and were replaced by pretenders to the throne who were British lackeys.

Malaysia still practices old British laws of 1,000 years ago that makes it a crime to criticise the rulers so it would be best that none of you engage in any discussion regarding the royal family. In the next session we will teach you the proper protocol and the manner in how you address members of the royal family and non-royal Malaysians who have been given titles by the palace. It is a very complicated culture but if you were to view movies of England of, say, 500 years ago, that would give you a pretty good idea about how it works.

Malaysians are fond of talking about race and religion, two subject matters that most of us in the west do not like to talk about. Hence it would be advisable that when you meet Malaysians you try to steer the discussion into another direction lest you get dragged into discussing this most unpalatable subject. One strategy would be to talk about the traffic jams and Malaysian driving habits, another subject Malaysians are most passionate about.

As I said earlier, Malaysia is a Constitutional Monarchy with Islam as the official religion of the country. However, Malaysia is neither a Theocratic State nor a Secular State and after 55 years of independence Malaysians are still arguing about what the country is. Some will insist that Malaysia is an Islamic State, some that Malaysia is a Secular State, while some will insist that Malaysia is neither or is something in between.

Actually, Malaysia is more accurately in a confused state, as I doubt they will ever come to any agreement on the matter. Most of our governments, however, consider Malaysia an Autocratic State but it would be best we do not mention this fact, as it can be a very sore point to most Malaysians.

Malays are the dominant ethnic group in Malaysia and they hold most of the political power plus the majority and key positions in the government, police and armed forces. However, more than a dozen political parties form the government of the day under a coalition, the only country in the world where more than a dozen political parties are needed to form the government, as not one of the two dozen or so political parties has enough votes or seats to form the government. Hence Malaysia's political system comprises of two coalitions, both which claim to be multi-racial but are in reality very racial in composition and structure.

Malays are officially and legally Muslims and no Malay may convert to any other religion once they are born into a Muslim family. Malays are also forbidden from indulging in vices such as the drinking of liquor, gambling, extra-marital sex, and so on, while homosexuality is illegal. Nevertheless, you will find that many Malays secretly do what is officially forbidden and you are advised to not make any mention of this lest you rub their sensitivities the wrong way.

Okay, we will stop here for today. Next week we will discuss some of the other taboos, which some of you may find very amusing. Oh, and Malaysians are very superstitious, especially the Chinese, even the educated Chinese, so you must take special note of this as they tend to get very emotional if you make any mistakes such as giving out white coloured envelopes instead of red ones during Chinese New Year.

Must be Sirim-approved first

Posted: 01 Nov 2012 07:41 PM PDT

Wouldn't life be so much simpler if there were no man-made religions around? Anyway, there are still some good uses for religion. Politicians can use religion to win votes. So you might not go to heaven but at least you can get into political office and rip off the country of billions of Ringgit. So religion is not as useless as you think it is. You can gain power and wealth by exploiting religion.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Because of the influence of Hollywood and the movies it churns out, most people have the misconception that the Crusades was about Christians going to war against Muslims. What we are not told is that the Crusaders killed (or massacred entire communities) more fellow Christians than they did Muslims.

There was more than one Crusade over about 200 years so it was actually a series of religious expeditions organised by different people from different parts of Europe. So it was not just Richard the Lion Heart versus Saladin (of the Prince John, Sheriff of Nottingham and Robin Hood era) as what most think.

The objective of the Crusades was to recapture the Christian 'Holy Land' occupied by the Turks after the defeat of the Byzantine Empire. The 'backbone' of the Crusades was the Roman Catholic church. Hence if you were not Roman Catholic -- such as you were Coptic Christians -- then you too would be exterminated just like the Muslims.

In fact, all over Europe, even in England then, if you followed a different form of Christianity than the official 'government-approved' version, you were declared a heretic and thus would be killed. Christians, and of course Muslims as well, have zero tolerance for those who deviate from the correct form of Christianity or Islam.

Christians would kill 'deviant' Christians but would tolerate Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., and Muslims would kill 'deviant' Muslims, but would tolerate Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. That is how it goes.

Of course, since the last couple of hundreds of years, Christians no longer kill 'deviant' Christians. But that does not mean Christianity accepts 'deviant' Christians as true Christians. Even as recent as 100 years ago Anglican Christians considered Roman Catholics as idol worshippers and would never sanction anyone of their family marrying a Catholic.

For example, homosexuals are still not accepted in Christianity. The priest would remind us about the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Bible and how God went berserk and punished homosexuals. No doubt the church no longer arrest and burn homosexuals like they used to. But just because homosexuals are no longer burned alive this does not mean the Bible has been amended to allow homosexuality.

Hence heresy is still a crime in Christianity, just like homosexuality, and the fact that you are no longer tied to a stake and burned alive is not because that crime is no longer a crime. It just means the church no longer has the political power to kill you like it used to.

In Islam it is slightly different from Christianity (but only different in terms of authority to punish you). In Islam, the 'church', meaning the religious authorities, still has power to punish you for crimes against Islam. Heresy, homosexuality, sexual misconduct, etc., which the Christian church can no longer punish you for even though they are still crimes under Christianity, can result in you facing punishment as decided by the religious authorities.

