Khamis, 22 November 2012

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan
Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info
Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News


The Q&A with Free Malaysia Today

Posted: 21 Nov 2012 03:22 PM PST

FMT makes it sound like I am attacking Haris Ibrahim. Actually I am not, so maybe the full text of my Q&A can better explain what I said. FMT asked me three questions and I responded accordingly, not as an attack but to explain what happened. Everything I say should not be seen as an attack or even a criticism.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Q: First off, it is implied that you're on Dr Mahathir's payroll. Would you say this is true?

A: First of all, it is, of course, not true. Have you not read what Matthias Chang said about me? Matthias is Dr Mahathir's man. What Matthias wrote about me would certainly not have been done to someone who is on Dr Mahathir's payroll. That was a most hard-hitting and damaging piece that Matthias wrote about me.

Furthermore, the government deleted my name on the land title of my house in Bukit Rahman Putra in Sungai Buloh. My daughter, Raja Suraya, who owns 75% of that house, was forced to buy back that 25% share of mine, which the government had confiscated.

Finally, the amount my daughter had to pay came to about RM300,000, legal fees and taxes included. On top of that, the government hit my daughter for property gains tax even though we had bought that house 18 years ago in 1994 and therefore there should be no tax. My daughter had to take a loan from MBF to settle that amount.

Further to that, my Malaysian passport expired three years ago in September 2009. I have checked and have been told that the government will not renew my passport or that of my wife.

I started Malaysia Today in 2004. I began associating with Dr Mahathir in 2006. All this is on record. All you need to do is to check on the Internet to find records of this. So how can Dr Mahathir be behind Malaysia Today when I began associating with him two years later and even then only when he started attacking Pak Lah.

Q: I was told that you appear to be rather racist as of late. What would you say to this?

A: I have been a 'racist' since the very beginning. For many years, long before 2011, I would attack the Malays, the Muslims, the religious department, the ulama' (religious scholars), the Sultans, etc.

I was arrested in 2004, soon after Malaysia Today was launched, for attacking the Sultans -- although they never charged me in the end. I was arrested a few more times for 'attacking Islam'. Finally, they detained me in 2008 because there were so many 'insulting Islam' police reports made against me.

And that was what my Detention Order stated (which worked in my favour because that was one of the arguments my lawyers raised to get my detention declared illegal).

Only lately, since 2011, did I add the non-Malays to my list of 'targets'. But that does not mean I have stopped attacking the Malays, the Muslims, the religious department, the ulama' (religious scholars), the Sultans, etc. It is just that now the non-Malays are guilty of what Umno is doing. Hence, just like Umno, they too need to be criticised.

Why was I not considered a racist before? Why only now am I considered a racist? When I attack the Malays, the Muslims, the religious department, the ulama' (religious scholars), the Sultans, etc., I am a freedom fighter. When the non-Malays are included in my attacks I suddenly become a racist.

Q: Have you been in contact with Haris recently? Have the both of you cut ties, or is this just a tiff?

A: I have my views and Haris has his. We have always had differing views from the beginning. Once, when Haris was representing me in court, I shouted to the judge that I was sacking my lawyers because I did not agree with their opinion regarding bail.

On another occasion, I refused bail and walked off to the lockup. Haris disagreed with this and he and my wife spent an hour trying to get me to change my mind. Finally, because of my wife's tears and Haris's pleading, I relented and accepted bail.

When MCLM was first launched, it was supposed to be just a civil liberties movement. I asked Haris to head it but at first he did not want to. Later he agreed. Then Haris wanted to use MCLM as a platform to 'outsource' 30 potential Member of Parliament candidates for Pakatan Rakyat.

I felt MCLM should not be political but I nevertheless went along with him since this was his project.

Then MCLM was accused of wanting to engage BN-PR in three-corner fights. This public perception of three-corner fights is what hurt MCLM and we got accused of being a Trojan horse, etc.

These videos can tell you more:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxWC1eGf72Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhplZz64vv4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YCihOL5XQU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UkBKyC2v_w

You can see from those videos above that many things Haris said up to a year ago is what I am still saying today, although Haris no longer says these things.

There were many things I did not agree with, such as Haris's quarrel with the late Tunku Vic in Chiengmai. But I held my peace and backed him in spite of the fact I did not quite agree with his approach.

It appears, though, he is not returning that same courtesy that I extended to him.

Haris is angry with me for what he says is my act of undermining ABU. He has his views on what ABU should be, as do I. However, while I respect his views, he does not respect mine. He expects me to agree to his view with no conditions attached.

Maybe this will explain what my views on ABU are:

http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/52875-there-is-change-and-there-is-change

 
Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan
Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info
Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News


You must only be seen, not heard

Posted: 21 Nov 2012 06:49 PM PST

 

Take the recent freedom of religion and apostasy issue as another example. Everyone has something to say about that, mostly the non-Malays and non-Muslims. You hide behind freedom of speech to attack Islam. You, the non-Malays and non-Muslims, demand that Malays-Muslims be allowed the right to leave Islam. You say that Islam is an outdated religion from the Dark Ages and any religion that does not allow its proponents to leave is a bad religion.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Hmm…now PAS and Umno are calling each other the party of devils. Actually, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamed quoted the saying 'better the devil you know'. I think what he said was: 'better the devil you know than the angel you don't know'. The correct idiom is 'better the devil you know than the devil you don't'.

Nevertheless, whichever it may be, what it means is: you take your chances with the known rather than take your chances with the unknown. In short, both are risks. But one risk is a known risk while the other is an unknown risk.

I suppose if you know for sure then you just go with the proven thing. You need not dabble in the unknown. However, when you are not sure, then you stick with what you know.

No doubt this latest round of name-calling is about whether Barisan Nasional is a better devil than Pakatan Rakyat or whether Umno is a better devil than PAS. If we go by the adage of 'better the devil you know', that would mean you know one of the devils but you are not really quite sure of the other. Hence choose the one that you know.

This 'ideology' probably makes sense in some situations. This, however, does not apply to everything. It all depends on what you hope to achieve.

Are you talking about the economy? Are you talking about abuse of power and corruption? Are you talking about civil liberties and human rights? Are you talking about racism and political persecution? Are you talking about freedom of religion? Are you talking about transparency and good governance? Are you talking about public perception and investor confidence?

You would be idealistic to expect a package deal. You must compromise on some things in the interest of others. For example, PAS would offer a more honest and corrupt-free government compared to Umno. But PAS would be less tolerant of apostasy and proselytising compared to Umno. You gain on one but you must be prepared to lose on the other.

I have been accused of being too idealistic for expecting the perfect form of government. Actually, I am more realistic than many of you give me credit for. No, I do not aspire for perfection. I am realistic enough to know that perfection is quite impossible to achieve. What I aspire for is the perfect balance where we can see a compromise of sorts. There are certain things that are priorities and certain things that may have to be sacrificed for the sake of these priorities.

So what are our priorities and what are we prepared to sacrifice for these priorities?

During the Siege of Leningrad in the Second World War, the Russians adopted the same strategy that they used to defeat the French 130 years or so earlier. Basically, they let hunger and the cold defeat the Germans. However, this meant that Russia had to sacrifice millions of its own citizens as well. The objective and priority was to defeat the Germans. Russian civilians would have to be the collateral damage. Russia could not have both. They could not defeat the Germans plus save their own people.

We, too, the Malaysian citizens, have certain objectives and aspirations. But are we prepared to place these objectives and aspirations as our priority and accept the downside to whatever action we need to take?

Malaysians want everything. We want an end to Barisan Nasional/Umno rule. We know we can't do that unless the second largest party in Malaysia (and a Malay party, too, on top of that), PAS, supports us to do that. But we want PAS on our terms, not on their terms.

When one delegate to the PAS annual general assembly stands up to propose his own party president as Prime Minister, we go berserk. We hurl insults at the entire one million members of PAS, call them Talibans, call them backward village bumpkins, question their educational background, question their level of intelligence, and so much more. We even hurl insults at Islam and suggest that Islam is the cause of the backwardness of Muslims in general and PAS people in particular.

In other words, we are telling the one million PAS members that they are not suited to become our leaders. We only want them to kick out Barisan Nasional and Umno. But we do not want them as our leaders.

Okay, I have read what you said about the one million PAS people. It is like a white man telling a non-white woman: you are only good enough for me to have sex with but you are not good enough to become my wife because of your 'colour'.

I bet none of you looked at it in this manner. Well, that is because you are looking at things from only your perspective. You are not looking at things from the perspective of those on the receiving end of your vilification and insults.

PAS is only good enough to help us change the government. PAS is not good enough to head that government. That is your message to the one million PAS members. Even if that is not your real message, your words certainly give the impression that that is your message.

Do you all not stop to think before you say something? And now that you have said it how are you going to unsay it?

For more than a decade since the mid-1990s (when the Internet first emerged in Malaysia), I have had to endure the Malay- and Islam-bashing, by mainly the DAP Chinese supporters. And when I spoke up in defence of PAS back in the 1990s, I was whacked to kingdom come. Those who were on the late MGG Pillai's chat group would know what I am talking about.

I eventually left that chat group because I realised I would never be able to convince those hard-core DAP supporters that we need PAS if we are going to see a change of government. It is not that I, too, had not been critical of PAS. In fact, some of the articles I wrote criticising PAS were even published in Harakah. At least PAS is democratic enough to allow articles that criticise them to be published in their party organ, Harakah.

But I criticised PAS regarding some of its stands or regarding its strategies. I did not insult Islam or Prophet Muhammad like those DAP hard-core supporters in MGG Pillai's chat group.

I admit that I did criticise the conduct of Muslims, which got me into a heap of trouble with the authorities. But my criticism was only about the conduct of Muslims who deviate from Islamic teachings. I did not blame Islam for this conduct and say things like this proves that Islam is a bad religion -- like what those DAP hard-core supporters commented in MGG Pillai's chat group.

Many of you have probably noticed that of late I have written articles uncomplimentary of the non-Malays, in particular the Chinese. I have even written some articles uncomplimentary of the Christians. And I know many of you just hate this. And you call me a racist. Some even say that, because I am now 62, I am trying to 'get closer' to Islam (since I am about to die) and I do this by whacking Christianity.

If you really believe this then you are even dumber than I thought.

It is good that you hate this. I want you to hate this. I was hoping that you would hate this. I wanted you to feel what the Malays have had to endure these last many years since the 1990s when the Internet first came to Malaysia.

I write just a few articles and you get so hot and bothered. The Malays have had to take what you dish out for almost 20 years. You, however, feel that you are justified in what you do and that you have every right to do what you do because the non-Malays and non-Muslims have suffered persecution in Malaysia for 55 years since Merdeka.

Take the recent freedom of religion and apostasy issue as another example. Everyone has something to say about that, mostly the non-Malays and non-Muslims. You hide behind freedom of speech to attack Islam. You, the non-Malays and non-Muslims, demand that Malays-Muslims be allowed the right to leave Islam. You say that Islam is an outdated religion from the Dark Ages and any religion that does not allow its proponents to leave is a bad religion.

There is nothing good about Islam. Everything about Islam is bad. PAS is an Islamic party. We want PAS to help us kick out Barisan Nasional and Umno. After that the one million uneducated PAS people can return to their villages and not interfere in the running of the country. And for sure we want none of them as our top leaders.

Do you think you have just won the support of the more than one million PAS members and supporters?

You don't like me whacking the non-Malays and the non-Muslims? I am glad that you feel that way. I am glad you don't like being whacked. Let me share a secret with you: the Malays-Muslims also do not like the way you whack them and Islam. And they have had to endure this much longer than you have.

Now that you know what it feels like, maybe you can reassess the situation and tell me where we go from here. Your comments regarding Tok Guru Abdul Hadi Awang, apostasy, freedom for Muslims to leave Islam, etc., have caused a lot of damage.

These comments were uncalled for. Worse of all, it shows that you will not even allow PAS members the freedom of speech in their own annual general assembly where members are supposed to be free to tell their leaders what they want for their party. And you say that you are fighting for liberalism? Your liberalism means only the freedom for Muslims to leave Islam but not the freedom for Muslims to express what they want or don't want.

 

There is change and there is change

Posted: 20 Nov 2012 07:21 PM PST

 

By the way, I attended one Umno gathering in PJ back in 2008 and one Umno member stood up to propose that Umno makes peace with Anwar Ibrahim. Almost the entire hall booed him. The 'security guards' then grabbed this chap by the neck, dragged him outside, and kicked the daylights out of him. He was beaten up good and proper.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Let's not be carried away just because some unknown young politicians wanted to be recognised as candidates for the coming general elections got emotional and raised some issues, which will need the approval of the three component parties in Pakatan Rakyat.

PAS was an unknown party running a backward state and just with the help of DAP and PKR is sitting in the position that they should be grateful for. They have a common leader in Anwar who has gone through trials and tribulations that no other leader has been through. He may not be perfect but the question is who is?

He has held this coalition together that it has become a formidable force that has woken up the political minds of the public. Today, it is where it is because of this one leader. So suddenly there are some ungrateful young politicians who have not made any sacrifices raise issues, which in the first place should not have been raised at all.

Are they for real or Trojan horses put to create a rift within the coalition. We have a long way to go put this country at level and there is much work to be done rather than create a division at this crucial stage. We should be discussing ways to improve the quality, financial, educational aspects of the average Malaysian life. – Comment posted by 'bobby brown'

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

That was a comment by a reader going by the name of 'bobby brown' posted in Malaysia Today. I have only slightly edited the bad grammar but other than that no changes have been made to that comment -- other than the editing of the grammatical mistakes.

That is one example of many similar comments made over the last few days. Even Oon Yeoh said in The Sun today, "The answer quite simply, is that PAS has a tendency to become too big for its britches. It exhibited such behaviour after the 1999 General Election, where it did quite well, and now it's exhibiting such tendencies again."

Before I comment on that issue, however, I would like to touch on the following news report: Kota Alam Shah assemblyman M. Manoharan's call to fellow DAP assemblyman Ronnie Liu (DAP-Pandamaran) to resign if he failed to address the condominium project in Batu Caves shows all is not well in Selangor DAP.

I am actually quite surprised that Manoharan wants Ronnie Liu's head. I thought Pakatan Rakyat said that Barisan Nasional was the one who approved that housing project in Batu Caves. Is Manoharan saying that it was not Barisan Nasional but Pakatan Rakyat that is the culprit -- and Ronnie Liu in particular?

This would mean Manoharan is contradicting what his party said and I was made to understand that DAP does not allow its leaders to contradict their own party -- as the Tunku Aziz Tunku Ibrahim episode has proven. So who approved the Batu Caves project? Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat? And if it was Barisan Nasional then why must Ronnie Liu resign?

I remember relating a story a couple of years ago about Ronnie Liu, 'Bangsar' Bala, my wife Marina, I, and a fifth person, going to Manoharan's house to meet his wife when he was in Kamunting under ISA detention. The purpose of that visit was to ask Manoharan's wife to send a message to the five Hindraf ISA detainees that we want them to contest the March 2008 general election.

We suggested that they contest parliament seats because the Indian cause is a national issue and it would be better that the problems facing the Indians be raised in Parliament. Ronnie even indicated that he was prepared to 'vacate' his seat if Manoharan or any of the other four Hindraf detainees wanted that seat.

In other words, Ronnie was prepared to give way to Manoharan if need be. Not many politicians would be prepared to sacrifice their own political career for the benefit of someone else. Ronnie, however, was prepared to do that and that is why I am his loyal friend. He has shown that he is not in politics for personal gain and is prepared to sacrifice himself for the sake of the party.

Anyway, back to the posting by 'bobby brown'. "We should be discussing ways to improve the quality, financial, educational aspects of the average Malaysian life," said 'bobby brown'. I suppose what he means by that statement is we should be focusing on how to make Malaysia a better country.

And I would agree with that. However, we must first come to an agreement on the definition of 'better'. 'Better' can mean different things to different people.

For example, a company that was 'in the red' last year to the tune of RM250 million can be said to have done better this year when it reduces these loses to just RM150 million. Next year it does even better when the losses get reduced to just RM80 million. By the fifth year it does even better (the best performance in five years) when it breaks even, although it still does not make any money.

So what does 'better' mean? And how would we translate that to a better Malaysia?

Does 'better' mean there are still blatant and rampant corruption and abuse of power but not as bad as before? Does 'better' mean there are still blatant and rampant racism, discrimination and political persecution but not as bad as before? Does 'better' mean only 5,000 Malaysians died in traffic accidents this year compared to 6,000 Malaysians the year before? Does 'better' mean now only 100 people die in police custody compared to 180 people in the past?

Let me put it another way: does 'better' mean now your spouse commits adultery only once a month compared to every week before this? Why should you tolerate your spouse committing adultery even once a year? How can you consider your spouse committing adultery once a month as 'better' than once a week?

What is 'better' for you may not be 'better' for me. If all you mean by 'better' is the degree of transgressions, and you are prepared to accept lesser incidences over larger incidences as 'better', then we clearly do not share the same ideals. Would someone who murdered just one person be better than someone who murdered ten people? Would not even one murder make that person a murderer? There is no such thing as a 'worse' murderer and a 'better' murderer. Either way you still hang.

And herein lies the problem. You are looking at how bad Barisan Nasional or Umno are and anything lesser than that you are prepared to compromise and accept.

We all talk about change. We all aspire for change. We all fight for change. But we are yet to agree on that definition of change. And this is why we are always in disagreement. While we agree that change is required, we cannot agree on what is meant by 'change'.

This next paragraph is aimed at just Muslims so non-Muslims can skip this paragraph if they wish to.

Let's say that a Muslim never prays or fasts and lives a life of sin that includes drinking, gambling and adultery. Then, one day, this Muslim starts praying once in a while on Fridays and fasts a couple of days a year during the month of Ramadhan. However, this person still drinks, gambles and indulges in adultery. Does this make that person a 'better ' Muslim or is that person still a bad Muslim?

I know the answer to that so no need to reply to my question. In short, there is no such thing as a better Muslim. There are no degrees of Muslims. A Muslim is someone who abides to and follows the rules laid down in Islam. You just cannot be a little bit pregnant.

So what is my interpretation of a better Malaysia? My interpretation of a better Malaysia is a society that can tolerate dissenting or opposing views. And that is my main beef with Barisan Nasional and Umno.

No, my main beef with Barisan Nasional and Umno is not the arrogance, racism, persecution, abuse of power, corruption, violation of fundamental liberties and civil rights, etc., that they perpetuate Those, to me, are merely the symptoms of another disease. Those are not the causes of the disease. Those are signs that there is a disease.

And this 'disease' is we do not have freedom of thought, freedom of choice, freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, freedom of information, freedom of the press, freedom of association, and so on. And because of all these lacks of freedoms, we end up with rampant and blatant arrogance, racism, persecution, abuse of power, corruption, violation of fundamental liberties and civil rights, etc.

And this is what many of you do not understand. You look at the symptoms of the disease and you try to cure the symptoms. I look at the cause of the disease and attack the cause of that disease. And if we can eliminate the cause then the symptoms will automatically disappear.

I have written about this next point before but allow me to repeat what I said.

200 years ago, Napoleon Bonaparte attacked the 'disease' that was plaguing Europe. Around 35 years after that, society began to change. Then, roughly another 35 years later, the whole of Europe changed and what we see today in Europe is the result of that change.

So Napoleon did not try to cure the symptoms of the disease. He attacked the cause of that disease. In time, changes happened and the symptoms of the disease disappeared.

I know I am repeating what I have written many times before. But how do I not keep repeating myself when after saying it so many times you still do not get it?

Even people like Haris Ibrahim (Sam) cannot understand what I am saying. And he is a lawyer, too, mind you. Yet even he cannot understand what I am trying to say. He, too, like many of you, go by the adage that a duck swims, you swim, so you must be a duck. You do not support ABU. So, if you do not support ABU, then you must be supporting Umno.

In the first place, did I ever say I do not support ABU? What I did say is that just shouting ABU is not enough. It has to be more than just that. Kicking out Umno will do no bloody good if the problem is not Umno but the culture that breed organisations like Umno. We can get rid of Umno but that will not get rid of the problem. And the problem is the way we think and do things.

Let me go back to what 'bobby brown' and Oon Yeoh commented. One delegate during the PAS general assembly last week said that he felt Tok Guru Abdul Hadi Awang should become the prime minister if Pakatan Rakyat gets to form the next federal government. And then all hell broke loose.

This was the opinion of just ONE delegate from amongst more than one million PAS members. One man from ONE MILLION said this and the party DID NOT adopt that proposal as one of its Resolutions. In other words, PAS allowed that delegate to speak but they did not adopt what he said.

And in spite of that everyone whacks the whole party as if the party had committed a cardinal sin. Are you saying that the party should not have allowed him to speak? Are you saying that they should have switched off the microphone and shout at him to sit down? Are you saying that they should do what MIC does -- get the security guards to drag him outside and beat him up?

By the way, I attended one Umno gathering in PJ back in 2008 and one Umno member stood up to propose that Umno makes peace with Anwar Ibrahim. Almost the entire hall booed him. The 'security guards' then grabbed this chap by the neck, dragged him outside, and kicked the daylights out of him. He was beaten up good and proper.