So, the difference is as follows. Crimes against Christianity and crimes against Islam still exist and both Christianity and Islam basically share the same view on what these crimes are. However, while in Islam the religious authorities are still allowed to punish you for these crimes, in 'Christendom' the religious authorities have lost this power. That power now comes under the state under the concept of separation of church and state.

And that explains why the Selangor Religious Department arrested 20 people in Rawang last night that were accused of trying to revive the Al Arqam movement. The followers of Al Arqam are considered heretics and in Malaysia the religious authorities can take action against heretics like they could in Christendom until less than 200 years ago. (Even witches were still burned alive, and in America as well, until not too long ago).

In fact, the religious authorities will not just arrest followers of Al Arqam. Even Shias, Salafis, etc., will face the wrath of the religious authorities. In short, anyone who deviates from 'true Islam' and who do not follow the official 'government-approved' version of Islam will get into trouble.

Isn't it ironical? Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, or whatever, are considered people who have followed the wrong path and who are going to spend an eternity in hell. Muslims are not allowed to leave Islam to embrace any of these other unaccepted and false religions. If they do then they can be killed by order of Allah.

But all these false religions are allowed to exist as long as you do not propagate your false religion to Muslims and try to convert Muslims to your false religion. The government will leave you alone and will not harass you if you leave Muslims alone and do not mislead Muslims.

Live and let live. Unto you your religion and unto me my religion. (Surah Al Kafirun -- O disbelievers! I worship not that which ye worship; Nor worship ye that which I worship. And I shall not worship that which ye worship. Nor will ye worship that which I worship. Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.)

Yes, can you see how tolerant Islam can be to those of the other religions? You do your thing and the Muslims will leave you alone even if they consider you followers of a false religion. Only if you interfere with Islam or Muslims will you face the wrath of Muslims.

However, Muslims will not live and let live when it comes to fellow Muslims. Even if you do your own thing and you do not disturb other Muslims that will not save you. The state or religious authorities will seek you out, hunt you down, and clamp down hard on you if you are a fellow Muslim who is a heretic and who deviates from the 'government-approved' version of Islam.

Non-Muslims have absolute freedom to do what they like as long as they are not a 'threat' to Islam -- threat meaning to 'undermine' Islam or 'mislead' Muslims. Muslims, however, have no such freedom. You are told what you can and cannot do. And what you can do depends on what the government says you can do.

Now do you understand why the Selangor Religious Department took action against the followers of Al Arqam last night, one of those 20 a PKR Selangor leader? Religion is a state matter and the Selangor Religious Department comes under the Pakatan Rakyat Selangor State Government. So it is Pakatan Rakyat that took action against those deviant Muslims and heretics last night.

Yes, we need a Muslim Martin Luther to help reform the Muslim 'church'. We need a Muslim Martin Luther to challenge the religious institution and tell those religionists to mind their own fucking business. Who are they to decide which is the 'correct' Islam and which is the 'wrong' Islam?

You decide which is the 'correct' Islam and which is the 'wrong' Islam and you force me to follow your interpretation of Islam. What if you are wrong? What if you force me to follow your interpretation of Islam and what if you happen to be wrong? What will happen to me if I follow your interpretation of Islam and you happen to be wrong?

Well, that means, just like you, I will go to hell. Is that not correct? Is that not what the Qur'an says? Does not the Qur'an say that if I follow my ancestors' beliefs and if my ancestors happen to be wrong then I will join my ancestors in hell? Does not the Qur'an forbid us from following our ancestors because if our ancestors are wrong then we will be punished for following the wrong beliefs?

Yes, the Qur'an has made it very clear. We must not blindly follow our ancestors' beliefs because they may be wrong and if they are wrong then we too will be wrong. But the government will not allow us to do that. The Pakatan Rakyat Selangor State Government through the Selangor Religious Department will not allow us to do that.

The government says we must follow the 'government-approved' version of Islam. The Qur'an, however, says we must not do that. Is the government above the Qur'an? Is the Selangor Religious Department changing, amending or twisting the word of Allah?

You are going to pay for the wrongs you do. If the government forces you to do the wrong thing and you do it then you and not the government will pay for your sins. You cannot tell Allah that I only did what the government asked me to do. Allah will punish you for doing the wrong thing in spite of someone else forcing you to do it.

Hence religion is between you and God. The government cannot tell you what to believe and what to do. The government can, of course, arrest you if you do not follow the 'government-approved' religion. In fact, until quite recently, the government could even kill you for not following the 'government approved' version of the religion. They would declare you a heretic and put you to death. At one time they fed you to the lions while the Romans clapped and cheered until the animal-rights activists protested this cruelty to lions.

So there you are. What has changed over the last 2,000 years? Nothing much really! The government decides the correct version of religion and will pronounce you a heretic and punish you for heresy if you do not follow what the government dictates. Then all those in government who think they are going to heaven do not get to go to heaven and will drag you along with them to wherever they are going to end up after they die.

Wouldn't life be so much simpler if there were no man-made religions around?

Anyway, there are still some good uses for religion. Politicians can use religion to win votes. So you might not go to heaven but at least you can get into political office and rip off the country of billions of Ringgit. So religion is not as useless as you think it is. You can gain power and wealth by exploiting religion.

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Sabtu, 17 November 2012

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Pengikut

Trafik

Live Traffic

Mesyuarat Tingkap

Archive