And that is why we don't want Umno. They do not respect freedom of thought and freedom of opinion/expression. But then you want PAS to do the same thing. So what ABU are you talking about when you want to be just like Umno?

We have to be better than that. If we are going to be just like Umno then why would the voters want to kick Umno out? We have to make it clear that we will not compromise on violations of our freedom of thought, freedom of choice, freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, freedom of information, freedom of the press, freedom of association, and so on.

Currently, I find that many, if not most, of the opposition leaders and supporters do not respect freedom of thought, freedom of choice, freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, freedom of information, freedom of the press, freedom of association, and so on.

And this is my beef with the ABU-screamers. My interpretation of ABU is CHANGE. Your interpretation of ABU is Anwar Ibrahim and only Anwar Ibrahim must become the prime minister. Even the 'liberal' Oon Yeoh thinks like this. Even the 'liberal' Oon Yeoh does not tolerate freedom of thought, freedom of choice, freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, freedom of information, freedom of the press, freedom of association, and so on.

So, yes, I support ABU. But my ABU is politik baru, budaya baru, Malaysia baru, Melayu baru, etc. Your ABU is old wine in a new bottle. So you can fight for your ABU your way and I will fight for my ABU my way. You can walk if you want. I will swim. But we are both going the same direction. And just because a duck also swims does not make me a duck -- just like just because a monkey also walks does not make you a monkey. Or does it?

By the way, 'bobby brown', PAS is the second largest party in Malaysia in terms of membership. There are more PAS members than DAP and PKR members combined. Pakatan Rakyat needs PAS more than PAS needs Pakatan Rakyat. So stop being pompous and condescending.

"PAS was an unknown party running a backward state and just with the help of DAP and PKR is sitting in the position that they should be grateful for," konon. You sound just like Umno. This is how Umno normally talks. So what ABU are you talking about when you ape Umno in everything that it does and say?

East Coast Malays will call this gong telajak. Go find out what this means from your Malay friends, if you happen to have any.

 

Does ABU equal to Anwar-for-PM?

Posted: 17 Nov 2012 06:49 PM PST

 

We were not the only ones caught gasping by Anwar's acquittal. PAS, too, could not accept Anwar as Prime Minister. But for them to renounce Anwar would have been 'bad politics'. However, if Anwar were convicted for 'Sodomy 2', then the problem would solve itself. Due to Anwar's conviction for 'Sodomy 2', he would be disqualified from becoming Prime Minister even if Pakatan Rakyat wins enough seats to form the next federal government.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

PAS wings' support for Hadi as future PM continues to put Opposition partners in a spot

(The Star) - The PAS Ulama and Muslimat wings' support for party president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang to be made prime minister should Pakatan Rakyat come to power continues to put other Opposition coalition members in a spot.

Opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, widely seen as the premier-in-waiting, was evasive when reporters asked for his response.

"It's okay. No problem. We will discuss in a nice manner", he said as he walked briskly to his car after launching a convention on national education at Universiti Selangor (Unisel) in Shah Alam on Sunday.

He said he had to rush off to another function in Kuantan.

However, DAP was characteristically vocal.

Its deputy chairman Dr Tan Seng Giaw said bluntly on Sunday that Anwar would be prime minister should Pakatan win the 13th general election and hudud law would not be implemented.

"All of us have agreed that Anwar will be the PM should we take over Putrajaya."

"In a democracy, we, of course, allow for differing opinions, but the consensus in Pakatan that Anwar remains the PM-in-waiting is final, so even if the PAS Ulama and Muslimat wings say otherwise, it makes no difference," he said.

He said that the Pakatan Rakyat leadership would only implement policies that have the consensus of all three-component parties, and reject those which have yet to obtain it.

At the same time, it was the lack of consensus that has stopped the implementation of hudud law from becoming part of Pakatan's common framework policy.

"If there is consensus, we will enforce it. If not, we won't. And the decision from the leadership is final," he told reporters after a DAP ceramah in Kepong Baru on Sunday morning, reiterating the DAP's position on the matter.

He also said that it was "pure politicking" by Barisan National to imply that the Islamic penal code could be so easily implemented.

He said that it required an amendment to the Federal Constitution to implement hudud and any amendment to the constitution required consent from two-thirds of the members of parliament.

At the 58th PAS muktamar in Kota Baru on Saturday Dewan Ulama representative Hairun Nizam had said Hadi was the best candidate for the job if the coalition took over Putrajaya, a sentiment echoed by PAS Muslimat on Sunday. When pressed for a reaction, Hadi had earlier dodged responding directly, saying instead, that he would rather be a "servant" to the people and country.

"Whoever becomes the prime minister needs the support of the party and people. I would rather be a khadam (servant) to the people," he had said.

Meanwhile, in Ipoh, Umno treasurer Datuk Seri Ahmad Husni Hanadzlah said Sunday the Opposition's inability to agree on a common platform and contest under a common flag in the upcoming general elections showed that they could not govern the country.

"PAS will definitely want to implement their Islamic ways if Pakatan comes into power and if it is not done, it will destroy the Opposition."

"Intellectually, if they cannot even be united in contesting as a single party, then they are incapable of being united to rule the country," he said in a press conference in Manjoi here on Sunday.

"As such, I do not see that they have any hope of winning in the upcoming elections," he said.

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

The Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement (MCLM) was launched two years ago in London with a specific agenda in mind -- to try to reform Malaysian politics and introduce what back in 1999 PKR (then PKN) called 'Politik Baru' or 'New Politics'. This basically means to discard race/religion-based politics in favour of a more mature form of politics and to try to end 'money politics', or the practice of voting based on financial considerations.

It was certainly a tall order indeed and not a journey that we imagined we would achieve in our lifetime. Europe took two generations for the seed that was planted by Napoleon Bonaparte over 12 years from 1803 to finally germinate with the outbreak of the 1848 revolutions. Even then it took another 22/23 years (or one more generation) until 1870/1871 before real change finally came to Europe.

In short, Europe took 60-70 years for change to happen. And it only happened through an armed and bloody revolution, which proves what Mao Zedong said: power comes from the barrel of the gun. Hence, short of embarking upon a Chin Peng sort of armed insurgency, how long do you think it is going to take for change to come to Malaysia?

Those were the issues troubling us back in 2010. And those were the issues MCLM was supposed to address, or try to address. But many things would need to be done to even come close to what we were seeking. Amongst those many things would be to seek out at least 30 Malaysians suitable to be fielded as Member of Parliament candidates in the coming general election.

Haris Ibrahim (Sam) then began to approach a few likely candidates -- some who had earlier been approached by the opposition back in 1999, 2004 and/or 2008 -- to explore the possibility of them standing as candidates in the coming general election. Almost all said 'no'. However, due to Sam's power of persuasion, eventually five relented and said 'yes' while another two said they would seriously consider the proposal.

So we had five yeses and two tentatives. And then it stopped. We could not move beyond those seven. And we were not even close to the 30 that we had targeted.

The rut we found ourselves in was due to the hostile reaction from Pakatan Rakyat. While we made it clear we were seeking these candidates to offer them to Pakatan Rakyat, Pakatan Rakyat in turn said that MCLM itself was planning to contest the election to trigger three-corner contests. Hence we are going to jeopardise the opposition's chances of forming the new federal government. Hence, also, we are Barisan Nasional's 'Trojan horse' whose job is to sabotage Pakatan Rakyat.

It was apparent that Pakatan Rakyat was not going to welcome these independent candidates. Pakatan Rakyat was only going to field party members and if MCLM's independent candidates wanted to contest the elections then they would have to join one of the three parties first. Even then there was no guarantee they would be fielded as candidates.

With that very negative reaction from Pakatan Rakyat, the two tentative candidates backed off. From the balance five, another four also decided to withdraw, leaving only one still prepared to go the distance. However, this last candidate would have to contest the Kapar seat on the basis of a three-corner contest, which would defeat the whole purpose of the exercise.

MLCM is not a political party so it does not intend to contest the general election. It was seeking candidates on behalf of Pakatan Rakyat, not to contest against Pakatan Rakyat. And if Pakatan Rakyat does not want these candidates then the whole exercise would need to be aborted.

It was agreed that the candidates who wished to withdraw would say nothing for the time being. We had to first seek an exit strategy so that they can gracefully bail out without losing face. And that exit plan offered itself on 1st January this year when I did my second interview with the mainstream media. Because of that interview, the candidates were able to announce that they were distancing themselves from MCLM. Sam, too, was able to bail out gracefully by resigning from MCLM and embark upon his ABU agenda outside MCLM.

In the meeting we had in Chiengmai in late January this year, three weeks after my 'explosive' 1st January 2012 interview, it was agreed that I, too, would withdraw from MCLM and a new committee would take over. My continued involvement in MCLM would 'taint' the movement. Hence we would need to call for an AGM, which we did soon after, and I left the scene and the new committee took over. It was also agreed in that Chiengmai meeting that MCLM would now focus purely on matters involving civil liberties and it would no longer be involved in politics.

A month before that Chiengmai meeting, a meeting was held in Phuket to discuss many issues regarding not only MCLM but also about Malaysian politics in general. And one of the issues of concern was the information that Sam received from his contacts in Umno that Anwar Ibrahim would be acquitted from the 'Sodomy 2' charge. The information that Sam received was that Najib had made a deal with Anwar. However, it was not too clear what type of deal it was.

This was definitely troubling news indeed. Sam was convinced that the information was accurate because it came from 'high-ups' in Umno and they have never been wrong before. My response to that was we would have to wait another one and a half months or so to see if it was true that Anwar was going to be acquitted and if so, why.

Nevertheless, we would need to pre-empt this, in case, so one week later I did that interview with the mainstream media where I whacked Anwar. Basically, as what Sam and I discussed in Phuket, we needed to launch a 'Get Anwar Campaign', or GAC for short. We needed to neutralise Anwar in case he had turned Umno Trojan horse. And his acquittal would more or less confirm this.

We were not the only ones caught gasping by Anwar's acquittal. PAS, too, could not accept Anwar as Prime Minister. But for them to renounce Anwar would have been 'bad politics'. However, if Anwar were convicted for 'Sodomy 2', then the problem would solve itself. Due to Anwar's conviction for 'Sodomy 2', he would be disqualified from becoming Prime Minister even if Pakatan Rakyat wins enough seats to form the next federal government.

In fact, Anwar's conviction for 'Sodomy 2' would have been 'good politics'. The sympathy factor would be high and Anwar could be 'marketed' as a martyr and a victim of injustice. Having Anwar in jail would benefit the opposition a great deal. Plus it would solve the additional problem of not having him as the Prime Minister in the event Pakatan Rakyat gets to form the federal government.

Maybe Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak realised this. Maybe he realised that acquitting Anwar works better for Barisan Nasional than putting him in jail. Najib, too, knew that PAS did not want Anwar as Prime Minister. Hence the Prime Minister would be doing PAS a favour by putting Anwar in jail. But if Anwar were to be acquitted, then PAS would face a dilemma. Do they keep quiet and accept Anwar as Prime Minister or do they openly declare that they cannot accept Anwar as Prime Minister?

Was Anwar's acquittal an independent decision by the judge or was the judge's decision to acquit Anwar a brilliant political move by Najib to drive a wedge between PAS and PKR (plus also now between PAS and DAP it seems)?

The issue here is, ABU or 'anything but Umno' is about rejecting Umno, which invariably means rejecting Barisan Nasional as well. However, as Sam and I discussed in Phuket, ABU does not translate to 'Anwar for PM'. But then the judge (with or without Najib's instructions) threw a spanner in the works by acquitting Anwar of the Sodomy 2 charge. So now ABU also means Anwar for PM.

And herein lies the problem for many people, those in PAS included.

Many in PAS are not convinced about Anwar's innocence. They are convinced that Anwar is guilty. But they do not want to be the ones to say so. They want the court to say so by convicting Anwar. But when the court did not do that, PAS either has to accept that as an indication that Anwar is innocent or else they would have to come out and say that they do not want Anwar as Prime Minister -- without explaining why and leaving it unsaid that the reason is because they think Anwar is guilty.

Anyway, Pakatan Rakyat needs to win at least 120 seats in Parliament (to be safe, although 112 seats gives it a simple majority with a two-seat margin) to form the federal government. PAS says it plans/hopes to win at least 60 seats. If it does, that would mean DAP and PKR combined would have won only 60 seats. And this would also mean PAS would become the Prime Minister.

Hence it is not impossible for Tok Guru Haji Abdul Hadi Awang to become the Prime Minister if PAS wins more seats that PKR and DAP -- unless DAP wins the most number of seats and they nominate Anwar for Prime Minister.

 

The meeting in Phuket a year ago and one year after the birth of MCLM

 

The excitement of the chase

Posted: 16 Nov 2012 06:50 PM PST

 

Do you need to take over the federal government before you can say the right things? Do you need to take over the federal government before you can eliminate abuse of power and corruption in the state government? Do you need to take over the federal government before you can come to a consensus and come out with a common policy?

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

I have friends who like to go fishing. (A couple of people I know also like to go hunting). I asked them as to why they bother to waste so much time fishing. It is also not cheap, mind you. The tackle costs quite a bit of money, especially when you lose the lures (which cost more than the fish). Would it not be easier and cheaper to just go buy the fish at the market? It would be faster too -- fishing 'expeditions' can take a whole day.

One day they invited me to join them in their fishing trip. In an hour we caught 56 fish. That is almost a fish a minute amongst the five of us. I must say it was quite exciting. I proudly brought the fish I caught home to show my wife. I did not tell her that that was the only fish I caught, though.

You see, for the first half hour or so, I was flat out on the deck of the boat due to an attack of seasickness (which I suffer from if the boat is not moving and rolls from side to side). I was vomiting my guts out and polluting the sea. Only when my fishing mates carried me over the side of the boat and threatened to drop me into the sea did I stop vomiting. It seems the fastest way to end your seasickness is to get dumped into the sea. I must say it worked. The threat was good enough.

It was then that I understood that the excitement was not in the cooking and the eating of the fish. After all, how could five of us eat 56 fish anyway? It was the excitement of the hunt or the chase, as they say. And that goes for 'people hunting' as well. Friends who go 'hunting' in the clubs on Saturday night tell me the same thing. It is not about getting the women into bed. If not then they just need to go visit a brothel. It is the excitement of the 'hunt' -- to see whether you can 'nail' your 'prey'.

What would you think of that woman if you smile at her and she immediately walks up to you and says 'you can poke your pecker into my pussy any time'? That would be a turn off. You need to sweet-talk her first -- such as 'what's a nice woman like you doing in a place like this?' or 'what's a woman like you doing in a nice place like this?', etc. Then you offer to buy her a drink, ask her if she would like to dance, and then ask her if she would like to adjourn to somewhere 'quieter'.

In that same context, we need to make the politicians and political parties 'hunt' or 'fish' for our votes. They need to 'court' us to get us to vote for them. If we tell them that they are guaranteed our votes and come hell or high water we would still vote for them that will make them complacent.

They must not take us for granted. We are not prostitutes. They can't just throw some money onto the bed and expect us to strip and lie down on our backs so that they can screw us. If they want us then they will need to work hard at wooing us.

As what we told Anwar Ibrahim in London in 2010, in the 2008 general election many of us would have voted for a donkey or a monkey as long as they stood on the platform of Pakatan Rakyat. However, we have since seen what these monkeys and donkeys have turned out to become. Some have deserted the opposition. Some are not performing as we had hoped. Some proved to be as corrupt as the Barisan Nasional people we kicked out. Some are making silly statements that do not help the opposition cause and actually helps Barisan Nasional. Some have demonstrated arrogance. Some are pompous and condescending and talk to us as if they are our betters rather than our 'servants'.

At this point of my article some of you 'apologists' are going to scream that we can't expect perfection. We can't expect Pakatan Rakyat to achieve everything in a mere five years. If we can give Barisan Nasional 55 years then why can't we also give Pakatan Rakyat 55 years before we judge them?

These apologists tend to forget that the leaders and politicians from DAP, PKR, and PAS are not five-year-old politicians. The opposition politicians have been around a long time, as long or longer than those from Barisan Nasional. Some have served as Cabinet Ministers (even some from PAS during the time that PAS joined Barisan Nasional 40 years ago). Some have been Chief Ministers (Menteri Besar). Nik Aziz is probably the second-longest serving Menteri Besar after the Sarawak Chief Minister.

So the opposition leaders and politicians are not 'new'. Why must we give them 55 years? We must not forget, when they campaigned for our support and our votes, they told us what was wrong with Barisan Nasional and they told us what they were going to do to right all these wrongs. Hence they knew what was not right and they knew what to do to put it right.

They promised us, not we promised them. So it is their job to deliver on these promises.

The other excuse the apologists offer is that Pakatan Rakyat is not yet the federal government so we can't expect them to achieve much until they take over the federal government. Granted in some cases this is true. But this is not true for everything.

Do you need to take over the federal government before you can say the right things? Do you need to take over the federal government before you can eliminate abuse of power and corruption in the state government? Do you need to take over the federal government before you can come to a consensus and come out with a common policy?

Not everything requires you to be the federal government before you can do it. Many things are party matters. Many things are coalition matters. Many things are state government matters. Many things are council matters. Some things, of course, are federal matters. But not everything is a federal matter.

Is the selection of candidates a federal government matter? That is a party matter and has nothing to do with the federal government.

Is the allocation of seats a federal government matter? That is a coalition matter and has nothing to do with the federal government.

Is the election or selection of council members a federal government matter? That is a state government matter (and decided by the party, mind you) and has nothing to do with the federal government.

Is the declaration of assets a federal government matter? That is a party matter and has nothing to do with the federal government.

Is the distribution of tithes (zakat and fitrah) a federal government matter? That is a state government matter and has nothing to do with the federal government.

Is the building of low-cost homes for the homeless a federal government matter? That is a state government matter and has nothing to do with the federal government.

Is the allocation of state land to the landless a federal government matter? That is a state government matter and has nothing to do with the federal government.

Is the abolishing of negotiated tenders and the implementation of an open tender system for state contracts a federal government matter? That is a state government matter and has nothing to do with the federal government.

There are many things that are party matters, coalition matters and/or state government matters. You do not need to wait until you form the federal government before you can do something about them.

Take the Islamic State and Hudud matter as another example. Do you need to be the federal government before DAP, PKR and PAS can come to an agreement on that issue? You do not even need to be the state government before you can come to an agreement on this.

Barisan Nasional would not dare announce their candidates until the morning of Nomination Day. This is because Barisan Nasional does not trust its own members and they know that if they announce their candidates too early then there would be a genuine danger of internal sabotage. Hence they wait until the eleventh hour to announce their candidates to reduce the danger of internal sabotage. Even then it still happens, as Barisan Nasional recently confessed.

But why does Pakatan Rakyat not announce its candidates early so that these candidates can start working the ground and the voters can get to know them early instead of finding out who they are at the last minute on the morning of Nomination Day? Well, for the same reason why Barisan Nasional does not dare announce its candidates early, plus for an added reason -- to avoid Barisan Nasional buying them off.

Hence Pakatan Rakyat does not trust its own candidates plus it does not trust its own party members. Pakatan Rakyat is worried that if the candidates are announced too early then it may suffer internal sabotage and/or the candidates may get bought over.

What, therefore, does this say about the candidates? Are these the people we want? If 'A' is chosen to contest instead of' B', then 'B may sabotage 'A' or Barisan Nasional may buy off 'A'. And if 'B' is chosen instead, the same thing may happen as well. Hence do not announce yet whether it is 'A' or 'B'. Wait until the last minute to make the announcement.

Is this because Pakatan Rakyat is not yet the federal government? Would none of this happen once Pakatan Rakyat is already the federal government?

Pakatan Rakyat needs to convince us that it is worthy of our vote. Pakatan Rakyat must work for our vote. If we tell Pakatan Rakyat that we are definitely going to vote opposition never mind what they do or do not do, then we are going to have a very complacent and very lazy Pakatan Rakyat.

There are no guarantees in life. There is no guarantee that every one of you reading this article is going to still be alive tomorrow. If you do die tonight, there is no guarantee that you are going to go to heaven or to hell. In fact, no one can give you a money-back guarantee that heaven and hell even exist.

So how can we guarantee Pakatan Rakyat our votes? In the first place, should we even be giving anyone this guarantee?

If you want me then come and court me. Bring me flowers and chocolates. Take me out to dinner. Come meet my parents and bring me to visit your parents. Then I will decide whether you are going to get into my pants. If you merely want a wham bam, thank you ma'am, then go visit a brothel.

And if you are a prostitute and are prepared to prostitute yourself, well and fine. But don't expect me to do the same just because you are doing that. If you can't convince me to vote for you that is your problem, not mine. If you don't know how to win my vote then you do not deserve my vote. That is the long and short of it all.

I am not here to serve the politicians. It is the politicians who must serve me. So serve me. And convince me that you are worthy of being my servant. I need not convince you of anything because the vote is in my hand, not yours.

As the boy said to the girl when he dropped his pants to show her his dick: I have this, which you need. And the girl dropped her knickers to show the boy her pussy: ah yes, but with one of these I can get ten of those.

 

Sending mixed signals

Posted: 14 Nov 2012 06:50 PM PST

 

In Islam you cannot separate the church from the state like they do in Christianity. Islam is closer to Judaism than to Christianity. The Jews consider themselves a race and they aspired to set up their own nation, Israel. The Muslims, too, consider themselves a nation -- an ummah (community) -- and they too aspire to set up an Islamic nation (or Islamic State). How many times have we heard Muslim scholars and religious people say 'Ummah Islam'? This means the Community of Islam or the Nation of Islam.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Don't mix Islam with politics: Selangor Sultan

(Bernama, 14 Nov 2012) -- The Sultan of Selangor, Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah, has warned against an inclination of mixing Islam with politics for it could confuse and divide the Malays.

He said confusion arose when people who were not qualified to interpret Qur'anic verses began elucidating them based on their own understanding and desire or it could go against the actual meaning.

"Qur'anic verses are not like poetry verses that can be interpreted according to one own taste and belief."

"I want the Malays to defend the sanctity of Islam through their might and wisdom as had been done by Prophet Muhammad, his companions, mujahid (warriors), and Islamic leaders."

"The Malay leaders of yesteryears had used their wisdom to define the characteristics of the Malays in Article 160 (2) of the Federal Constitution that they should adopt the Malay culture, speak Bahasa Melayu and being Muslims," he said at the state-level Maal Hijrah celebration at the Sultan Salahuddin Abdul Aziz Shah Mosque here, tonight.

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

That was what His Highness the Sultan said last night, as reported by Bernama. As what His Highness has titah (royal decree), I will not quote and interpret any verses from the Qur'an. After all, I am not taking Qur'anic studies in Oxford. I am just taking history, plus philosophy of religion thrown in. Hence I shall restrict my comments to only the historical aspects of the subject.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam are what we call the Abrahamic faiths. And note the word 'faiths', which means you need to believe in the absence of evidence. Now, they are called 'Abrahamic' faiths because all three have their roots in the Prophet Abraham (or Ibrahim, to the Muslims). In fact, the Muslims believe that Abraham and his son Ismail (Ishmael) built the Ka'bah in Mekah, the direction Muslims face when they pray.

The Jews are a race. You need to be born a Jew. You cannot 'become' a Jew like you can become a Christian or a Muslim -- although some people have converted to Judaism. Followers of Christianity and Islam, however, are not a race. Christians regard Christianity as a faith (of the Christian faith) while Muslims regard Islam as an adeen (a way of life).

And that was why the Jews wanted a 'homeland', which they now have. So the Jews went on to create a nation called Israel. The Christians went on to separate the church from the state. And the Muslims went on to form governments and conquered new territories to extend their system of government to these territories.

If you were to ask a Muslim as to why Islam 'interferes' in the lives of the people, why they 'police' behaviour/morality, why they want to impose an Islamic system of administration and laws, etc., they will reply that this is because Islam is not a religion but a system of governance -- meaning a complete way of life (adeen, as mentioned in the Qur'an).

Using the Muslims' own arguments, Islam is a total/complete political system that determines the administration and laws of the country. And that is why Muslims talk about an 'Islamic State' -- or, as Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said, Malaysia is a Muslim country.

Hence, Islam is not merely a religion where you pray, fast, pay tithes, etc., and then go on and lead your own life without any interference from the government. Islam is a form of government -- it governs what you can and cannot do very strictly, even in the privacy of your bedroom.

So how can His Highness the Sultan of Selangor decree that Islam and politics should not mix, or that you should separate politics from religion? Islam is politics!

In Islam you cannot separate the church from the state like they do in Christianity. Islam is closer to Judaism than to Christianity. The Jews consider themselves a race and they aspired to set up their own nation, Israel. The Muslims, too, consider themselves a nation -- an ummah (community) -- and they too aspire to set up an Islamic nation (or Islamic State). How many times have we heard Muslim scholars and religious people say 'Ummah Islam'? This means the Community of Islam or the Nation of Islam.

Now, 'nation' does not necessarily mean 'country'. For example, the 'Indian Nation' is a collection of various Native American tribes within the United States of America. So it can, in a way, be called a nation within a nation.

If you were to trace the history of the three Abrahamic faiths, you can see that the Jews started, from the very beginning, as a race or tribe -- for example, Moses led his people out of Egypt to cross the Red Sea. The 'religion' came later. (If Moses had been smart enough to lead his people a bit farther east they would have ended up in Saudi Arabia and today they would own all the oil).

Christianity and Islam, however, started as cults. It was much later that Christianity became a religion (with a doctrine or dogma) and Islam became a political system (or way of life, adeen, government, etc.).

Hence the Jews emerged immediately as a Nation the day Moses led his people out of Egypt and settled in the 'Promised Land'. The Christians and Muslims, however, evolved over time and transformed into what Christianity and Islam is today by 'reinventing' itself through a clearly defined doctrine.

Christianity began to lose its cult status after the time of Jesus and during the time of Paul (see the timeline below). However, it was not until more than 300 years later that Christianity was 'defined' with a clear doctrine and almost 800 years before Catholicism took root.

As for Islam, as early as during the time of Prophet Muhammad it established itself as a system of government and the Battle of Badr in 624 defined what Islam was going to become -- a political force.

Now, since His Highness the Sultan is Malay, and hence will be from the Shafi'i school of Islam, let us talk about Mazhab Shafi'i or the Shafi'i school of Islam.

The Shafi'i school of Islam was established around 200 years or so after the time of Prophet Muhammad during the reign of Hārūn al-Rashīd (the Caliph of the One Thousand and One Nights fame). Hence Malays are following a branch of Islam that was established long after the death of the Prophet and during the time of 'liberalisation'. This can be said to be the beginning of the 'separation of church and state', when power over religion was transferred into the hands of the scholars (ulama') who were not too happy with the 'liberal' lifestyle of the Caliph.

Let me conclude this piece as follows. Islam says it is not a religion but a way of life. Prophet Muhammad embarked upon setting up a system of government based on an Islamic system of administration. Malays follow the Shafi'i school of Islam, which was established 180-200 years after the death of Prophet Muhammad and when the Hadith began to emerge (and that is why Malay Muslims talk more about the Hadith than the Qur'an).

In short, just like what happened in Christianity, Islam was defined (or redefined) later and what Malays practice today is the 'reinvented' version of Islam, just like what the Christians are doing. Hence His Highness the Sultan's Royal Decree is not in line with the Medina version of Islam but follows a later form of Islam where religion and state are separated. If you follow Prophet Muhammad's Medina version of Islam then Islam is the state.

Of course, I am analysing things from the historical point of view and not from the theological point of view -- so certainly theologians will disagree with my hypothesis. But then that is their view (based on theology) while I have my own view (based on history).

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

TIMELINE

Paul the Apostle's (c. AD 5 – c. AD 67) leadership, influence and legacy led to the formation of communities dominated by Gentile groups that worshiped the God of Israel, adhered to the "Judaic moral code", but relaxed or abandoned the ritual and dietary teachings of the Law of Moses, that these laws and rituals had either been fulfilled in the life of Christ or were symbolic precursors of Christ, all on the basis of Paul's teachings of the life and works of Jesus Christ and his teaching of a New Covenant (or "new testament") established through Jesus' death and resurrection.

The First Council of Nicaea was a council of Christian bishops convened in Nicaea in Bithynia (present-day İznik in Turkey) by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325. This first ecumenical council was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom.

The Battle of Badr was fought on Saturday, 13 March (AD) 624.

The Second Council of Nicaea met in AD 787 in Nicaea (site of the First Council of Nicaea) to restore the use and veneration of icons (or holy images), which had been suppressed by imperial edict inside the Byzantine Empire during the reign of Leo III (717–741). His son, Constantine V (741–775), had held the Council of Hieria to make the suppression official.

Caliph Hārūn al-Rashīd (17 March 763 or February 766 – 24 March 809) was the fifth Arab Abbasid Caliph that encompassed modern Iraq.

Imam Shafi'i a.k.a. Abu Abdullah Muhammad ibn Idris al-Shafi'i (AD 767-820) or 150-204 years after Prophet Muhammad's hijrah/migration from Mekah to Medina.

 

How information and knowledge changed the world

Posted: 13 Nov 2012 07:03 PM PST

 

So the government must make sure that Malaysians do not think too much. And, to do that, they must ban thinking. And that is why Malaysians are not allowed to have independent thoughts when it comes to religion. They stop you from thinking and will take action against you when you think.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

William Caxton (ca. 1415~1422 – ca. March 1492) was an English merchant, diplomat, writer and printer. He is considered the first Englishman to work as a printer and the first to introduce a printing press into England. He was also the first English retailer of printed books.

Martin Luther (10 November 1483 – 18 February 1546) was a German monk, priest, professor of theology, and a prime mover of the Protestant Reformation. His refusal to retract all of his writings at the demand of Pope Leo X in 1520, and the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, at the Diet of Worms in 1521, resulted in his excommunication by the pope and condemnation as an outlaw by the Emperor.

In 1534, King Henry VIII separated the English Church from Rome and the Church of England became the established church by an Act of Parliament in the Act of Supremacy, which triggered a series of events known as the English Reformation.

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

No, this is not an article about religion or Christianity. This article is about Reformasi (reformation), which started in Malaysia in 1998 and in Europe 500 years or so earlier.

Back in the old days, when we talk about political domination this also means religious domination. And that is why Umno cannot allow Malays to be too independent-minded when it comes to religion, and for sure Umno cannot allow Malays to leave Islam. If the Malays cannot be enslaved religiously then they cannot be enslaved politically as well.

This was proven in Europe 500 years ago. When the Europeans removed the shackles of religion they invariably also removed the shackles of politics.

In the old days, the Bible was written in Latin. But very few people were proficient in that 'dead language'. Only the learned priests spoke Latin. Hence the priests interpreted what the 'Holy Books' said and the ignorant people had to accept the word of these priests, many who were corrupt and exploited their position to manipulate the people.

People like Martin Luther challenged this and soon Bibles were translated into various 'mother tongues'. People now began to understand what they read and they no longer needed 'intermediaries' to interpret the word of God.

Nevertheless, Bibles were still handwritten and it could take up to one year for the scribes to complete one copy of the Bible. And that would mean there would not be too many copies to go around so only the privileged could get their hands on one.

Then people like William Caxton introduced the printing press and what used to take one year could now be completed in a mere days, with many copies produced at the same time. Furthermore, they were not printed in Latin but in English. So the priests and the church structure suddenly became irrelevant.

Then King Henry VIII challenged the authority of the Pope and broke away from the Roman Catholic Church. Now no longer was the Pope considered God's representative on earth.

England basically reformed thereafter while Europe remained in the 'Dark Ages' until another 300 years or so when Napoleon Bonaparte conquered and occupied almost the whole of Europe.

But England's reformation came with a heavy price, which we shall talk about in a while.

Napoleon then separated the church from the state (which the English had done 300 years earlier). Before that, education was provided by the church and even then reserved only for the elite. Napoleon built public schools and opened up education for anyone who wanted an education.

In short, religion was sidelined and the people were educated outside the influence of the church. Within 30 years, Europe suffered a series of revolutions, which eventually saw the end of the monarchies and empires and the emergence of independent republics. (France also saw its second revolution then).

Now, what happened 500 years ago in England and in Europe around 300 years later? Well, basically what happened at that time in England and Europe was what is happening in Malaysia today.

The only difference is, in England and Europe, it was education (knowledge) and the availability of books (information) that triggered these changes. Today, in Malaysia, it is the Internet and the Information Revolution that the Internet spawned.

Malaysia is walking down the same path that Britain and Europe once did. Information is easily available to Malaysians and the Internet is that catalyst for the spread of this information.

So change is going to come to Malaysia.

Now, back to that 'heavy price' that England paid for its reformation, which I mentioned earlier.

Two generations later, in the early 1600s, England 'exploded' when the people challenged Charles I. Civil War soon broke out and that totally changed England forever. 250 years later, this 'disease' spread to Europe when the Europeans too challenged their absolute monarchies and its 'running dogs', the church.

Education and information are dangerous things. It changed England and, later, Europe. And it was the printing press and books that achieved this. It made the people literate. And once the people become literate they no longer accept the system and will challenge the system.

The only way Umno can extend its shelf-life is to ensure that Malaysians remain illiterate. But it is too late for that. Malaysians are now educated and can think for themselves.

So the government must instead make sure that Malaysians do not think too much. And, to do that, they must ban thinking. And that is why Malaysians are not allowed to have independent thoughts when it comes to religion. They stop you from thinking and will take action against you when you think.

England and Europe made a huge mistake. They educated their people. They provided information to their people. They allowed their people to think. And this resulted in the people throwing off the shackles of slavery by removing the dictators and autocratic leaders.

Malaysia must not make that same mistake. And the only way to avoid that mistake is to keep the people ignorant. And one way to keep the people ignorant is to shackle their minds and use religion as that tool.

So now do you know what this whole issue of freedom of religion is all about? It is about perpetuating power and to not lose power. It is about not allowing what happened in England and Europe to also happen in Malaysia.

And that is what Malaysia Today is all about. It is about making you think. It is about making you challenge the system. It is about rejecting bullshit. And even if that bullshit is religion we must also reject it because there are no borders, boundaries or sacred cows here.

Oh, and part of this education process is provocation. So trust Malaysia Today to provoke you. Only through provocation can your brain work overtime. If not most of you will just go to sleep and continue slumbering right into 2020.

 

Do you feel like kicking yourself?

Posted: 12 Nov 2012 04:03 PM PST

 

So now Malaysians moan, groan, whine, bitch, complain and grumble about the 55 years of Umno rule and the 22 years of mismanagement and autocracy by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. But Malaysians know it need not have been 55 years of Umno rule and the 22 years of mismanagement and autocracy by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Who's in charge of Malaysian democracy?

Yet, if Malaysians have been exercising their right to democracy, why and how have we been subject to a degenerating regime for the past 50-odd years? We speak of change, but our concept of change can only materialise at the ballot box. In other words, we can only change once every five years.

Our reaction to this degenerating regime would instinctively be the fact that our leaders are lacking in competence, and that it is their fault that we are in the position that we are in. But, tying this back in with the opening paragraph of this article ― is this really the case?

Is Malaysia degenerating because of what our leaders are doing to us? Or are we degenerating because of what we fail to do?

Michelle Ng, The Malaysian Insider (READ MORE HERE)

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

That was an extract of what Michelle Ng wrote. Basically, Malaysians moan, groan, whine, bitch, complain and grumble about the 55 years of Umno rule and the 22 years of mismanagement and autocracy by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. As Michelle said, we always grumble about what the others do. However, could it not instead be because of what we did not do?

My analogy will be as follows. Someone gives you the winning numbers of a lottery. You pooh-pooh the whole thing and do not act on it. Then you find out that the numbers was really the winning numbers and you missed out on the RM25-million prize money.

You would certainly feel like kicking yourself. This was an once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make an obscene amount of money for very little effort and you did not act on it. That opportunity has now passed and it will never come again.

Of course, you will not admit that this is your fault. You will try to pin the blame on something else or someone else. Gambling is haram anyway. Who could have known that the numbers was for real? It is just not your fate to become a millionaire.

Basically, you need to console yourself that your lack of action is actually not your fault. It is not because of what you did not do. Other factors are to blame. If it had not rained that day then you could have gone out to buy the lottery. If the car had not broken down then you could have gone out to buy the lottery. If your mother-in-law had not dropped in for a visit then you could have gone out to buy the lottery. If not because of this. If not because of that.

So now Malaysians moan, groan, whine, bitch, complain and grumble about the 55 years of Umno rule and the 22 years of mismanagement and autocracy by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. But Malaysians know it need not have been 55 years of Umno rule and the 22 years of mismanagement and autocracy by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

This could have ended back in 1990. It could also have ended back in 1999. Then it would not have been 55 years of Umno rule and the 22 years of mismanagement and autocracy by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

But back in 1990 and/or 1999, Malaysians did not act. There are dozens of excuses why they did not act. And all those excuses concern what others did or did not do. They are not about what we did or did not do. We are not to blame. Others are to blame.

The Malays will blame the Chinese, the Indians and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak. If not because of the Chinese, the Indians and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak, change would have come to Malaysia back in 1999, or even back in 1990. But the Chinese, the Indians and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak let the country down. They betrayed Malaysia.

And the Chinese, of course, will blame the Malays, the Indians and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak. If not because of the Malays, the Indians and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak, change would have come to Malaysia back in 1999, or even back in 1990. But the Malays, the Indians and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak let the country down. They betrayed Malaysia.

And so on and do forth, the blame game goes around and around.

So, today, Malaysians moan, groan, whine, bitch, complain and grumble about the 55 years of Umno rule and the 22 years of mismanagement and autocracy by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. And they do so because they are angry and frustrated.

The Malays are angry with the Chinese, the Indians and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak. The Chinese are angry with the Malays, the Indians and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak. Everyone is angry with 'the other person'.

Actually, the truth is, everyone is angry about what they themselves did not do back in 1990 and/or 1999. They know they screwed up big time. They know it is their own fault. They know they missed the boat back in 1990 and/or 1999. They suspect that the opportunity may never come again. And this makes them feel very frustrated.

But how to say, "It is my fault"? How to admit, "I am to blame"? So the Malays blame with the Chinese, the Indians and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak; the Chinese blame the Malays, the Indians and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak; and so on and so forth.

The reality of the whole thing, however, is that Malaysians are a bunch of losers who cannot accept the adage that you deserve the government you voted for. And because Malaysians are a bunch or losers they will never win. Losers can never be winners.

So Umno will continue to rule. And Najib Tun Razak will remain the Prime Minister for at least another term. Even if he retires, another Unmo leader will take over as Prime Minister.

And to feel good about the situation and not feel frustrated about what is happening in the country, Malaysians will moan, groan, whine, bitch, complain and grumble about the 55 years of Umno rule and will look for someone else to blame about this.

Well, I suppose we can always release some of that frustration by screaming "ABU!" as if it is not our fault that Umno has been in power for 55 years.

 

The Malays must wake up konon

Posted: 10 Nov 2012 06:30 PM PST

 

The Malays must wake up konon! Podah! Everything wrong with Malaysia is the fault of the Malays. The non-Malays are mere victims. You buggers deserve to be victims and I hope you will remain victims for another 100 years for your sin of being traitors to the cause back in the 1980s that allowed the country to decline to its present level and for allowing Umno to rule for 55 years.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

I have not written anything over the last two days because Mat Sabu and another PAS leader from Melaka were visiting me in Manchester so I was quite tied up. I must admit that we had a most interesting two days discussing current issues affecting Malaysia, in particular about politics and matters related to politics.

Anyhow, all I can say is that Mat Sabu and I share the same views on practically most of the issues. I don't think I need to go into details about what we spoke, though, or else this article is going to run into ten pages. Furthermore, my opinions have already been clearly expressed in the numerous articles I have written over these last 20 years or so since I started writing about politics back in the early 1990s.

What I want to address today is the 'favourite' comment many readers have posted in Malaysia Today over the last four years since 2008. And this comment is: the non-Malays have already woken up. When are the Malays going to wake up?

These readers are, of course, referring to the March 2008 'Tsunami' where 50% of the Malays voted opposition while the figure for the Chinese and Indians was much higher -- an estimated 70% plus and 80% plus respectively.

Many argue that in the coming general it is going to be higher for the Chinese -- maybe more than 80% -- while for the Malays it may remain at 50% or even decline to below 50%. They do not talk too much about the Indians, though, but it is estimated that this time around the Indian vote for the opposition may fall to just 50% or less.

It is puzzling as to why you say it is the Malays who need to wake up. The Malays had already woken up back in the late 1980s. And that was 25 years ago. When the Registrar of Societies deregistered Umno in 1988 and two new Malay parties were formed in its place -- Umno Baru and Semangat 46 -- the Malays became divided and have remained divided ever since.

In the 1990 General Election two years later, Kelantan fell to the opposition and has remained opposition ever since. The PAS-Semangat 46 coalition called APU (Angkatan Perpaduan Ummah) also captured many seats in Terengganu, although not enough to take the state.

Unfortunately, the other two coalitions that Semangat 46 had with the non-Malay political parties -- with DAP on the West Coast (called Gagasan Rakyat) and with PBS in Sabah -- did not do as well as APU. While the Malays voted opposition, the non-Malays on the West Coast and those in East Malaysia refused to do the same.

Hence the opposition dream of kicking out Umno and Barisan Nasional and of taking power at federal level was shattered. In the end it became a Malay dream and not a Malaysian dream.

Since Umno had been deregistered (Umno no longer existed), MCA had to take over the leadership of Barisan Nasional and the MCA President took over as the Chairman of Barisan Nasional.

By right, although not by law, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who was now 'partyless' and an independent Member of Parliament should have resigned as the Prime Minister and the MCA President, who was now the Chairman of Barisan Nasional, should have taken over as the new Prime Minister.

But Barisan Nasional (meaning the non-Malays) did not do this. They allowed Dr Mahathir, a man without a party and hence with no majority in Parliament, to remain as Prime Minister. In that sense, even Ibrahim Ali or Zul Nordin (who both also have no party) can become the Prime Minister of Malaysia -- going by what they did 25 years ago in the late 1980s.

We Malays were very disappointed with the non-Malays in both West and East Malaysia. Dr Mahathir should have been kicked out. Umno no longer existed and Dr Mahathir was no longer the leader of the largest party in Parliament. Dr Mahathir was now merely a calun bebas. Why was he still the Prime Minister? And why were the non-Malays still retaining him as Prime Minister when the majority of the Malays wanted him out.

Umno Baru was then formed. Technically, however, it was still an independent party and not a member of Barisan Nasional. Barisan Nasional then called for an emergency meeting, chaired by the President of MCA. No one from Umno (Baru) attended the meeting.

At this emergency meeting, it was UNANIMOUSLY agreed (with not a single dissenting voice) that Umno Baru be admitted as a member of Barisan Nasional (not READMITTED but ADMITTED, because Umno no longer existed and Umno Baru was a brand new party). It was also UNANIMOUSLY agreed (with not a single dissenting voice) that Dr Mahathir be invited to take over as the new Chairman of Barisan Nasional.

I was there that day (standing outside the meeting room, of course, since I was not a leader of Barisan Nasional and hence could not be inside the meeting room). We were anxiously expecting at least one member of Barisan Nasional to vote against admitting a 'new party' into Barisan Nasional -- and hence Dr Mahathir would have to resign as the Prime Minister and the new Chairman of Barisan Nasional, who was also the President of MCA, would take over as Prime Minister.

I was very angry that day. The Malays had made their move. We were going to be rid of Umno and Dr Mahathir. But the non-Malays sold us out. The non-Malays betrayed us. From that day on we realised that the non-Malays cannot be trusted to change the country. We Malays are on our own and will have to do it ourselves.

Ten years later, we had our second chance. This time it was because of the conflict between Anwar Ibrahim and Dr Mahathir. In the 1999 General Election we did better than in the 1990 General Election. Not only did the opposition retain Kelantan (without the help of Semangat 46 this time, mind you, since that party had closed down and most of its members had rejoined Umno) but it also won Terengganu after 25 years of trying (since 1974).

Furthermore, the opposition won 8 out of the 15 Parliament seats in Kedah (more than half) plus it managed to deny Barisan Nasional its two-thirds majority in the Kedah State Assembly (which happened exactly one year later in the Lunas by-election).

That was a new landmark for the opposition. Unfortunately, all this happened in the Malay heartland of Kelantan, Terengganu and Kedah. In those constituencies where the Malays do not represent 90% or more of the voters, Barisan Nasional still ruled. In fact, any constituency where the Malay voters are less than 80% it was quite impossible for the opposition to win.

No doubt, in constituencies where the voters are predominantly Chinese and the candidate is a Chinese from DAP, then there is a strong possibility that DAP can win that seat. But this was the exception rather than the rule -- sometimes even the top guns of DAP suffered defeat because the Chinese voters rejected them.

In 2008 that all changed, of course. But whether this change is permanent or temporary is left to be seen -- and we shall know soon, come the next general election. But what perturbs me is that the Malays have been struggling to see change for about 25 years now. But we failed to see change because of the recalcitrant Chinese and Indians, and those from East Malaysia.

No doubt, in 2008, more than half the Chinese and Indians from West Malaysia voted opposition while only 50% of the Malays did so. But the Malays have been divided between Barisan Nasional and the opposition since the 1980s. The Chinese and Indians from West Malaysia have only just woken up very recently (while those from East Malaysia are still sleeping).

Hence I can't understand why the Chinese (and some Indians) keep asking the Malays to wake up. Can't they understand that the Malays already woke up a long time ago? The Chinese and Indians (and even then only those from West Malaysia, mind you) woke up only very recently. If they had woken up 25 years ago like the Malays had, Dr Mahathir would have ruled Malaysia for only 7 years and not 22 years and Umno would have been in power for only 30 years and not 55 years.

So what's all this nonsense about 'ABU' and '55 years is enough' and 'the Malays must wake up' all that shit? We have seen 55 years of Umno rule and we need an ABU movement because of the treacherous Chinese and Indians from West Malaysia and those non-Malays from East Malaysia.

And, today, you blame the Malays and scream that it is time that the Malay woke up. What crap is this? And stop giving the excuse that the non-Malays had no choice. Stop saying that back in the late 1980s if MCA had refused to allow Umno Baru to become a member of Barisan Nasional and had refused to allow Dr Mahathir to remain as Prime Minister the army would have stepped in -- hence the Chinese and Indians and those from East Malaysia were forced to do what they did.

Are you saying that the army has already been disbanded? Are you saying that only in the late 1980s Malaysia had an army and today we no longer have an army? That is utter bullshit and a bloody lame excuse. If you could not change the government in the 1980s because of the army then what makes you think you can change the government today when we still have an army?

Would you accept the excuse that the Malays have no choice but to vote Umno because if Pakatan Rakyat takes over then apostasy would be allowed and Muslims will leave Islam in droves to become Christians? I think this is as legitimate an excuse as the one that the non-Malays are giving as to why they did what they did 25 years ago back in the late 1980s.

The Malays must wake up konon! Podah! Everything wrong with Malaysia is the fault of the Malays. The non-Malays are mere victims. You buggers deserve to be victims and I hope you will remain victims for another 100 years for your sin of being traitors to the cause back in the 1980s that allowed the country to decline to its present level and for allowing Umno to rule for 55 years.

Let me assure you I have already woken up. 35 years ago back in the late 1970s I woke up to the evils of the government and 25 years ago back in the late 1980s I woke up to the treachery of the non-Malays who propped up Umno and kept them in power.

So no need to ask me to wake up! Today I have woken up even more. I have woken up to the hypocrisy of the non-Malays who 'created' Umno and then now blame the Malays for what Umno does.

 

There is freedom of religion in Malaysia

Posted: 07 Nov 2012 05:21 PM PST

 

Hence how can Nurul Izzah be wrong for saying that there is freedom of religion in Malaysia? The fact that so many Malays have left Islam and the government does nothing about it means that there is freedom of religion in Malaysia, even for Muslims.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Improper to use freedom of expression to confuse people, says Mashitah

(Bernama) - It is improper for an individual to use the freedom of expression as a reason to state an opinion which can confuse the people, especially Muslims, in the country, the Dewan Rakyat was told today.

Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Senator Datuk Dr Mashitah Ibrahim said that though the government believed in the principle of freedom of expression to state an opinion, matters related to religious issues were most sensitive to Muslims.

"In the effort to exercise control over sensitive issues among Muslims, action can be taken under Section 298A of the Penal Code which relates to causing disharmony, disunity, or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will, or prejudicing the maintenance of harmony or unity, on grounds of religion," she said when replying to a question from Amran Ab Ghani (PKR-Tanah Merah) on the measures taken by the government to control the issuing of 'fatwa' (rulings) by unauthorised individuals.

Mashitah said the legal proceedings under the provision were handled by the civil courts and a convicted individual could be sentenced to jail for between two and five years.

Replying to a supplementary question, from Datuk Mohamed Aziz (BN-Sri Gading), Mashitah said that though there were no legal provisions to act against Muslims who propose that Muslims should be free to choose their religion, action could be taken against them for insulting Islam or causing it to be despised.

Mohamed Aziz has asked what action could be taken against PKR vice-president Nurul Izzah Anwar for having said last Saturday that Malay Muslims should be free to choose their religion.

Mashitah said enactments in certain states provided for a fine of up to RM3,000 or a jail sentence of up to two years, or both, for those convicted of insulting Islam or causing it to be despised orally or in writing.

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

Jais should probe Nurul Izzah's statement: Khalid

(Bernama) -- The Selangor Islamic Religious Department (Jais) needs to carry out an investigation regarding Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) vice-president Nurul Izzah Anwar's statement on freedom of religion, said Selangor Menteri Besar Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim.

Abdul Khalid, who is also the state executive councillor in charge of Islamic affairs, this was necessary to prevent Muslims from becoming confused and ensure that there was no negative impact to the ummah (faithful) in the wake of the controversy surrounding the issue.

"I support an investigation into the matter and the actions taken by Jais on it as it is a positive thing, no Muslim wants another to leave the religion (Islam)," he told reporters here today.

However, he added that Nurul Izzah, the MP for Lembah Pantai, should be given the opportunity to come forward to clear the air over the matter as there were many versions on the issue in media reports.

He was commenting on a report in a news portal which had reported Nurul Izzah as saying at a forum held in Subang Jaya on Saturday that each citizen of the country had the right to profess the religion of his or her choice and that this included the Malays, all of whom are Muslims.

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

Siti Kasim, a member of the Bar Council human rights committee -- and the person who asked Nurul Izzah Anwar that most controversial question regarding freedom of religion -- said she is disappointed that Nurul has "retracted" her remark.

"I believe Nurul was just trying to impress the people, she didn't think of the consequences," she told FMT. Siti said Nurul should have stood firm on her remark that freedom of religion was a right for all including the Malay-Muslim.

(READ MORE HERE)

I would have to agree with Siti. Whether what Nurul Izzah said was politically correct or politically incorrect, she has already said it so she should stick to her guns. She should challenge her critics to explain what it is she said that was wrong. If they think that what she said was wrong then they have to come out to explain what is wrong with her statement.

Nurul Izzah is now blaming Utusan Malaysia for this whole thing. Is she saying that she did not say what they said she said and that Utusan lied? Or is she saying she only meant that freedom of religion is for non-Muslims and Muslims do not have freedom of religion?

I personally know a number of ex-Muslim Malays who have left Islam to become Christians. And according to the Perak Mufti, about 500,000 Malays want to leave Islam.

I doubt someone of a Mufti's status would lie. Hence it must be true that 500,000 Malays want to leave Islam. But why did the Mufti say 'want to leave', as if they have not quite left yet? Islam is about akidah or faith. And if you no longer have faith in Islam then you no longer have any akidah. And if you no longer have any akidah then you are automatically no longer a Muslim.

In short, you do not have to 'leave' Islam. By your very lack of faith you have been 'kicked out' of Islam, so to speak. Hence, it is not that 500,000 Malays 'want to leave' Islam but 500,000 Malays 'have already left' Islam because they no longer have any akidah.

The absence of akidah means you are not a Muslim, plain and simple. Is this too difficult to understand?

Now, how does the Mufti know that 500,000 Malays want to leave Islam? He can only know because the government has checked and they know the numbers because they know whom these people are.

There are two ways to leave Islam. One would be to no longer have any akidah. Another would be to go to the National Registration Department (NRD) and inform them that you have left Islam and you want the 'Islam' on your identity card removed.

Now, whether the NRD does or does not remove the 'Islam' on your ID does not matter. 'Legally', you may still be a Muslim if they do not amend/update your ID. Technically, you are no longer a Muslim.

Hence Islam is not about the word 'Islam' on a piece of plastic. Islam is about what is in your heart. And if you heart is no longer a Muslim then you are no longer a Muslim, never mind what that piece of plastic says.

Some people dispute the Perak Mufti's figure of 500,000. They say that figure is too high and that it is actually much lower than that. Okay, so it may not be 500,000. It may be only 100,000 or 50,000 or just 10,000. Whatever the figure may be, the government does not deny the fact that some Muslims want to or have already left Islam. And I personally know some of these people.

I also know many Muslims who still regard themselves as Muslims but reject the Hadith. The government calls these people 'anti-Hadith'. However, these people say they are not anti-Hadith but pro-Qur'an -- or as what some would call 'Qur'an alone' Muslims.

Trust me, there are many such Muslims, even amongst the Malays or Malaysians.

Now, according to the Malaysian government's interpretation of Islam, you must accept the Qur'an, the Hadith and the Sunnah to quality as Muslim, all three. If you reject even one of the three then you are no longer a Muslim. In other words, tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of Muslims are no longer Muslims because they refuse to accept the Hadith and/or the Sunnah.

Hence, according to the Malaysian government, these people have 'left' Islam. In fact, they would be considered heretics or even apostates, and heresy as well as apostasy attracts the death sentence in all three Abrahamic faiths (although those in the west no longer follow this rule -- as they no longer follow the rule on homosexuality, gay marriages, etc.).

The bottom line is, by act of rejection of certain doctrines of Islam or by total rejection of Islam, many Malays have already 'left' Islam (or have been 'kicked out' of Islam). That is the reality.

And has the Malaysian government arrested these people or punished these people in any way? The answer is, of course, 'no'. And since the government has not taken action against so many Malays who by act of omission or act of rejection have left or have been kicked out of Islam, would that not mean there is freedom of religion in Malaysia, even freedom for Muslims to leave Islam?

Hence how can Nurul Izzah be wrong for saying that there is freedom of religion in Malaysia? The fact that so many Malays have left Islam and the government does nothing about it means that there is freedom of religion in Malaysia, even for Muslims.

And that is why Nurul Izzah should not act like she has done something wrong. Instead of sounding very defensive and apologetic she should go on the attack. She should challenge the government to prove her wrong. She should challenge the government to state that there is no freedom of religion in Malaysia and any Malay who leaves Islam will be arrested and will be put to death.

Nurul Izzah is probably afraid that she will lose Malay support if the Malays believe that she supports apostasy. Hence she is doing some damage control. It looks like the government has her on the run and she is falling right into it.

The video recording of that forum is now on Youtube and what Nurul Izzah really said is there for all and sundry to see. It is too late to try to explain what she really meant or accuse Utusan Malaysia of distorting or twisting what she said. Maybe she meant something else and they interpreted it as something else. But so what?

Nurul Izzah should not play this 'I have been misquoted' game that most politicians play. Instead, she should say, "Yes, I said that there is freedom of religion and prove that I am wrong." Challenge all those people who whacked you and make them state that there is no freedom of religion in Malaysia.

Then, once they do that, challenge them to explain, if there is no freedom of religion in Malaysia, why has the government done nothing about all those many Malays who have left Islam?

The best form of defense is an offense. Nurul Izzah should go on the offensive rather than appear defensive. They are trying to bring her down, that's for sure. If she has to go down then go down fighting. She should stand by what she said and make the government explain what it is she said that is wrong.

I doubt anyone will dare say that there is no freedom of religion in Malaysia and any Malay who leaves Islam must be put to death. If they dare say this they would have said it a long time ago. I would play poker and see what hand they have. I bet you their cards are, as the Chinese would say, chekai.

Come on Nurul, fight back, don't back down. And cancel your meeting with JAIS tomorrow. Tell them to go to hell. Why do you need to explain yourself unless you have done something wrong?

Who the fuck are Nurul Izzah's advisers anyway?

 

The doctrine of I’m right and you’re wrong

Posted: 06 Nov 2012 08:04 PM PST

 

The fact that scholars all over the world and for hundreds of years are not unanimous or united regarding the meaning of the verse 'there is no compulsion in religion' in the Qur'an means it is open to interpretation. Does it mean you are not forced to become a Muslim? Does it mean you are not forced to become a Muslim but once you do you must remain a Muslim? Does it mean you are not forced to remain a Muslim but can leave Islam if you want to?

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Mujahid Yusof Rawa, a PAS leader and the son of one-time PAS President of about 30 years ago, has taken Nurul Izzah Anwar's side in the current controversy she is facing. And this controversy is about her statement regarding freedom of religion.

The ex-Mufti of Perlis, Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin, also supports Nurul Izzah's statement. None of the other muftis have said anything yet though, although I am eagerly awaiting their statement so that we can resolve this matter once and for all.

Ex-Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, however, disagrees with Nurul Izzah. The Tun said that Islam is like Hotel California: you can check out but you can never leave. That means once you are a Muslim you cannot leave Islam.

Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister's Department, Mashitah Ibrahim, agrees with Dr Mahathir, as does Ibrahim Ali of Perkasa.

In short, never mind whether they are government supporters, opposition supporters, or neutral like Mohd Asri -- and I would like to believe that includes me as well -- Malays-Muslims are deeply divided on matters related to Islam.

You see, religion, Islam or otherwise, works on the doctrine of I'm right and you're wrong. All religions work on this principle. They also work on the principle of if you are not with me (meaning of my same religion) then you are against me (meaning you are my enemy).

Sure, religionists would deny this. They would say that their religion is not like that. That, of course, is utter bullshit. At best they would tolerate your religion, as we have heard them say often enough.

Tolerate is what you do when you are faced with something obnoxious like your neighbour's dog shit on your lawn or the loud noise from your neighbour's karaoke session way past midnight. You tolerate something foul. So, if you tolerate another religion that means you consider that religion as foul.

But religionists would deny this. And this is because they have perfected the art of self-hypnosis. They can make themselves believe in something false. Hence they can make themselves believe that they are not like that even though they are exactly like that. They have made denial syndrome into an exact science.

And this means whatever comes out of the mouths of religionists must be treated with great suspicion. They are great con artists. They can con themselves so what more con other people.

And this is why Nurul Izzah Anwar is now in trouble. She gave her opinion. But as long as her opinion is also your opinion that is okay. Once her opinion differs from yours, then you will make her eat shit.

In the first place, why was Nurul Izzah so silly as so attend that forum? And who was that stupid person who trapped Nurul Izzah by asking her that question? Did they intend to trap Nurul Izzah knowing that once they pose that question she would be in trouble whichever way she replied to it?

If Nurul Izzah had said she does not support freedom of religion she is in trouble. If she says she supports freedom of religion she is also in trouble. Both ways she is cooked. And if she had said' no comment' she is also cooked.

I suspect that Nurul Izaah was set up. I thought she would be savvy enough to realise that religionists can never accept opinions. The correct opinion is their opinion. Your opinion is the wrong opinion. That is how it works.

According to the Selangor Islamic Affairs Council (MAIS), who spoke on behalf of His Highness the Sultan of Selangor, His Highness is upset with Nurul Izzah. That is what the MAIS chairman, Mohamad Adzib Mohd Isa, said. Whether that is true or not I am not sure but most times these people put words into the Sultan's mouth and the Sultan would be too scared to contradict them lest His Highness is accused of supporting apostasy.

So there you are. After trapping Nurul Izzah, they now trap the Sultan, knowing that His Highness would not dare say otherwise. Did I not say that Umno is clever? How many times must I repeat that Pakatan Rakyat is not as clever as Barisan Nasional at this game?

Religionists in general and Muslims in particular do not tolerate differences of opinion and differences in interpretation. Religion, after all, is just that -- opinions and interpretations.

For example, when religious scholars or ulamak make a statement or issue a decree, they will always start with "According to so-and-so….yada, yada, yada…"  or "As reported by so-and-so…yada, yada, yada…".

That means this is the opinion of a third party. And this also means that it is purely hearsay.

The fact that scholars all over the world and for hundreds of years are not unanimous or united regarding the meaning of the verse 'there is no compulsion in religion' in the Qur'an means it is open to interpretation. Does it mean you are not forced to become a Muslim? Does it mean you are not forced to become a Muslim but once you do you must remain a Muslim? Does it mean you are not forced to remain a Muslim but can leave Islam if you want to?

Yes, what does it mean? Some Muslims (from both sides of the political divide) say it means you cannot leave Islam while others (from both sides of the political divide) say you can. Muslims are not really sure what it means but they take the stand that it means whatever I say it means.

Okay, let's look at this from another angle. Is Malaysia a Parliamentary Democracy or a Theocratic State? It can only be one or the other. If, as some people say, the Sharia applies and all Muslims are bound by the Sharia, then clearly Malaysia is a Theocratic State.

And if Malaysia is a Theocratic State then we have to abolish general elections and elect our leaders based on the principle of a Council because general elections will allow non-Muslims to become leaders -- which is not acceptable at all in a Theocratic State.

However, if we elect our leaders through a general election (which will allow non-Muslims to become leaders) then we are a Parliamentary Democracy -- and that would mean we are not bound by the Sharia but the Federal Constitution would prevail instead.

Our political leaders from both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat must clarify this point. Are we a Theocratic State where the Sharia applies or are we a Parliamentary Democracy that allows its citizens freedom of thought, freedom of opinion, freedom of association and freedom of religion?

Currently, Malaysia's status is very confusing. And that is why Nurul Izzah is in trouble. She spoke as a Democrat. But the religionists will not allow that. They want her to speak as an Islamist, not as a Democrat.

As a Democrat she is right -- you do have freedom of religion. As an Islamist you do not have freedom of religion. Once you are a Muslim you remain a Muslim till the day you die. And if you leave Islam then you die, now. In short, you are put to death as an apostate.

Do you know who is to blame for all this? The politicians use religion for political gain but they leave things very vague so that we remain confused. The more confused we are the more they can exploit the issue.

Anwar Ibrahim, the Opposition Leader, must take a stand on this since he is the Opposition Leader. Najib Tun Razak, the Prime Minister, must also do the same since he is the Prime Minister.

Can Muslims leave Islam and if they do then what does the government do to them? Will they be arrested, jailed, or put to death? Malaysians need to know so that this episode can be put behind us and we can move on to more important matters.

And as long as Anwar and Najib remain silent that is how long this matter would go unresolved and Malaysians will continue to fight over religion.

Now do you know why I don't support both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat? They are both very devious and mischievous. They confuse us and make us fight just so that they can gain power.

 
Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net
 

Malaysia Today Online

Copyright 2010 All Rights Reserved